March 25, 2018

I watched the Stormy Daniels show on "60 Minutes." Did you?

Video and transcript here, in case you need to catch up.
Anderson Cooper: He was showing you his own picture on the cover of a magazine.

Stormy Daniels: Right, right. And so I was like, "Does this-- does this normally work for you?" And he looked very taken-- taken back, like, he didn't really understand what I was saying. Like, I was-- does, just, you know, talking about yourself normally work?" And I was like, "Someone should take that magazine and spank you with it." (LAUGH) And I'll never forget the look on his face. He was like--

Anderson Cooper: What-- what was his look?

Stormy Daniels: Just, I don't think anyone's ever spoken to him like that, especially, you know, a young woman who looked like me. And I said, you know, "Give me that," and I just remember him going, "You wouldn't." "Hand it over." And-- so he did, and I was like, turn around, drop 'em."

Anderson Cooper: You-- you told Donald Trump to turn around and take off his pants.

Stormy Daniels: Yes.

Anderson Cooper: And did he?

Stormy Daniels: Yes. So he turned around and pulled his pants down a little -- you know had underwear on and stuff and I just gave him a couple swats.

Anderson Cooper: This was done in a joking manner....

220 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 220 of 220
Birkel said...

Trump: Hey, lawyer dude, use some of my retainer to pay this person to be quiet. I will top off my retainer, as per usual.

Lawyer: Ok.

Me: Where are the legal issues?

Birkel said...

By what method does Trump get deposed? What is the case?

Chuck's fevered dreams aside, has anybody heard of a legal case in which any of this is relevant?

Chuck said...

Birkel, I'll tell you whether Trump is in the clear after I see all the documents.

Drago said...

Now now. Take it easy on Chuck. Its not easy being the dems cuckholster.

Though its clear LLR Chuck does seem to revel in it.

Chuck said...

Birkel said...
By what method does Trump get deposed? What is the case?

Chuck's fevered dreams aside, has anybody heard of a legal case in which any of this is relevant?

Birkel I was responding to the commenter who thought that Stormy Daniels had violated her NDA. Which would be enforced, by "David Dennison" (lulz) suing Stormy Daniels.

And yeah, the moment a civil plaintiff sues, that plaintiff can start expecting a deposition notice.

Birkel said...

Chuck:
So your theory is Trump will act against his own best interests and initiate the lawsuit that you - a Trump hater - want?

What the hell is wrong with you? Did you drink stupid juice this morning? Do you not see that fevered dreams is the only way to describe what you are hypothesizing?

Further, I assume you are of an age where "lulz" is beneath you. Act with some damned dignity, you holier than thou ass.

Birkel said...

Chuck said... "Birkel, I'll tell you whether Trump is in the clear after I see all the documents."

So, you have nothing but rampant speculation.
Do you ever try not fopdoodling?

Drago said...

Can you even begin to imagine the dem pain LLR Chuck will be projecting when Horowitz issues his report?

Its likely to drive Chuck back into anger management (I am assuming Chuck has been there before for obvious reasons).

Considering some of LLR Chucks prior statements, if I were Trump I might consider getting a restraining order against Chuck.

Just to be on the safe side.




Birkel said...

Drago:
Did you see Chuck at comment #201 (top of this page) say he thinks Daniels doesn't have $20 million to give but that Trump will sue Daniels and open himself up to deposition by "skilled lawyers".

Can you make sense why a person with something to lose would sue another person who is probably judgment proof?

Cracker Jack box JD, Chuck, Esq.

Chuck said...

Birkel you're a dumbass like many of the other commenters here. How's that for some damned dignity. I got yer dignity right heah.

And Birkel, the idea of Trump-as-plaintiff was not mine. I was merely following it to its illogical conclusion.

Somebody wondered about enforcing the NDA against Stormy Daniels, and that's how you do it. You sue her. "You," being the person who is at interest in her disclosure(s). "You," being Donald Trump.

I'm not predicting a Trump suit versus Stormy Daniels. I want to be the very first person on the Althouse blog to proclaim Donald Trump as the World's All-Time Champion In Threatening Meritless Litigation To Intimidate Other Folks.

Okay? You go that?

There are long lists, of all of the people who have been threatened by Donald Trump with litigation. There are shorter lists, of people who have been actually sued by Trump. And an almost non-existent list, of people who have lost to Donald Trump in litigation. He's one of the worst litigation losers in history.

Remember Trump crowing about how he'd fight the Trump University litigation because you just can't settle cases like that. You can't settle, Trump explained, because you'll just invite more litigation so you have to fight and you have to go to trial and take it to judgment.

Trump said all of that just weeks before he settled for $25 Million.

Drago said...

"Can you make sense why a person with something to lose would sue another person who is probably judgment proof?"

Chuck's legal analytical skills are comparable to his political prognostication and economic analysis skills.

But Chuck reads all the "correct" publications and adheres to all the "correct" thinking and he pays homage to all the "correct" people....

LOL

Chuck said...

Birkel said...
Drago:
Did you see Chuck at comment #201 (top of this page) say he thinks Daniels doesn't have $20 million to give but that Trump will sue Daniels and open himself up to deposition by "skilled lawyers".

Can you make sense why a person with something to lose would sue another person who is probably judgment proof?

Cracker Jack box JD, Chuck, Esq.



Good. I think we've got it cleared up now. The noises that Trump's lawyers are making about suing Stormy Daniels to enforce the NDA are just bluster. Meaningless threats.

At long last, I feel like we are in agreement.

Birkel said...

Chuck,
So you know everything you've written above was fevered dreams, as I stated.
Good.
We are clear.

Further, your calling me names moves the needle not one whit. You're a meaningless fopdoodle. You're impotent rage delights me.

iowan2 said...

Why has no one asked who is paying the porn stars lawyer? Exactly how is he getting paid? He keeps repeating the same line about how he is not going to release all the information, but save it for the law suit. What law suit? A civil suit? Whats the alleged damage? The porn star accepted payment. Accepted binding arbitration as part of that payment. Lost the binding arbitration.
In the lawyers best case outcome how much money is his mystery lawsuit going payout? I am at a total loss as to the motivation of the porn star, and even more confused as to the lawyers motivation.
Any help on this much appreciated, and way more interesting than who boinked who 12 years ago.

Lewis Wetzel said...

I was merely following it to its illogical conclusion.
Par for the Trump hater course

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "Good. I think we've got it cleared up now."

LLR Chuck would like you to know he has resolved all outstanding hypotheticals from his fever dreams.

Lol

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Is Chuck pretending he passed the Michigan bar again?

JAORE said...

Sooooo.....
Clinton lied under oath (to prevent a woman from having her due fair trial), he paid out a bunch of money. He lost his law license. Seems pretty concrete.

Trump.... IF there is a trial (for what?).....might deny the affair under oath (then again he might not). Stormy MIGHT have evidense the affair occurred (video, texts?), then again she might not. But, right now, Trump "MIGHT" have lied in statements about a legal, consentual affair when not under oath.

Geez, Chuckster, you've convinced me there is no difference whatsoever.... in certain fevered swamp minds.

Chuck said...

JAORE said...
Sooooo.....
Clinton lied under oath (to prevent a woman from having her due fair trial), he paid out a bunch of money. He lost his law license. Seems pretty concrete.

Trump.... IF there is a trial (for what?).....might deny the affair under oath (then again he might not). Stormy MIGHT have evidense the affair occurred (video, texts?), then again she might not. But, right now, Trump "MIGHT" have lied in statements about a legal, consentual affair when not under oath.

Geez, Chuckster, you've convinced me there is no difference whatsoever.... in certain fevered swamp minds.


First, I was challenged on the notion that Clinton "raped" but Trump only had consensual extramarital affairs. That's not a fair characterization. Clinton has been accused of rape, and has never been charged. Trump also has been accused of rape, but never charged. The two men are alike in that regard.

Then, I was challenged on the notion that Clinton lied but no one cared and he essentially got away with it. Again, that's not a fair description. Clinton lied, to his friends and staff, to the press, to the world, and under oath. He only just escaped a criminal charge. He was impeached and suspended from law practice. He was forced to pay $850,000 to settle the civil suit. Clinton didn't get off scot-free from his lying.

(By the way, I am still trying to figure out the part where I am covering fro Clinton or defending him. I didn't like him, still don't like him, never voted for him and I think that Bill Clinton is a disgraceful liar. Now figure out how I am a Democrat apologist.)

Then I asked what about the fundamental lie issued on behalf of Donald Trump, that he and Stormy Daniels never had extramarital sex together? I was told that it was just her word against Trump's and she's a proven liar. So is Trump, I say; but moreover there is the undisputable payment record and the record of documents, between Stormy and Trump's fixer Michael Cohen. Does anyone doubt that Stormy had sex with Trump and that Trump wanted an NDA about that fact?

Finally I was pressed on the notion that Story violated, and is violating that NDA. And fine, I said; she'd violating it. I don't care. I don't think she cares. Trump can sue her, I suggested with tongue firmly in cheek. The deposition of the plaintiff in the case of Donald J. Trump versus Stormy Daniels should be good.

I liked that prospect so much that my detractors here couldn't stand it. Of course Trump won't sue Stormy Daniels, they said. Right, I replied. He's not going to sue her, I agreed. He's not going to sue her because he doesn't want to give a deposition.

Like I said.

Rusty said...

Chuck is living out his fantasy on these threads of somehow someday getting Trump in front of a judge where Chuck will make mincemeat out of Trump.
Chuck.
The only way you'd ever wind up in the same courtroom as Trump is when you are finally arrested for stalking a sitting president.
You are a sick little man.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 220 of 220   Newer› Newest»