From "The Donald 1, Stormy 0" by Jay Michaelson (The Daily Beast).
A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)! https://t.co/9Is7mHBFda— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 18, 2018
UPDATE: Horseface!
“Federal Judge throws out Stormy Danials lawsuit versus Trump. Trump is entitled to full legal fees.” @FoxNews Great, now I can go after Horseface and her 3rd rate lawyer in the Great State of Texas. She will confirm the letter she signed! She knows nothing about me, a total con!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2018
पोस्ट्स
५९ टिप्पण्या:
I assume the artist's sketch is not Chuck.
Ha, that really looks like a sketch of her ex.
Weird, Darrell.
I went the opposite way.
Ha, that really looks like a sketch of her ex.
Explaining why she didn't know him.
The discourse common to the political process didn’t used to include vicious name-calling, unprecedented levels of flat-out lies, and shots from the hip that get the United States into diplomatic hot water.
Use to. At most one verb component carries tense, here the operator "did."
The languages used in the early Republic was much worse than that of modern day America.
Believe all women, because women never, ever try to deceive.
1400 women called the FBI to report that Kavanaugh raped them.
I suspect that some of them are fibbing.
Wow, another historic first. A prostitute actually will be paying a politician.
That Pimp Avennatti is going to bankrupt that used up old whore. He should take the appeal all the way to the Supreme Court!
Attorney’s fees not awarded under FRCP 11 but under Texas law. Affirmed.
So all the idiots who donated money to her and her scumbag lawyer actually gave money to pay for Donald Trumps lawyer fees!! Bahahahhhahahahhahhahahah!!!
The left in unison today: "Stormy Daniels? Never heard of her! Who is she and why isn't she dead and buried now?"
The left in unison today: "Stormy Daniels? Never heard of her! Who is she and why isn't she dead and buried now?"
Yep, from Chappaquiddick to Monica to Stormy, Dems use the 5-Fs regarding women
Find em
Flout em
F**k em
Forget em
Forever
The federal civil procedure in this case is interesting. Lawsuit filed in Southern District of New York, transferred to Central District of California upon stipulation, for convenience of parties. Applying federal precedent, the court decides that New York choice of law rules applies, which means that Texas' anti-SLAPP statute is the substantive law. A California federal district court judge applies federal law, then New York law, then Texas law, interspersed with California law because Texas' anti-SLAPP statute is relatively new and Texas' anti-SLAPP statute and case law is explicitly based upon California law.
All because of a tweet.
Blogger Dave Begley said...
Attorney’s fees not awarded under FRCP 11 but under Texas law. Affirmed.
They still have to collect them. Does Creepy Porn Lawyer have to pay or his client ?
In my one malpractice suit that actually went to court, I was awarded $25,000 in costs but never collected any because the plaintiffs were broke. I would love to have collected from the creepy lawyer but no luck. He was president of the OC Bar assn when I was president of the medical assn. I refused to shake his hand at a meeting.
I am intrigued by the picture by the crime sketch artist. Did Stormy not recognize her husband, or do all men look like that to her? Is that what Trump looked like in her mind's eye? How does she see Avenatti?
Stormy is ripe for a Babaa Wawaa interview--America's most fascinating woman!
He's right about the media. A more gullible bunch of fools can't be found.
From Stormy Daniels CrowdJustice fundraising page.
$586,670
pledged of $850,000 stretch target by 16,840 people
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stormy/
Can the not as yet received "pledges" now be withdrawn by the donors?
Can Stormy -- or Trump -- legally enforce the pledges to the "charity" against the donors?
Legal Issues Related to Unfulfilled Charitable Pledges
While some state courts have not been willing to enforce a pledge unless the traditional contract law requirement of consideration or detrimental reliance exists, there has been a modern trend to do away with that requirement where charitable pledges are concerned. The Second Restatement of Contracts (one of the primary legal authorities on the legal issues affecting contracts) has taken this view, stating that pledges are legally binding whether or not the charity has taken action in reliance on the pledge, and that as a matter of public policy, injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.
”1400 women called the FBI to report that Kavanaugh raped them.”
That one little fact right there pretty much trashes “believe all women.”
Avennati is having a rough month. Maybe his "other" honey, Julie Swetnick, can get a side gig as a stripper to help defray Stormy's legal bills.
My wife has offered to smack these two women upside the heads for being ignorant and giving women a bad name.
What with the looming elections now is not the time for Dems to lose heart, I hope they are more vociferous than ever in their support for Warren's rich ethnic background, Stormy's quest for justice, and Hillary's defense of her hubby. These are the kind of issues that can only serve to energize and broaden the Democratic base, particularly among women. What woman has not been touched and moved by Stormy's brave struggle.
While leftists of hollywood pour money into vacuous causes, real charity suffers.
Blogger Bay Area Guy said...
Avennati is having a rough month.
Avennati reminds me of the "Larry" character in "Parenthood."
Any day now, an SUV will turn the corner and Avennati will be tossed out the rear door.
Blogger Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
While leftists of hollywood pour money into vacuous causes, real charity suffers.
Don't complain. Think of the damage that $38 million they gave Beto could do with real candidates.
Yeah- they are free to waste money. But it is pathetic and vacuous.
Trump is basically calling her a liar about the “threat incident” but does so colorfully and implicitly. But it is the same as saying she lied or made up the story about the threat.
I agree that public figures should be able to verbally joust each other with impunity and immunity.
“Horseface” Is this Chuck's other half?
Trump is chopping her up into dog food.
The Pimp with the law license should be paying. Just because a client wants to do something patently stupid doesn't mean an officer of the court should do it. He is the author of the claim and the creator of the complaint.
1400 women called the FBI to report that Kavanaugh raped them.
1400!!! Who the Hell does Kavanagh think he is...Wilt Chamberlain?
"a total con!"
Do you think Donald Trump knows French?
This was the right decision by the judge all around.
I had forgotten that sketch! That was just hilarious how she seemingly described the ex. Surely she knew what she was doing there, right? You couldn't possibly help create that sketch and not immediately recognize someone that you literally know intimately?
Stormy says:
Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present your president. In addition to his...umm...shortcomings, he has demonstrated his incompetence, hatred of women and lack of self control on Twitter AGAIN! And perhaps a penchant for bestiality. Game on, Tiny.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
“Federal Judge throws out Stormy Danials lawsuit versus Trump. Trump is entitled to full legal fees.” @FoxNews Great, now I can go after Horseface and her 3rd rate lawyer in the Great State of Texas. She will confirm the letter she signed! She knows nothing about me, a total con!
Ten years from now, assuming Stormy is still alive, it will be interesting to find out why she let Avenetti upend her life because of a consensual sexual act.
Gunner,
Daniels is making a lot of money off of this that she would not have otherwise. She almost certainly sharing in the dough paying Avenatti, so it isn't moronic choice on her part to "upend her life" here; or even Avenatti's- neither of them had a sterling reputation that was of monetary value. I can recognize a smart financial play even if I find the means personally distasteful.
I like how he spelled her name wrong.
"The federal civil procedure in this case is interesting. Lawsuit filed in Southern District of New York, transferred to Central District of California upon stipulation, for convenience of parties. Applying federal precedent, the court decides that New York choice of law rules applies, which means that Texas' anti-SLAPP statute is the substantive law. A California federal district court judge applies federal law, then New York law, then Texas law, interspersed with California law because Texas' anti-SLAPP statute is relatively new and Texas' anti-SLAPP statute and case law is explicitly based upon California law."
Sounds right!
Gunner points to a new revenue stream for Stormy. After all this has been milked dry, she can write a book about how she was coerced and exploited by Avenatti, It's sure to sell a few copies. I'd recommend that she have a few quickies with Avenatti and other members of her legal team. Reports on their penis size is a sure fire way to juice sales of the book.
According to her wiki page, Stormy Daniels is 39-years old. Nothing wrong with being 39. I'd like to be 39 again. Jack Benny was 39 for 2 decades.
But, how precisely is the labor market for 39-year old strippers and hookers? It can't be great. I've always understood that stripping and hooking was a young woman's game.
Maybe, she can go into acting? They could do a movie version of "Married with Children", where she could play Peg Bundy or the daughter. I'm just brainstorming here.
The real interesting federal procedure question is whether a provision of the Texas civil procedure code should be used in California federal court. The federal courts have been treating state anti-SLAPP rules as substantive, but there is a movement by some judges, especially in the Ninth Circuit, to argue that they are procedural, and should not be followed in federal court, where a complaint can normally only be challenged under Rule 12 motion based strictly on the pleadings. There have been moves in Congress to create a federal anti-SLAPP regime. Not every state has such a provision.
Read a funny twitter observation that Trump's tweet could be used as a lesson in the importance of the semi-colon. Re-read that last sentence.
Thank you for trotting out the update!
However, it may be-hoove you to add another blog post to fully explore the subject, and roundup the various reactions to the tweet.
...and shots from the hip that get the United States into diplomatic hot water.
I like that. "Diplomatic hot water". A phrase that seems to mean something but doesn't actually mean something. I'll take "shots from the hip" over apology tours any day - weakness is provocative.
For that matter, we’ve never before had a president more or less admit that he cheated on his pregnant wife with a porn star...
Which is not the same thing as saying we've never had a president who cheated on his wife. Is Trump crass? Sure. But it doesn't hurt him because the voters knew what they were electing.
1400 women called the FBI to report that Kavanaugh raped them.
I suspect that some of them are fibbing.
Impossible. Feminist theory tells us women never lie about rape.
Some networks thought this story was the most important thing for weeks, making Michael Creepanati a celebrity ambulance chaser, and now when it goes well for Trump, it's like it never happened. Nope, no bias.
"1400 women called the FBI to report that Kavanaugh raped them. "
There must be at least a few stained blue dresses.
The Daily Beast story makes it sound as though the dismissal was based in substantial part on the fact that the defendant was the President. I find that troubling, if true. ANY defendant ought to be able to have such an ill-founded defamation complaint dismissed, so long as the alleged defamation involved a matter of public interest. For example, a number of commenters on this blog have been critical of Christine Blasey Ford. So far as I know, none of the commenters are the President (although I am suspicious of several of your noms de blog), but the same principles ought to protect them (us) against a defamation suit by Dr. Ford.
Michaelson doesn't have a clue about law or much else:
'
https://twitter.com/TeenVogue/status/1051865320259051521
speaking of clueless, tucker would lightly use the cluebat
doran is one of the leading real arab experts in academia, yet Princeton refused him tenure,
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/10/analyze-this-37.php?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=sw&utm_campaign=sw
well you can ask steyn or ezra levant how clueless the globe and mail. are,
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-narrative-of-jamal-khashoggis-death-has-been-negotiated-justice/?utm_medium=Referrer:+Social+Network+/+Media&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links
oh roger ailes sighs from the ether:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/turkish-official-says-police-found-evidence-in-saudi-consulate-that-jamal-khashoggi-was-killed-there-ap.html
back when intelligence meant something:
https://babalublog.com/2018/10/16/on-this-date-in-history-october-16-1962-the-cuban-missile-crisis-begins/
Horseface. Oh, its beneath the dignity, blah, blah.
Some Republcian loser.
Prostitutes and stripper who hire porn lawyers, ALWAYS tell the truth.
If fame and money were all that motivated Stormy, why wait until after the election to blab about everything? She could have been known as "The Porn Star that Stopped Trump" etc. Now she is just nipping at his heels like an annoying purse dog.
Plus she could have snagged some of that Clinton Foundation money.
Straight dope = from horse's mouth.
Media fall for Trump's deflection while he admits her truth??!!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा