• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cohen- Possible -Court order to prevent 60 Minutes airing interview with Stormy Daniels

Cohen- Possible -Court order to prevent 60 Minutes airing interview with Stormy Daniels

  • Judge -Issue injunction halting airing interview- Yes

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • Judge -Issue injunction halting airing interview- No

    Votes: 9 69.2%

  • Other- Unsure -pls explain

    Votes: 3 23.1%
  • Total voters
    13
JANFU said:
That would entail testifying? I am not sure. I think it depends on how the court rules on her suit to invalidate the NDA.
Click to expand...



CBC Radio had a contract lawyer from DC on for a half hour. The issue boils down to whether there is a contract or not, and is regardless of her accepting the money.

I don't think they will get the injunction as the first amendment would shred contract law if " a public right to know" can be established. I figure that's a snap.

I am really surprised at Trump's lawyers. What they should have done, according to this lawyer, is gagged her out of the gate, BEFORE it got this far. The Genie is out of the bottle now, finding anyone who hasn't heard about it would be impossible. As a last resort her lawyers can argue "lost domain", in that Trump failed to protect his own interests when stories arose.

The signature is a fine point of law, but it gets really, really messy when you ring in attorney-client privilege. IF, this guy said, the lawyer paid the hush money he is likely to be disbarred.

And Trump's got everyone convinced he's super sharp and has the best people. Not here. Trump's being hung out to dry
 
Fearandloathing said:
CBC Radio had a contract lawyer from DC on for a half hour. The issue boils down to whether there is a contract or not, and is regardless of her accepting the money.

I don't think they will get the injunction as the first amendment would shred contract law if " a public right to know" can be established. I figure that's a snap.

I am really surprised at Trump's lawyers. What they should have done, according to this lawyer, is gagged her out of the gate, BEFORE it got this far. The Genie is out of the bottle now, finding anyone who hasn't heard about it would be impossible. As a last resort her lawyers can argue "lost domain", in that Trump failed to protect his own interests when stories arose.

The signature is a fine point of law, but it gets really, really messy when you ring in attorney-client privilege. IF, this guy said, the lawyer paid the hush money he is likely to be disbarred.

And Trump's got everyone convinced he's super sharp and has the best people. Not here. Trump's being hung out to dry
Click to expand...

Messy for Trump regardless of how it goes. As posted earlier the Notary dod not sign off on the NDA as per law. Would that invalidate the NDA???

Texas investigating notary over failure to sign Stormy Daniels nondisclosure agreement: report | TheHill
 
ttwtt78640 said:
$130K is hardly high rent. What is that in commercial time - maybe the first 30 second ad revenue? The "news" media already has a reputation for being a political entertainment tabloid and nobody seems to much care. When your public approval/trust rating is right down there with congress critters then there is not much to lose.
Click to expand...

High rent as in lipstick on a pig kind of rent.
 
JANFU said:
If the news orgs gained information from other sources told, but Laywers were not informed or they did not ask Daniels of their existence, how would that apply? They did not sign an NDA and as such are free to talk??? Y-N- maybe?

Another tidbit- appears the Notary messed up

Texas investigating notary over failure to sign Stormy Daniels nondisclosure agreement: report | TheHill
Click to expand...

Notary says - of ****...

As to who said what to whom and when, that's why I'd love to listen in on the court case. If they could air it, it would be the highest rated show - EVER. I hate reality TV, but I'd watch that one.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Notary says - of ****...

As to who said what to whom and when, that's why I'd love to listen in on the court case. If they could air it, it would be the highest rated show - EVER. I hate reality TV, but I'd watch that one.
Click to expand...

We sneak a bug in and then broadcast later. From a Russian server. LOL
 
Beaudreaux said:
I'm a party to a number of NDA's, both from the discloser side and the disclosee side. NDA's can be extremely harmful to you if you breach them. But, the burden falls on the grieving party to prove beyond the preponderance of the evidence that what you disclosed was not publically available or available from other sources. If they can prove that you disclosed something that only you and the grieving party knew about (other than your lawyers and other parties to the NDA) then you're screwed to whatever level the NDA allows. The key is, not available publically or from any other source. Now that other source can't be someone you told and then they go tell someone else - your still screwed at that point because the court will demand that the other party disclose their source of the information. NDA's can be simple, or complicated, in how they are written. But they all come down to basic parts - the parties, the information that cannot be disclosed outside the parties, a time period on non-disclosure (a date certain like two years, or until an action is made public, or forever for instance), and the penalty for disclosure, plus of course, the signatures.
Click to expand...

If what you say is true about proving the publicly available information and source, then Stormy Daniels seems to have the upper hand because of her 2011 interview with InPerson magazine.

Also, I think it was Cohen that first went public when he admitted that he paid Daniels the hush money.

Not sure how offering to return the 130K helps unless she can somehow prove that she didn't cash the money first. Because if she signed and/or cashed the check, the NDA became binding regardless of whether Trump signed it or not.
 
JANFU said:
Cohen- Possible -Court order to prevent 60 Minutes airing interview with Stormy Daniels

Judge -Issue injunction halting airing interview

Judge -will not issue an injunction halting airing of interview

Other -Pls explain

Regardless, what legal right does they have to block this interview? Based upon all claims are fact checked.
She has 1A rights.
If the courts ruled she is in violation of ND agreement, then she can be hauled to court and sued.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/11/business/60-minutes-stormy-daniels.html
Click to expand...

I thought it was interesting that Stormy Daniels wants to give the money back in order to void her agreement. In other words, her lawyers have told her that the agreement is valid. Unless you have an interest in the sordid details of her story or want to use this for partisan political politics, I don't see why this matters. It is fairly obvious that Trump boinked her but it doesn't really have much of anything to do with bringing Trump down, unless you call Melania divorcing his ass bringing Trump down. Trump broke no laws except for his wedding vows. The left seems to think that this will really show Trump's moral character, as if anyone disputes that he doesn't have any. So far he has been a good president though and that is the job he was "hired" for.
 
Last edited:
Beaudreaux said:
I've had two separate events this week on my computer from ".ru" addresses that my software caught.
Click to expand...

I highly recommend MalwareBytes
 
Moderate Right said:
I don't see why this matters. It is fairly obvious that Trump boinked her but it doesn't really have much of anything to do with bringing Trump down, unless you call Melania divorcing his ass bringing Trump down. Trump broke no laws except for his wedding vows. The left seems to think that this will really show Trump's moral character, as if anyone disputes that he doesn't have any. .
Click to expand...

Agreed.
The only person who seems to be at risk in this "scandal" is Trump's lawyer, Cohen.:shrug:
 
Beaudreaux said:
Downloading now. Do you use it in addition to other virus software?
Click to expand...

I use Kaspersky- Bought the Malwarebytes paid version many years ago.
I also use FireFox and found UBlock origin to be useful. Not sure what your browser is
Then I would do a scan right after.
I have also use MB Chameleon, worked well



https://www.malwarebytes.com/premium/
 
JANFU said:
Messy for Trump regardless of how it goes. As posted earlier the Notary dod not sign off on the NDA as per law. Would that invalidate the NDA???

Texas investigating notary over failure to sign Stormy Daniels nondisclosure agreement: report | TheHill
Click to expand...



Somewhere in all this a lawyer who has recognized there's fame and money in this. I doubt anyone is stupid enough to go up against a sitting president without something solid to base it on. Trump has bragged he's never lost a lawsuit, partly true he "settles" or buys peace. This one is going to run a lot more than low end six figures. Peanuts to a billionaire.
 
Last edited:
JANFU said:
Cohen- Possible -Court order to prevent 60 Minutes airing interview with Stormy Daniels

Judge -Issue injunction halting airing interview

Judge -will not issue an injunction halting airing of interview

Other -Pls explain

Regardless, what legal right does they have to block this interview? Based upon all claims are fact checked.
She has 1A rights.
If the courts ruled she is in violation of ND agreement, then she can be hauled to court and sued.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/11/business/60-minutes-stormy-daniels.html
Click to expand...

Not sure someone like Tom Steyer wouldn't just agree to pay the million dollar penalty that Daniels will get if she goes public with the dick pics (because thats really what we are talking about here).

That would be a more effective use of his money than those stupid impeachment commercials.
 
Threegoofs said:
Not sure someone like Tom Steyer wouldn't just agree to pay the million dollar penalty that Daniels will get if she goes public with the dick pics (because thats really what we are talking about here).

That would be a more effective use of his money than those stupid impeachment commercials.
Click to expand...

Reports are a number of people have stepped up to help. Regardless of what Trump & Cohen do, they are screwed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom