Stormey's no push over 🙂

From the Guardian’s live blog…

"We’re looking at merchandise from Stormy Daniels’ store now.

Susan Necheles is once again trying to make the argument that Daniels is motivated by money, because she tweeted a link to her store after Donald Trump was indicted.

Some of the merchandise says #TeamStormy.

We’re also seeing a picture of Daniels on a candle dressed as a saint.

Necheles accuses Daniels of celebrating and making money off Trump’s criminal charges.

Not unlike Mr Trump,” Daniels replies to Trump’s lawyer.:joy::joy:

Trump has sent dozens of fundraising emails asking for money to help him fight his criminal indictments."

Excellent analysis as to why the Trump defence strategy is deeply flawed (though might still be angling for a mistrial or grounds for appeal).

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1788324850685083673

1 Like

Let’s hope his deranged defense doesn’t pay off. His other legal headaches are all pushed out past November and this is the sort of shenanigans we can expect if he gets back in…

I cannot understand why this Daniels person isn’t herself facing chargesof blackmail, if you don’t pay me I will tell. She is a total shit, he paid, she still told.
Doesn’t excuse Trump though.

Daniels claims that when they met and Trump asked to be spanked,he greeted her in silk pyjamas,apart from not being able to unsee this image,surely this is a crime in itself.

I can see your point.

NDAs and Pre-Nups and the like, although legal, always seem to me rather coercive. “You don’t get this job/marriage unless you sign this.”

I suspect that intimating to speak about something that actually did happen although knowing the other party would rather this did not become known, is threatening but is not legally considered blackmail.

In UK Common law, probably the same in US, blackmail needs to have been made with menaces (threats); the demand unwarranted; intent to cause a loss to another. I expect the legal niceties were got around using that oily middle man who testified in court. No direct demand for money was made, only a suggestion that the secret could remain secret for a ‘recompense’.

Not forgetting that a news media would have paid something very similar for such a juicy story.

Morally, the query is who and for what purpose would a woman go up alone with a man to his bedroom anyway.

Back in the day the euphamism was “come-up-and-see-my-etchings

IMG_3717

It surprises me that all news channels and papers are heavily covering this, and WTF really cares? Haven’t people got other things to do / read about?

Nobody cares about Stormy, but everyone should care if Trump is acquitted. This may be the last chance to “nail” the dangerous bastard before November.

2 Likes

I cannot see the point of Ms Daniels giving evidence. It doesn’t matter if she can be proven to be a money grabbing slut who managed to get money out of Trump or another Mother Teresa. Trump is accused of falsifying his accounts whatever the motive.
I have to admit to some admiration for a lady who is one of the elite group of people who have screwed Trump (pun intended)

The above link, which Billy posted, gives the reasons Stormy had to testify. It basically comes down to Trump’s defence strategy. IE I never slept with her, but if I did, I paid her off (and why would you if you had not slept with her?) to protect my family, not to influence the election. Because it is hiding the use of the 130K for electioneering that is the criminal offence.

The salacious stuff is just a byproduct, though enough graphic detail was required to convince the jury that Trump had slept with her. Now that’s been done, it’s on to what was the motivation to pay her off. Protecting his family or winning the presidency. Since he doesn’t give a damn about anybody except himself, family protection will be a bit of a stretch :joy:

1 Like

Sadly she is one of a much bigger group who have been screwed by Trump.

2 Likes

She has said that she did it because she wanted to be a contestant on The Apprentice. But it does seem naive of her to go to Trump’s hotel room given what she must have known about his sleazy reputation beforehand - or else she imagined she could get what she wanted without Trump getting what he wanted.

As for the payment - I don;t think it’s clear whether Daniels tried to blackmail Trump or if he (or his representatives) offered her money not to go public with the story. I gather that he has made similar payoffs before, and in particular used his National Enquirer friend to “bury” adverse stories.

But as has been mentioned the reason he is being prosecuted is not because he slept with a porn star and tried to silence her, but because the payoff amounted to a misuse of political campaign funds.

The salacious details are being brought out in order to establish that the event for which the payment was made did take place, and then as a corollary of that a misuse or misstatement of funds occurred.

I agree with all you say. The added dubious bonus is that Trump’s name and behaviour are being dragged out in court at a time he is attempting to ask the American electorate to see him as president.

I still think it is peculiar to go up with a man to his bedroom expecting what exactly? A cup of tea and a nice chat about a job. Wouldn’t that be more suitable in an office? During office hours? Ms Daniels doesn’t strike me as naive. It is the age old game of chase-me-round-the-furniture.

Doesn’t make every girl who keeps an evening appointment with a letch in his bedroom guilty of collusion. Nor should all the salacious details of this case in any way distract from the fact that campaign funds were approved and used and then were lied about.

Why aren’t any of his donors more indignant? Perhaps they still think it’s all ‘fake news’ and their icon’s been set up. :joy:

She admits as much in her testimony.

If you have not already done so I highly recommend reading the thread by Seth Abramson.

As far as I understand it, she didn’t ask for money directly from Trump. She was trying to sell her story and was put in touch with the National Enquirer who agreed the payment for her story. The National Enquirer though was part of what could be called a sting operation to buy and bury stories about Trump so that he didn’t get bad publicity before the 2016 election.

Of course, she knew what she was doing and could easily guess the outcome. She went into that room with her eyes open. When it fell through, she probably had something in mind to gain some recompense. But selling a sleazy story is pretty sleazy but not illegal.

It’s extremely long but here is Abramson’s coverage of the Cohen testimony. A *very* long read but worth it

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1790010249086206263

1 Like

She trumped Trump in her testimony - there’s been so many jibes making him look ludicrous.

But the most amusing part is that the world knows he won’t/can’t take the stand to deny any of it because that would be perjury!

I’m sure Melania’s final revenge will be eaten very cold…

I can’t read it for some reason.

I’m assuming that you could read the first one - not sure if you need a twitter account.

It’s not actually finished yet - when it is someone might provide an unrolled version.

It needs a long sit down.