It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US President Hits Porn Actress with $20 million Lawsuit

page: 16
26
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: gortex

Trump couldn't resist could he? He took the bait? Boy I heard a #storm was coming.... this seems to be it.

In other news, Evangelical Leaders Give Trump a Pass for Alleged Porn-Star Affair

Oh moral fibre.


Trump wasn't elected to be the religious and moral leader of "the people". He was elected to fight back against the Dems and the media using the same tactics they do.

If you want a moral or religious leader please look somewhere other than government.




posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Melania should divorce him andtake everything she can in the process, if she doesn't then she's a gold digger and it shows her true motives for being with Trump and it's definitely not because she's in love with him.


Did you read what you wrote?

Nothing has been proven one way or the other except for the fact there exists an NDA... that's it.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I have a funny feeling we're about to get an earful of the kind of information that'll cause Donnie to have an aneurysm.

I (and the rest of American public) can't wait!


The NDA is so iron clad, thorough, and specific...there's no way Stormy can wiggle out of it.

In fact, the agreement suggests that Stormy will have to turn over all the donations to her legal fund(s) to 'David Dennison,' eventually.

Anyone donating to Stormy's legal fund is effectively donating money to 'David Dennison.'

I think Trump is probably enjoying this very, very much.


I supremely doubt Stormy's lawyer looked at a 'watertight' NDA and then advised her to spill the beans....

Occam's suggests its far more likely there was impropriety in the NDA or some procedural error that will likely work in her favor.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

I sure hope not I do not want to see Trump in his "tightly whities".



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer


i'd like to think the same....but that lawyer comes across as a moron when he speaks on TV.

He looks like someone who says stuff then waits to see what peoples reactions are.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

1st against the wall lawyers will be come the revolution!.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I have a funny feeling we're about to get an earful of the kind of information that'll cause Donnie to have an aneurysm.

I (and the rest of American public) can't wait!


The NDA is so iron clad, thorough, and specific...there's no way Stormy can wiggle out of it.

In fact, the agreement suggests that Stormy will have to turn over all the donations to her legal fund(s) to 'David Dennison,' eventually.

Anyone donating to Stormy's legal fund is effectively donating money to 'David Dennison.'

I think Trump is probably enjoying this very, very much.


I supremely doubt Stormy's lawyer looked at a 'watertight' NDA and then advised her to spill the beans....

Occam's suggests its far more likely there was impropriety in the NDA or some procedural error that will likely work in her favor.



Occam's razor suggests that that Stormy is controlled opposition and willingly signed an iron-clad NDA that left herself with no evidence to prove that 'DD' is 'Donald Trump.'

For example, take a look at this part of the 'Side Letter' (the document that discloses the parties' 'true identities'):


Do you see that handwritten correction changing what appears to be paragraph ‘7.1.1’ to ‘8.1.1?”

Notice how it isn’t initialed by anyone? That presents an obvious legal problem and it is COMPOUNDED by the fact that the paragraph above it refers to “Paragraph 7.1” — in error — TWICE. It *should* read “Paragraph 8.1.”

What makes that such a critical legal error in the 'Side Letter?' Well, the valid & legally binding ‘Settlement Agreement’ very specifically and *cough* CONVENIENTLY states that if there is any error where a paragraph caption is inconsistent with a paragraph NUMBER…it is the paragraph NUMBER that is controlling:



That, alone, voids the 'Side Letter' when read in context of the paragraphs affected by the attempted amendment -- 7.1 and 8.1. And that 'Side Letter' is the only thing Stormy has to prove 'DD' is 'Donald Trump.' (I mean, obviously WE know who 'DD' is, but a court will require evidence -- not inference.)

Do you assume that was just a series of three material 'legal mistakes' that Stormy and her lawyer didn't catch or take it at face value that what appears in the Agreement and Side Letter is exactly as intended?

She and her attorney signed that they understood what they were signing and did so freely without coercion and with sound minds. I'm not going to assume that's not true.



edit on 3/19/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   
A new look at this debacle may include the idea that Trump's lawyer simply did not believe that his Boss would ever get elected to the Presidency. As a failed candidate, Stormy's $130K would be a neat nest egg, after putting one over on a failed Candidate. That lawyer was really worried about something, so he ran out and put a 2nd mortgage on his home to raise that money.

But surprise, now he really is the POTUS!



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: carpooler
A new look at this debacle may include the idea that Trump's lawyer simply did not believe that his Boss would ever get elected to the Presidency. As a failed candidate, Stormy's $130K would be a neat nest egg, after putting one over on a failed Candidate. That lawyer was really worried about something, so he ran out and put a 2nd mortgage on his home to raise that money.

But surprise, now he really is the POTUS!


Not sure about that.

I thought some of the wording in the NDA seemed unusually confident that Trump would be elected:



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Wayfarer


i'd like to think the same....but that lawyer comes across as a moron when he speaks on TV.

He looks like someone who says stuff then waits to see what peoples reactions are.


Sounds like he is fully 'in character.'

If Stormy has to settle with Trump, she will have to file a professional negligence lawsuit against her own attorney to recover her losses. Now THAT is a case that I think she has a strong chance of winning.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Trump wasn't elected to be the religious and moral leader of "the people".


You speak for all the voters he was running to appeal to?

I'd say no.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I have a funny feeling we're about to get an earful of the kind of information that'll cause Donnie to have an aneurysm.

I (and the rest of American public) can't wait!


The NDA is so iron clad, thorough, and specific...there's no way Stormy can wiggle out of it.

In fact, the agreement suggests that Stormy will have to turn over all the donations to her legal fund(s) to 'David Dennison,' eventually.

Anyone donating to Stormy's legal fund is effectively donating money to 'David Dennison.'

I think Trump is probably enjoying this very, very much.


I supremely doubt Stormy's lawyer looked at a 'watertight' NDA and then advised her to spill the beans....

Occam's suggests its far more likely there was impropriety in the NDA or some procedural error that will likely work in her favor.


Of course there is an impropriety in the NDA.

How can Trump claim to have an NDA with someone (thus suing for $20 million) about a deal he "knew nothing about" and about an affair "that never happened" and that Trump "never signed'"?

The "NDA" is big enough to drive a truck through, and Trump just did a typical Trump "READY, FIRE, AIM" by reflexively suing for $20 million, bc I now ask how can he sue someone for violating an agreement with him that he knew nothing about?

What a moron.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: carpooler
A new look at this debacle may include the idea that Trump's lawyer simply did not believe that his Boss would ever get elected to the Presidency. As a failed candidate, Stormy's $130K would be a neat nest egg, after putting one over on a failed Candidate. That lawyer was really worried about something, so he ran out and put a 2nd mortgage on his home to raise that money.

But surprise, now he really is the POTUS!


Not sure about that.

I thought some of the wording in the NDA seemed unusually confident that Trump would be elected:


You DO know that you're referencing which state law is being used, correct? And that the agreement is stating that "DD" could "elect" to use California law, Nevada law or Arizona law, and it has nothing to do with the actual voting of the presidential election, right?

You put that in to be snarky without the snark tag, right? Or are you a Trump supporter?



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Scrubdog

Uh, I know what the paragraph means regarding venue.

My point is that the words "at DD's election" sounded like it was drafted with confidence in the possibility that Trump could be elected. That was the poster's point to which I was responding.

I'm not a Trump supporter, but I don't think he is *especially* worse than the last president. I voted for Gary Johnson, in 2016, and only because the Libertarian ticket was polling better than the Green Party's the night before the election.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Does anyone believe Trump did not have an affair with Stormy?.
I think the damage is done tbh.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scrubdog

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I have a funny feeling we're about to get an earful of the kind of information that'll cause Donnie to have an aneurysm.

I (and the rest of American public) can't wait!


The NDA is so iron clad, thorough, and specific...there's no way Stormy can wiggle out of it.

In fact, the agreement suggests that Stormy will have to turn over all the donations to her legal fund(s) to 'David Dennison,' eventually.

Anyone donating to Stormy's legal fund is effectively donating money to 'David Dennison.'

I think Trump is probably enjoying this very, very much.


I supremely doubt Stormy's lawyer looked at a 'watertight' NDA and then advised her to spill the beans....

Occam's suggests its far more likely there was impropriety in the NDA or some procedural error that will likely work in her favor.


Of course there is an impropriety in the NDA.

How can Trump claim to have an NDA with someone (thus suing for $20 million) about a deal he "knew nothing about" and about an affair "that never happened" and that Trump "never signed'"?

The "NDA" is big enough to drive a truck through, and Trump just did a typical Trump "READY, FIRE, AIM" by reflexively suing for $20 million, bc I now ask how can he sue someone for violating an agreement with him that he knew nothing about?

What a moron.


The NDA is drafted so that everything about the information/material, at issue, AND the NDA, itself, were made as confidential as possible with STRICT and SEVERE monetary penalties. Stormy does NOT dispute that she signed her name and agreed to all the terms, etc...

You need to actually read the NDA before declaring it "big enough to drive a truck through." I was surprised to find how many ways it was drafted to cover Trump's butt.

Read it.

Carefully.

The NDA MUST be assumed to be legally binding -- 'DD' wasn't required to provide a signed copy of it to Stormy. She has no good faith reason to believe it is not legally binding. None. Read it. It's a fact.

However, the 'Side Letter' is obviously not valid and that is the document where the parties are supposed to acknowledge their 'true identities.'



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: testingtesting
Does anyone believe Trump did not have an affair with Stormy?.
I think the damage is done tbh.


What damage?

Did anyone think Trump was above extramarital affairs?

We watched that much play out in 1989 when he cheated on Ivana with Marla Maples.

There is no damage. The only damage will be to anyone clinging to the notion that this story is damaging to Donald Trump.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: testingtesting
Does anyone believe Trump did not have an affair with Stormy?.
I think the damage is done tbh.


What damage?

Did anyone think Trump was above extramarital affairs?

We watched that much play out in 1989 when he cheated on Ivana with Marla Maples.

There is no damage. The only damage will be to anyone clinging to the notion that this story is damaging to Donald Trump.


This is incorrect. The damage will be to Trump's inconceivably fragile ego.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

You must have a different take on Trump’s ego, than me.

For only $130,000, Trump arranged a deal that suggests he was having sex with porn stars, in his 60s, and will likely result in him collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars (maybe millions) from his detractors who are donating money to Stormy’s legal costs.

I think his ego has never been so well fed.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Wayfarer


i'd like to think the same....but that lawyer comes across as a moron when he speaks on TV.

He looks like someone who says stuff then waits to see what peoples reactions are.

You mean like Donald Trump?




top topics



 
26
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join