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.

 

I am so very confused

page: 11
75
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

SO whats your explanation for why 5 years before he ran for president he was suing to keep the stormy daniels story from coming out?

It takes a very dedicated trump hater to twist their mind into thinking that a billionaire businessman married with kids would have no reason at all to want a woman from publicly saying she slept with him.

His divorce records coming out, first you dont know when he was going to say delay until.

You assume it means after the election, which maybe it could.

Second, that is independent of the stormy case.

His wife probably knew the details of his divorce, so he would have no need to protect her from hearing it.

Nonetheless, we have proof of trumpo trying to silence stormies story coming out in 2011, it proves he would seek to silence these stories without ruinning for office.




posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




SO whats your explanation for why 5 years before he ran for president he was suing to keep the stormy daniels story from coming out?
He wasn't. His (then) pitbull threatened legal action. In any case, the situation was similar, it wouldn't have looked good. He was riding high on The Apprentice at the time, as I recall. Didn't want to lose the gig. Didn't want to lose the election.


His wife probably knew the details of his divorce, so he would have no need to protect her from hearing it.
Dare I say it? Duh. It wasn't she he was concerned about.

edit on 8/23/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler




SO whats your explanation for why 5 years before he ran for president he was suing to keep the stormy daniels story from coming out?
He wasn't. His (then) pitbull threatened legal action. In any case, the situation was similar, it wouldn't have looked good. He was riding high on The Apprentice at the time, as I recall. Didn't want to lose the gig. Didn't want to lose the election.


His wife probably knew the details of his divorce, so he would have no need to protect her from hearing it.
Dare I say it? Duh. It wasn't she he was concerned about.


First, trump was still a wealthy businessman withpout running, and wouldnt want to have his image harmed.

Is you arggument really if trump was riding high on the apprentice, or running for office, he would want to silence stormy.

But in bewteen, he would be like a screw it, let the story come out.

That is absurd.

Yeah, his wife knew the details of the divorce, which is why he wouldnt be worried about her seeing it.

But she didnt know stormy's story. And i bet a billionare husband with a family would have an incentive for not wanting his wife to be embarrassed by detail of her husband banging a porn star made public

Dare I say it? Duh.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




But in bewteen, he would be like a screw it, let the story come out.

But, it didn't. Your argument is moot.


Yeah, his wife knew the details of the divorce, which is why he wouldnt be worried about her seeing it.
Right, before or after the election. It wouldn't matter to her. On the other hand, Trump was concerned about it coming out before the election.

edit on 8/23/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler




But in bewteen, he would be like a screw it, let the story come out.

But, it didn't. Your argument is moot.


Yeah, his wife knew the details of the divorce, which is why he wouldnt be worried about her seeing it.
Right, before or after the election. It wouldn't matter to her. On the other hand, Trump was concerned about it coming out before the election.


Oh you didnt imply that?

Well then you agree, trump wouldnt want the story to come out even when he wasnt on the apprentice or running for office.

As to the divorce.

Yes, trump may have only been concerned about the divorce for campaign reasons because his wife knew of it.

But he may have been concerned about stormy because his wife didnt know about it, and therefore his wanting to silence it was not about the election.

Again, you are in the position of arguing that a wealthy public personality, who had a wife and kids, would not have any reason to want to keep a porn star from publicly telling people details of their affair. Even after he tried to stop the story from coming out in 2011.

Now look, maybe evidence will come out of trump saying "I dont care if my wife finds out about stormy, she just needs to be silenced so I can win this election!" or any number of parts of that.

But ubntil then, you are defending a horribly weak position.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

The Congressional fund is used to settle sexual harrassment and other lawsuits. Not to keep people quiet. So it's quite different from campaign contributions. Neither Daniels or McDougal were suing Trump.


The Office of Compliance’s Awards and Settlement Fund has paid out $359,450 since fiscal 2013 to address six claims made against House-member led offices, $84,000 of which was for a sexual harassment claim, according to data released Friday by the House Administration Committee.

The OOC did not name any parties in the settlements, but Politico reported the $84,000 sexual harassment settlement was for a claim against Texas GOP Rep. Blake Farenthold.
www.rollcall.com...

But it should be more transparent.


Just like the whole John Edwards affair right? It seems to me that was very similar yet worse and no lawyer was able to prove he violated FEC rules.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

great piece laid it out straight no argument there



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




But ubntil then, you are defending a horribly weak position.

You seem to base that on a opinion that the contribution need have exclusive use.
But I agree, in part. It would take a good amount of evidence to prove it in a court of law. That evidence may or may not exist.

But then, an impeachment is not a court of law.

edit on 8/23/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
The fact he didnt want this story coming out proves he was concerned about his family or his reputation regarding this irregardless of the election.


I think this portion of the NDA will give rise to reasonable doubt if Trump were to be charged in connection to paying off Stormy:




posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yeah. Also, there seems to be pretty general agreement that indicting a standing president is problematic.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes, there is that, too.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Trying to play catch-up here...

a reply to: Grambler


Ok so I have a totally hypothetical question that probably is way off topic about NDA's, but here goes.

I assume the penalty for violating an NDA can be more than just returning the moneys given.

In other words, I give Phage $1000 to not tell people he saw me pick my nose.

If he does anyways, I can sue him I am guessing for the $1000, and further damage, like maybe he cost me a sweet photo shoot I was hired for?

Is that the way it works?

Sorta kinda.

I work with NDAs all the time. I won't show any project to someone not directly involved with it (a collaborator or sponsor) without an NDA signed.

It really depends on how the NDA is written up. Mine, and I believe most used in my profession (research and development), usually specify actual damages. For instance, if I show you a project I am working on, and you develop it before me and make $10,000,000 on it, that's my damages. Most courts will also allow a claim for punitive damages if it is an open and shut case of someone taking an idea that doesn't belong to them.

A lawsuit is required. The NDA violation is a civil matter, as an NDA is simply a contract. One cannot go to jail for violating an NDA... but they can lose everything. It is my fervent hope that happens to Stormy the Extortionist, because she not only extorted money over a consensual affair (assuming there even was an affair), but then broke the NDA after getting it. She needs desperately to be living in a cardboard box somewhere, and still worrying that someone will repossess it.

One exception to that, and it is an unusual occurrence, is to press fraud charges. I have heard of that happening, where an NDA was executed simply to extort money and then violated. That is taking money for a fraudulent reason.

Where the damages are not purely financial, often a set amount will be specified, as in this case. Someone said the $1 million per count amount is sufficient to have the NDA vacated, but that is simply not true. Penalties for violating an NDA are often quite expensive, because the damage is irreparable and can be lifelong. Courts generally recognize that and follow the letter of the NDA.

I have to add in to this explanation that this whole Stormy thing has made me even more cautious of who I will execute an NDA with. It seems so many people simply don't think they are serious contracts. If I have any concern that someone feels this way, there is no way in Hades I would ever even talk to them about the possibility of disclosing information. As it was, divulging secret information was a very risky maneuver; now it seems like a suicidal one.

Hope that helps.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


You seem to base that on a opinion that the contribution need have exclusive use.

Legal precedent says it does need be an exclusive interest to the campaign.

Otherwise, a candidate would be required to disclose any clothing purchased, any hair styling, any makeup purchased once they announced their candidacy (one could make a case that includes the period of time just before the announcement). Soap, shampoo, toothpaste, carwashes... looking presentable in public is definitely an aid to a campaign. Personal phone bills during the campaign are an asset to a campaign. Where does it stop?

So, the litmus test is, "would this expense have occurred under the same circumstances had the candidate not been running for office?" In Trump's case, yes, he has paid off women who claimed sexual impropriety before. That's the key point: he has legal precedent for every aspect of his actions surrounding Stormy Daniels not meeting the litmus test.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


In Trump's case, yes, he has paid off women who claimed sexual impropriety before.
Has he?



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I can't recall details right now, but I have heard of him doing it long before he decided to run for President. At one time, years ago, I was making jokes about how Donald Trump always seemed to be paying someone off who claimed to have done the hoochy koochy with him. I went so far as to make the remark that had someone not beat Rosie O'Donnell half to death with an ugly stick (multiple times), she'd be trying the same thing instead of fighting, unarmed, a battle of wits with him. The Stormy Daniels thing itself goes back to 2011, when he spent money to force her silence via a threatened lawsuit. I'm also sure he (or anyone with contacts) could produce a couple boxcars full of wealthy/famous people who have done so as well. it's simply not uncommon, nor is it uncommon for the allegations to be false and the accusers still get paid off.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I know it's not uncommon.

But that's not what, or why, I asked the question.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The information you seek should be available from man's best friend, Google.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah. I hear the same thing from flat Earthers quite often.

My response; "It's your claim."
edit on 8/24/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler


The threshold is it had to totally be ti influence the campaign.


Do you have proof of that or a link? So I could have donated $300,000 to Trump's political campaign and it wouldn't count as a campaign donation if a few dollars went towards something unrelated?



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dasman888

Actually... not quite right... and a bit of "apples vs oranges" in your example as well.

You are correct, the two are not equivalent.



1. It is NOT illegal to pay someone off for their silence... UNLESS you use campaign funds to do so.
Why would it be illegal to do so? Clearly making such accusations public would damage the campaign, so paying for an NDA would clearly benefit the campaign. A perfectly legitimate expenditure.


2. The Congressional payoffs for silence, were for silence of folks WHOSE HARASSMENT/ASSAULT WAS NOT CONSENSUAL.
As opposed to consensual harassment/assault? The "payoffs" were made to settle lawsuits, not to silence the victims. For example:
www.rollcall.com...



I think Levin hit that nail on the head here...what do you think?




top topics



 
75
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join