Jump to content

Trump Lawyer Arranged $130K Hush Money to Keep Porn Star Quiet


AUDub

Recommended Posts

Recall that he married Melania in '05. Barron would have been 4 months old. 

Trump Lawyer Arranged $130,000 Payment for Adult-Film Star’s Silence

https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-trump-lawyer-arranged-dollar130k-hush-money-to-keep-porn-star-quiet

 

A lawyer for Donald Trump arranged a $130,000 payment to a former porn star one month before the 2016 election in an effort to keep her silent about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday. According to people familiar with the deal, Michael Cohen arranged the hush money for Stormy Daniels, born Stephanie Clifford, as part of a non-disclosure agreement negotiated by her lawyer. Per people familiar with the deal, Trump and Cliffords had an alleged sexual encounter after they met at a July 2006 celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, Nevada

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 hours ago, homersapien said:

$130 grand for a prostitute?!!  :eek2:

And this guy prides himself on his fantastic negotiation skills??   :lol:

130 to keep her quiet, apparently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2018 at 3:27 PM, AUDub said:

Embarrassing, but easy enough for his base to rationalize it away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2018 at 8:08 PM, AUDub said:

130 to keep her quiet, apparently. 

I understand.

Sounds like the "stable genius/master negotiator" let a prostitute take his lunch on that transaction....  :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was denied by the porn star. The media just makes it up or quotes someone without verification. They hate Trump, we don't trust them. Go ahead and believe everything they say, sheeple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Farmer Brown said:

This was denied by the porn star. The media just makes it up or quotes someone without verification. They hate Trump, we don't trust them. Go ahead and believe everything they say, sheeple.

She provided a reporter at Slate with the preliminary copy of the NDA before she clammed up, and get this, the denial was issued by Trump's lawyer. L O flipping L. 

Not to mention the others that have come forward. 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/porn-star-donald-trump-and-stormy-daniels-invited-me-to-their-hotel-room

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AUDub said:

She provided a reporter at Slate with the preliminary copy of the NDA before she clammed up, and get this, the denial was issued by Trump's lawyer. L O flipping L. 

Not to mention the others that have come forward. 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/porn-star-donald-trump-and-stormy-daniels-invited-me-to-their-hotel-room

The Daily Beast is where I quit reading. So what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we're on the subject of liars, lying and the credibility of the WSJ, I thought I'd just leave this unrelated tidbit here:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd normally expect Trump to be lying (and he may be) but I do hear "I'd have" and not "I have". Contextually, I also think the President's version makes more sense. 

That fake news flyer though... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

I'd normally expect Trump to be lying (and he may be) but I do hear "I'd have" and not "I have". Contextually, I also think the President's version makes more sense. 

That fake news flyer though... 

I have relationships with people. I think you people are surprised.

It's "I have" from that context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AUDub said:

I have relationships with people. I think you people are surprised.

It's "I have" from that context.

Isn't the debate over whether he said he has or would have a good relationship with Kim? 

He mentioned two other leaders that he has good relationships with, which would account for the "I have relationships with people." I took his comment about Kim to be anecdotal. People don't usually say "I probably have a good relationship with ______". I also hear "I'd" but that's just me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

Since we're on the subject of liars, lying and the credibility of the WSJ, I thought I'd just leave this unrelated tidbit here:

 

Clearly heard I'd. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

Isn't the debate over whether he said he has or would have a good relationship with Kim?

Even if we're being charitable, it really doesn't help. "I would -- I have relationships with people". That is still an insane statement. The WSJ, like most news outlets, cuts out extraneous or garbled passages whenever possible. So once again, if what Trump meant was that he would have a great relationship with "Little Rocket Man", that is still an absolutely batshit crazy statement.

15 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

He mentioned two other leaders that he has good relationships with, which would account for the "I have relationships with people." I took his comment about Kim to be anecdotal. People don't usually say "I probably have a good relationship with ______". I also hear "I'd" but that's just me. 

When I listen to the WSJ's clip, which is also the clearer clip, I only hear "I have":

http://www.wsj.com/video/disputed-audio-from-donald-trump-interview-with-wsj/33003B4D-0DA4-4760-B913-0C2CDC903E74.html

But when I listen to the WH's clip without thinking about it, I also heard "I have" but when I tried, I could alternatively hear "I'd have":

But I can't at all hear "I'd have" on the WSJ clip, even if I try.

Given how we have already seen the WH doctor transcripts, I'm actually kind of terrified to think it's possible they "enhanced" the clip they published.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've listened to the WSJ recording several times now with some pretty decent headphones and I hear no "d" sound at all. If he did say "I'd" as in "I would," that is a conditional statement so it should logically be followed by what the condition is. "I would X, but Y." Instead he goes on to say "I have relationships with people, I think you people are surprised." The people he mentioned are President Xi of China, Prime Minister Abe of Japan, and Kim Jong Un of North Korea. Why would anyone be surprised if he had a good relationship with Xi or Abe? Clearly the relationship he was talking about that he thought people would be surprised by was the relationship with Kim Jong Un, which he says he has, not "might have" or "could have."

The stupid thing about this is, this shouldn't even be a big deal. Even if the recording came out and it was clear he did say "I'd," it would obviously be an honest mistake. Hell, it doesn’t really even matter what he actually said.

The recording makes it clear that if it’s a mistake, it’s a reasonable one. The fact that the Trump administration is responding like this, to a (mostly) friendly news outlet should worry anyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AUDub said:

WSJ is editorially conservative, but they report well. Reporting wise, they’re very careful about protecting that reputation. 

President Trump on Sunday accused The Wall Street Journal of “falsely” reporting him saying he has a “good relationship” with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and publishing so-called fake news because the newspaper wanted a big story.

“The Wall Street Journal stated falsely that I said to them ‘I have a good relationship with Kim Jong Un’ (of N. Korea). Obviously I didn’t say that. I said ‘I’d have a good relationship with Kim Jong Un,’ a big difference. Fortunately we now record conversations with reporters,” Trump said over two tweets. “And they knew exactly what I said and meant. They just wanted a story. FAKE NEWS!”

Trump also said he has proof that the newspaper mischaracterized his remark because the White House records his interviews with reporters.

 

The statement attributed Trump and being questioned by him is: “I probably have a very good relationship with Kim Jong Un of North Korea.”

Trump says he said: “ ‘I’d’ probably have a good relationship … .”

The Wall Street Journal and the White House have each released an audio tape of the interview. But it’s unclear on either whether Trump says he does or would have such a relationship with Kim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Even if we're being charitable, it really doesn't help. "I would -- I have relationships with people". That is still an insane statement. The WSJ, like most news outlets, cuts out extraneous or garbled passages whenever possible. So once again, if what Trump meant was that he would have a great relationship with "Little Rocket Man", that is still an absolutely batshit crazy statement.

When I listen to the WSJ's clip, which is also the clearer clip, I only hear "I have":

http://www.wsj.com/video/disputed-audio-from-donald-trump-interview-with-wsj/33003B4D-0DA4-4760-B913-0C2CDC903E74.html

But when I listen to the WH's clip without thinking about it, I also heard "I have" but when I tried, I could alternatively hear "I'd have":

But I can't at all hear "I'd have" on the WSJ clip, even if I try.

Given how we have already seen the WH doctor transcripts, I'm actually kind of terrified to think it's possible they "enhanced" the clip they published.

Yeah I really do hear "I'd have" every time on both recordings. Could be a dress is blue or gold kind of thing. 

As for what he said. I think he was just saying that he gets along with people better than the media gives him credit for, and that he'd probably even have good relationship with Kim if it were possible. I don't really think that's an insane thing to communicate. He's saying "I'm likeable."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still miss Al Jazeera. One if the best news stations we had here while.it existed. No spin. Just the facts editorially. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, AUDub said:

I still miss Al Jazeera. One if the best news stations we had here while.it existed. No spin. Just the facts editorially. 

Yeah, I know you’re laughing because you think no network with that name could possibly be objective, FB, but I am being perfectly honest. When they cleansed themselves of the old CurrentTV editorial staff, which was Al Gore’s network, they truly were one of the least biased, agenda driven networks we had. They were what CNN wishes it could be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Yeah, I know you’re laughing because you think no network with that name could possibly be objective, FB, but I am being perfectly honest. When they cleansed themselves of the old CurrentTV editorial staff, which was Al Gore’s network, they truly were one of the least biased, agenda driven networks we had. They were what CNN wishes it could be. 

You aren't wrong.  It was very, very good journalism.  A former AU Eagle Eye staffer worked their for a while as a reporter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Barnacle said:

Isn't the debate over whether he said he has or would have a good relationship with Kim? 

He mentioned two other leaders that he has good relationships with, which would account for the "I have relationships with people." I took his comment about Kim to be anecdotal. People don't usually say "I probably have a good relationship with ______". I also hear "I'd" but that's just me. 

He does seem to get along pretty will with autocratic tyrants.  of course, they are just playing him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...