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

[alexava 6,973]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Back to the original subject, I think we can dispense with any notion that this porn star story was made up:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/stormy-daniels-sues-trump-says-hush-agreement-invalid-because-he-n854246

Yeah right. Are you new here?

[homersapien 11,362]

This is already lost in the chaos.   Trump is establishing a new norm.

[DKW 86 7,419]

1) This was the norm in DC decades ago.

2) Watching all his fundie religious supporters defend this is going to be real fun. Soon they are going to have to come to grips with just how corrupt Trump is as far as being "religious."

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

1) This was the norm in DC decades ago.

2) Watching all his fundie religious supporters defend this is going to be real fun. Soon they are going to have to come to grips with just how corrupt Trump is as far as being "religious."

But DK, he's just a "baby Christian," remember?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

I love all of the “terms” thrown out in society to describe a non-disclosure agreement. I’d consider it near malpractice not to introduce a non-disclosure doc - also serves the purpose of protecting against false allegations of rape. Very common for celeb attorneys to have these agreements for clients.

But, I guess not calling it by it’s technical term makes for better headlines and ups the ante.

I’m not advocating for the “act” itself. Just the document.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I love all of the “terms” thrown out in society to describe a non-disclosure agreement. I’d consider it near malpractice not to introduce a non-disclosure doc - also serves the purpose of protecting against false allegations of rape. Very common for celeb attorneys to have these agreements for clients.

But, I guess not calling it by it’s technical term makes for better headlines and ups the ante.

I’m not advocating for the “act” itself. Just the document.

Good Lord, Nola.  This takes excuse making to an stratospheric level.  First, we aren't just talking an NDA, we're talking about hush money.  

And it's missing the forest for the trees. The point isn't the existence of the NDA per se, it's the lying.  Lying about the affair and lying about paying someone off to keep their silence.

Then there's the subsequent moral contortionist routine Christians and social conservatives have done to overlook this behavior when in the past they loudly condemned it and pointed to it as part of the reason a candidate wasn't fit for office, wasn't the kind of person to be the leader of a nation like ours, or couldn't be trusted, etc.  Now in saying that, I'm not opening the door for another fruitless debate with you over whether most Americans use such considerations as reasons to vote or not vote for someone.  The point is simply, many of the same folks who indeed did use such criteria have suddenly become experts in shades of grey when they formerly operated mostly in black and white on the matter.

Folks aren't bringing this up to question the existence of NDAs or to suggest that Trump is unusual among celebrities in employing them.  The discussion here is about things far beyond that minuscule point.

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Many people, including me, think Ronald Reagan was a great and religious president. But he surely wasn't a saint when it came to affairs. Just read the book "Killing Reagan"

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

29 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Good Lord, Nola.  This takes excuse making to an stratospheric level.  First, we aren't just talking an NDA, we're talking about hush money.  

And it's missing the forest for the trees. The point isn't the existence of the NDA per se, it's the lying.  Lying about the affair and lying about paying someone off to keep their silence.

Then there's the subsequent moral contortionist routine Christians and social conservatives have done to overlook this behavior when in the past they loudly condemned it and pointed to it as part of the reason a candidate wasn't fit for office, wasn't the kind of person to be the leader of a nation like ours, or couldn't be trusted, etc.  Now in saying that, I'm not opening the door for another fruitless debate with you over whether most Americans use such considerations as reasons to vote or not vote for someone.  The point is simply, many of the same folks who indeed did use such criteria have suddenly become experts in shades of grey when they formerly operated mostly in black and white on the matter.

Folks aren't bringing this up to question the existence of NDAs or to suggest that Trump is unusual among celebrities in employing them.  The discussion here is about things far beyond that minuscule point.

 

BS. Good lord, Titan. Quit complaining about a the contribution to the discussion that relates to thoughts of the NDA. I give one piece of insight and you go off. Dial it the hell back. This isn't an excuse in any way, shape, or form - which i directly implied at the end of my post. I didn't respond directly to you or anyone. I gave my thoughts on the subject of an NDA. 

This isn't an invitation to debate. Your response does not speak to mine in any rationale way. It's almost as if you're trying to rebut and argument that isn't even there. 

If I were the one to bring up the fat man from Korea, like Homer did, you would've EXPLODED just like you did now. Very inconsistent, Titan. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Many people, including me, think Ronald Reagan was a great and religious president. But he surely wasn't a saint when it came to affairs. Just read the book "Killing Reagan"

"Killing Reagan" is to political junkies what romance novels are to bored housewives.  It's drivel of the highest order and to cite it as anything close to factual is laughable in the extreme.

Only focusing on the claim that Reagan had affairs, people who know him far better than O'Reilly and have done far more extensive research into his life had this to say:

Quote

Among the most scandalizing material in the book are the early sections which show Reagan to be sexually very promiscuous, a callous cad robbing young starlets of their virginity. In the book, his sexual encounters went on not only between marriages but in the early years of his marriage to Nancy — including literally as Nancy was in labor giving birth to their daughter.

In a recent interview with the Daily Caller, O’Reilly answered questions about his sources for lurid statements about Reagan’s use of women. (The book’s publisher did not respond to a request for comment for this article.)

We double-sourced everything with names. We didn’t use any blind sources at all. And it’s all in the book, in the back of the book, where it t came from. Everything is there. There really wasn’t any deniability about it. You know, Nancy mentioned it to friends. Friends wrote about it. Friends put their names on it.

But there is no citation in the back of the book. If the source for that section is in the back of the book, then it could be Kitty Kelley, because these are the kind of claims she has made. The book itself does not make the source clear. This kind of shocking material must be clearly sourced.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/16/what-bill-oreillys-new-book-on-ronald-reagan-gets-wrong-about-ronald-reagan/?postshare=7181445002710500

 

Others ripped the book as well.  I'll let you read the full articles yourself, but Will ended his scathing critique of the book with this:

Quote

This book is nonsensical history and execrable citizenship, and should come with a warning: “Caution — you are about to enter a no-facts zone.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bill-oreilly-slanders-ronald-reagan/2015/11/05/d11300d6-83e3-11e5-9afb-0c971f713d0c_story.html?utm_term=.e2d80933dd1e

And then there was this...

Quote

Annelise Anderson is a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and was an official in the Reagan administration’s Office of Management and Budget; she has co-authored and co-edited a number of books on Ronald Reagan. Given that experience, Anderson scored a gig fact-checking the Bill O’Reilly-Martin Dugard book “Killing Reagan.”

Then she saw the manuscript.

“I thought that their selection of materials was very distorting and very hard to correct,” Anderson said in an interview with the Erik Wemple Blog. As a result, Anderson pulled out of her fact-checking/manuscript reviewing arrangement. She also asked that she not be mentioned in the book’s acknowledgments.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/10/21/after-reading-manuscript-scholar-bailed-on-killing-reagan-project/

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

8 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

BS. Good lord, Titan. Quit complaining about a the contribution to the discussion that relates to thoughts of the NDA. I give one piece of insight and you go off. Dial it the hell back. This isn't an excuse in any way, shape, or form - which i directly implied at the end of my post. I didn't respond directly to you or anyone. I gave my thoughts on the subject of an NDA. 

First of all, you don't get to tell me or frankly anyone else here when to dial it back.  And even if you did, I have nothing to dial back from.  I just get tired of you taking threads on rabbit trails that are meaningless and serve only to minimize the central issue or distract from it.  

I mean, your thoughts on NDAs are noted but no one is talking about them or their validity in certain circumstances.  

 

8 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

This isn't an invitation to debate. Your response does not speak to mine in any rationale way. It's almost as if you're trying to rebut and argument that isn't even there. 

I'm calling out an annoying habit that needs to cease or at least become far less prevalent in your interactions.

If you wish to discuss this further, this thread won't be the place for it.  You know how to PM me.  But we aren't going to add three pages of debate over this irrelevant point to this discussion.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

First of all, you don't get to tell me or frankly anyone else here when to dial it back.  And even if you did, I have nothing to dial back from.  I just get tired of you taking threads on rabbit trails that are meaningless and serve only to minimize the central issue or distract from it.  

I mean, your thoughts on NDAs are noted but no one is talking about them or their validity in certain circumstances.  

 

I'm calling out an annoying habit that needs to cease or at least become far less prevalent in your interactions.

If you wish to discuss this further, this thread won't be the place for it.  You know how to PM me.  But we aren't going to add three pages of debate over this irrelevant point to this discussion.

Wow. I didn't invite anyone to respond nor did I respond to anyone. 

Next time I'll mention Putin or Kim (which has already been mentioned in this thread). Maybe it will fit in better to the discussion. 

That is all.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Wow. I didn't invite anyone to respond nor did I respond to anyone. 

You're on a public message board.  Posting to a thread here implies by the very act of posting an invitation to respond.  If you want to post your random thoughts without comment or critique, start a blog.

Moving on.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

You're on a public message board.  Posting to a thread here implies by the very act of posting an invitation to respond.  If you want to post your random thoughts without comment or critique, start a blog.

Moving on.

 

 

The response I reasonably expected to my neutral comment was more civil than the one I received. 

Cheers, Titan. WDE

[alexava 6,973]

Ok, so now conservatives are using Ronald Reagan's actions ( or inactions) to justify trump's sickness. ( or alleged sickness). I hope Bill Clinton can see this thread. ?

[Grumps 3,704]

So, Trump is STILL a scumbag. Apparently it is STILL news. It makes no sense screaming about what we already know, but you all can keep screaming anyway! I'll try to act surprised when someone else offers proof that Trump has a sordid past. I just hope his behavior continues to be better while he is in office.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

I’d want her to hush too lol

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, alexava said:

Ok, so now conservatives are using Ronald Reagan's actions ( or inactions) to justify trump's sickness. ( or alleged sickness). I hope Bill Clinton can see this thread. ?

We judge Presidents by their predecessors 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

59 minutes ago, Grumps said:

So, Trump is STILL a scumbag. Apparently it is STILL news. It makes no sense screaming about what we already know, but you all can keep screaming anyway! I'll try to act surprised when someone else offers proof that Trump has a sordid past. I just hope his behavior continues to be better while he is in office.

Well, it would be nice if more people would just admit that's what he is and they really don't give a s*** about personal character or behavior befitting a leader.  But we still have Christians running around the talking head shows on TV trying to minimize or rationalize what he says or does.  It would actually be refreshing if they'd just say, "I honestly don't give a crap if he's gangbanging hookers every weekend as long as he gives me conservative SCOTUS justices."

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

So, Trump is STILL a scumbag. Apparently it is STILL news. It makes no sense screaming about what we already know, but you all can keep screaming anyway! I'll try to act surprised when someone else offers proof that Trump has a sordid past. I just hope his behavior continues to be better while he is in office.

Well it may be a bigger problem than him being just a scumbag.  There are a couple of former prosecutors out there that believe paying hush money could constitute a violation of Federal Election Law.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/stormy-daniels-lawsuit-raises-election-law-questions-for-trump/ar-BBJYNiF?ocid=spartanntp

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

57 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Well it may be a bigger problem than him being just a scumbag.  There are a couple of former prosecutors out there that believe paying hush money could constitute a violation of Federal Election Law.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/stormy-daniels-lawsuit-raises-election-law-questions-for-trump/ar-BBJYNiF?ocid=spartanntp

The country is full of people who would do anything to bring Trump down. No way it's going to happen but if it they get their jollies from hoping so be it.

 

57 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Well it may be a bigger problem than him being just a scumbag.  There are a couple of former prosecutors out there that believe paying hush money could constitute a violation of Federal Election Law.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/stormy-daniels-lawsuit-raises-election-law-questions-for-trump/ar-BBJYNiF?ocid=spartanntp

The country is full of people who would do anything to bring Trump down. No way it's going to happen but if it they get their jollies from hoping so be it. To bad they will have to live with their hate for a long time.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Well, it would be nice if more people would just admit that's what he is and they really don't give a s*** about personal character or behavior befitting a leader.  But we still have Christians running around the talking head shows on TV trying to minimize or rationalize what he says or does.  It would actually be refreshing if they'd just say, "I honestly don't give a crap if he's gangbanging hookers every weekend as long as he gives me conservative SCOTUS justices."

Quite an exaggeration.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

"Killing Reagan" is to political junkies what romance novels are to bored housewives.  It's drivel of the highest order and to cite it as anything close to factual is laughable in the extreme.

Only focusing on the claim that Reagan had affairs, people who know him far better than O'Reilly and have done far more extensive research into his life had this to say:

One thing fore sure.......it is highly doubtful Reagan could get elected today if the media was the sharks they are today.

 

 

To each his own opinion but I for sure disagree. Why would a conservative like O'Reilly, who openly expresses admiration for Reagan, allow Dugard to publish falsehoods? There is an extensive index of references in the book. I checked a few and never found one inaccurate.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

24 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

To each his own opinion but I for sure disagree. Why would a conservative like O'Reilly, who openly expresses admiration for Reagan, allow Dugard to publish falsehoods? There is an extensive index of references in the book. I checked a few and never found one inaccurate.

It's not a matter of opinion.  There's literally zero evidence of it.  No respected historian on Reagan's life says it's true and O'Reilly himself gives zero citations showing anything that corroborates it.  It's literally pulling something out of one's ass to sell books.  As was pointed out in my earlier post on this subject:

But there is no citation in the back of the book. If the source for that section is in the back of the book, then it could be Kitty Kelley, because these are the kind of claims she has made. The book itself does not make the source clear. This kind of shocking material must be clearly sourced.

There are people who have actual credentials, experience and years of study on Reagan's life who say otherwise.  I'll go with them over O'Reilly every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Well, it would be nice if more people would just admit that's what he is and they really don't give a s*** about personal character or behavior befitting a leader.  But we still have Christians running around the talking head shows on TV trying to minimize or rationalize what he says or does.  It would actually be refreshing if they'd just say, "I honestly don't give a crap if he's gangbanging hookers every weekend as long as he gives me conservative SCOTUS justices."

OK, let me refresh you. I'm a Christian and "I honestly don't give a crap if he's gangbanging hookers every weekend as long as he gives me conservative SCOTUS justices." What he does privately is between him and God. We didn't elect him as pope but as President. A conservative justice is way more important to me than Trump's moral compass.  Gorsuch will have a big impact on SCOTUS decisions long after Trump leaves the WH and hopefully prevent liberals from destroying America.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

OK, let me refresh you. I'm a Christian and "I honestly don't give a crap if he's gangbanging hookers every weekend as long as he gives me conservative SCOTUS justices." What he does privately is between him and God. We didn't elect him as pope but as President. A conservative justice is way more important to me than Trump's moral compass.  Gorsuch will have a big impact on SCOTUS decisions long after Trump leaves the WH and hopefully prevent liberals from destroying America.

I'm bookmarking this for any time you bring up Bill Clinton again and his marital transgressions.