AUDub

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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:

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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:

 

Share this post


Link to post
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... 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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."

Edited by Barnacle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Farmer Brown said:

I don't believe the WSJ is worthy of any kind of veneration, whatever definition that you may choose, in its context. Journalism is dead in this country. It is all agenda driven, including Fox News. Liberals tend to believe whatever fits their agenda, and view themselves superior, intellectually, to anyone who doesn't agree with them. That has been my experience in 46 years of dealing with people. From all of your posts, you tend to lean in that direction, and that is okay with me. We can disagree, agreeably.


Think of me what you will, but I freely identify as somewhat more libertarian than anything (socially liberal, fiscally middle/conservative).  I do consider myself as somewhat of an intellectual, and if that comes across as superiority, so be it.  I welcome all viewpoints and debate.  I also want and expect those viewpoints to be well researched from good, smart sources.  This was drilled into me by my professors at Auburn.

However, you should know that I highly value good journalism as I worked in the field starting at the age of 15, through college, and stayed in media for several years after.  Still have friends that work in the field every day.  WSJ is about as good as it gets with regards to fact-based journalism.  Them, the AP, Reuters, and a few others are extremely good at their professions.  Just got of a cruise ship as well and watched a lot of CNN International.  The difference between that channel and standard CNN is striking.  I would watch CNN International all day if I could because it's informative and very well done.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now