What's ''Stormy Daniels'' about?

[StringJunky]

What's the view like from the US side? Why is her lawyer dragging up payments made to Trump's lawyer by various companies? She seems to be making a career out of it all.

[CharonY]

On the one hand it is the usual yuck factor of someone having an affair in the public space, especially if there are multiple allegations. Even worse, Trump seems to trip himself up in multiple lies, which, for any other politician would be an issue. it is also a story of the abuse of power.

However, none of these is actual the important bit. In the US campaign contributions are limited to a certain amount (~$2700, IIRC). Now if lawyer paid her off specifically to protect Trump's campaign, it could be seen as an in-kind contribution which violates these laws. The FBI raid was aimed at whether campaign finance as well as wire transfer laws were violated. 

On top of that recent findings indicate that Cohen had access to funds provided from various sources, including Russian (and note, they were not his clients). So one rather ugly scenario is that these contributions from foreign powers could have been used for the Trump campaign to silence potential salacious stories prior to election. And if that was the case, it would directly be in the sights of the collusion investigation.

Whether Daniels and her lawyer profit from that is at this point secondary at best.

[iNow]

There the obvious reality tv aspect. President of US has affair w porn star and pays her off to keep quiet. It’s like tabloid catnip. 

Beyond that, however, is the more serious issue of this being an illegal campaign contribution. While US elections are flooded w money, there are giant loopholes and Super PACs legitimized by section 501(c)4, and our next president may just as well be a giant pile of cash on a wooden pallet, there are in fact rules about who can contribute to a campaign and how much they can contribute. 

If the lawyer paid off the porn star to stay silent, it could be considered an illegal campaign contribution and could put the president in legal jeopardy. If he clearly broke a law, it gives further momentum to his political enemies who would like to see him removed from office. It also happens to shine more light on just how blatantly he and his team lie to us citizens. 

EDIT: x-posted w Charon 

[StringJunky]

Thanks to you both. I see now. Couldn't Trump have just shut her up with his own money or would that have fallen foul of the rules as well?

18 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Whether Daniels and her lawyer profit from that is at this point secondary at best.

I thought this was their primary motive. My  impression up to now was that she was attempting to capitalize  on notoriety.

[CharonY]

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Thanks to you both. I see now. Couldn't Trump have just shut her up with his own money or would that have fallen foul of the rules as well?

If Trump did pay it off out of pocket in order to avoid a scandal prior to the election, he could have done so. But he would have ahd to report it. The only scenario where it would be not in violation would be if the hush money was totally independent of the the campaign. But various statements by Trump and his people (most recently Giuliani) cast doubt on that scenario.

 

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I thought this was their primary motive. My  impression up to now was that she was attempting to capitalize  on notoriety.

For the investigation her motives are of no relevance. Also it is not necessarily clear how much she benefits from it, especially as she likely incurs significant legal costs. There is also the allegation that she was threatened to keep her mouth shut, so there may be other motives at play, too.

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

If Trump did pay it off out of pocket in order to avoid a scandal prior to the election, he could have done so. But he would have ahd to report it. The only scenario where it would be not in violation would be if the hush money was totally independent of the the campaign. But various statements by Trump and his people (most recently Giuliani) cast doubt on that scenario.

 

For the investigation her motives are of no relevance. Also it is not necessarily clear how much she benefits from it, especially as she likely incurs significant legal costs. There is also the allegation that she was threatened to keep her mouth shut, so there may be other motives at play, too.

Yes, of course.  I just read she's crowdfunding solely for her legal costs. Also, she has a strip tour going called "Make America Horny Again".  So, her motives are in several places it seems. 

[iNow]

The real hypocrisy that just boggles my mind in all this is how unwavering the vast numbers of evangelicals have become in their steady support of him despite his philandering and lack of scruples and willingness to torpedo programs for children and those in poverty, while in the next breath claiming Obama was the antichrist. 

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

The real hypocrisy that just boggles my mind in all this is how unwavering the vast numbers of evangelicals have become in their steady support of him despite his philandering and lack of scruples and willingness to torpedo programs for children and those in poverty, while in the next breath claiming Obama was the antichrist. 

The difference between Daniels and Trump is that with the former  WYSIWYG.  I can't pull her down for that. By the time Trump exits, I think we'll have seen it all. I wouldn't be surprised if the US enacts new laws to trim the powers of the president or put independent oversight in places.

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

I wouldn't be surprised if the US enacts new laws to trim the powers of the president or put independent oversight in places.

 

I'd be extremely surprised if that was the case.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

The real hypocrisy that just boggles my mind in all this is how unwavering the vast numbers of evangelicals have become in their steady support of him despite his philandering and lack of scruples and willingness to torpedo programs for children and those in poverty, while in the next breath claiming Obama was the antichrist. 

Do you think they'd have started out differently aligned with him if the original In Touch magazine interview with Stormy Daniels from 2011 had been published and available to his opponents in the primaries? The evangelicals are doubling down rather than admit to a mistake, but I don't think Trump could have questioned Ted Cruz' faith due to lies and dishonesty if Trump himself was suspected of doing porn stars a few months after his son is born.

[StringJunky]

28 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I'd be extremely surprised if that was the case.

Why?

[Raider5678]

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Why?

Which side would want to take power away from the president?

 

Edit: To clarify, since Bill Clinton has been in office, each president afterward has used more and more of what's called "executive power".(Also to clarify, Bill Clinton didn't start this trend. It's just where it picked up)

Executive power is where the president can pass rules, change policy, etc, without passing it through Congress. Essentially political bulldozing. 

For the most part, it's been limited for the majority of the United States history, until a few decades ago where an uptick in usage started to cause more controversy.

When Obama entered the office, he was very cautious about using executive power. He saw it as wrong because it bypassed several things, and he didn't see it as very "democratic"(not as in the party). He went on to pass more executive orders than any other president in history.

Trump is poised to do the same. He entered office talking big about how bad it is.......and now he's doing the same thing Obama did.

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Raider5678

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Which side would want to take power away from the president?

I think it will be bipartisan if the final mess is damaging enough for everyone. This ain't no normal presidency.

[Phi for All]

9 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Which side would want to take power away from the president?

There's the problem in a nutcase. We shouldn't have one side shielding possible criminal activity from investigation while the other side wants accountability.

[Raider5678]

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

This ain't no normal presidency.

What about it isn't normal?

 

I know I'm just a kid who can't possibly know anything. However. I do come from a strong Republican area. And I know you don't put much credit in Republicans.

However, the same things Democrats are saying about Trump now, about how he's too powerful and they need to take power away, was said about Obama as well.

Both sides think the president has too much power when he's on the opposite team. When he's on their team, however, suddenly he doesn't have enough power.

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

There's the problem in a nutcase. We shouldn't have one side shielding possible criminal activity from investigation while the other side wants accountability.

I find this laughable.

Both sides are shielding possible criminal activity from the investigation.

Congress voted unanimously from both parties in both house and senate in 2013 to repeal legislation that'd hold Congress accountable.

Additionally, as soon as an investigation is launched into congress, they also unanimously move to say that the investigation is illegal.

 

The shielding you're talking about is just partisan fighting. It's just Democrats vs Republicans.

The real battle? It's Democracy vs Political Parties.

Both sides do it. It's not one side always being innocent and wanting accountability and the other side just corrupt pigs who are hiding things.

Both sides are corrupt. Both sides are hiding things. Both sides will never be convicted because it's all show.

They make accusations(almost all of them are true) but they never convict them. As soon as they do that, it would set off a chain reaction and they'd all be in prison.

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Raider5678

[Phi for All]

10 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

What about it isn't normal?

Class used to be more important than status in the Presidency.

Sophistication more than snobbery.

Integrity more than ratings.

Compassion more than crudity.

Intelligence more than intuition.

Sensitivity more than sensationalism.

We used to have leaders instead of commanders.

And if we paid in more than other countries, well, we also got to sit at the head of the table, almost always. It seems like that's going to be one of the biggest casualties, giving away power for nothing to countries like Russia and China, who anyone with a brain can see are poised to take maximum advantage from our mistakes.

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

Class used to be more important than status in the Presidency.

Sophistication more than snobbery.

Compassion more than crudity.

Sensitivity more than sensationalism.

We used to have leaders instead of commanders.

And if we paid in more than other countries, well, we also got to sit at the head of the table, almost always. It seems like that's going to be one of the biggest casualties, giving away power for nothing to countries like Russia and China, who anyone with a brain can see are poised to take maximum advantage from our mistakes.

 

You know, that sounds familiar......

Oh yeah. I listened to it for 8 years from the Republicans moaning and groaning about Obama......

[Phi for All]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

You know, that sounds familiar......

Oh yeah. I listened to it for 8 years from the Republicans moaning and groaning about Obama......

Wow, so you really think Trump has more class than Obama? That Obama was crude or lacked compassion? I guess they really hated Obama on FOXNews. Such a shame, I really weep for this country.

[Raider5678]

Just now, Phi for All said:

Wow, so you really think Trump has more class than Obama? That Obama was crude or lacked compassion? I guess they really hated Obama on FOXNews. Such a shame, I really weep for this country.

No, I don't.

However, exchange some of the adjectives with others, and you'll get the same moaning and begrudging.

You missed the point. Point is, whenever the president isn't who someone wanted, they're always "the worst president ever" "gonna ruin everything" "never gonna be the same" "worlds gonna end" "gonna sell us out to X" 

And guess what. It turns out to be political rhetoric. As always. Because it's just two parties fighting about what's actually true: Lie #1 or Lie #2.

Meanwhile, truth get's lost in the background.

[CharonY]

52 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

He went on to pass more executive orders than any other president in history.

Where the heck do you get your info. There were quite a few news articles that have investigated that particular talking point. Obama is around 16th in terms of numbers of total executive orders and is ranked even lower if one takes the years in office into account. Perhaps unsurprisingly FDR signed the most orders (ca. 10x the amount of Obama). Among the Presidents from more recent years Reagan, Clinton, Nixon, Carter and Bush signed more orders than Obama.

[DrP]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

Where the heck do you get your info.

Fox News probably.  I quote "misleading people is always wrong"!  

[swansont]

10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

What's the view like from the US side? Why is her lawyer dragging up payments made to Trump's lawyer by various companies? She seems to be making a career out of it all.

Her lawyer can't be fired by the president or directly hampered by congressional action, which makes this important.

I imagine that bringing up payments is evidence of the president lying, which supports a defamation suit in some way.

6 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

No, I don't.

However, exchange some of the adjectives with others, and you'll get the same moaning and begrudging.

You missed the point. Point is, whenever the president isn't who someone wanted, they're always "the worst president ever" "gonna ruin everything" "never gonna be the same" "worlds gonna end" "gonna sell us out to X" 

And guess what. It turns out to be political rhetoric. As always. Because it's just two parties fighting about what's actually true: Lie #1 or Lie #2.

Meanwhile, truth get's lost in the background.

Well, then, let's look at the truth. Look at facts, and not rhetoric.

Let's take "gonna sell us out to X." Who did Obama sell us out to? Because something we know is that Russia interfered in our recent elections and Trump has taken no real action to punish them, or to protect us from further interference.

 

 

[Ten oz]

CharonY has outlined the simplest legal issues regarding the Stormy Daniels case but there is also an ongoing pattern of lies, hypocrisy, and projection which is worth addressing. Let's not forget that the fact that to divert attention from his own "grab them by the pussy" comment Trump brought former Bill Clinton mistresses to a presidential debate. The temerity and utter lack of shame to do such while at the same time paying off pron stars, door men, playmates, and etc is deplorable (to use an accurate description from the Clinton campaign). During the campaign Trump mocked Hillary Clinton's health, questioned her fitness for the job, while at the same time Trump released his own fraudulent bill of health. The Clinton campaign was accused of pay for play (money for access) in relation to their charity work that provided HIV medication to impoverished children yet in recent days we have come to learn Trump's personal lawyer (the guy who claim to have paid Stormy Daniels out of pocket) has been receiving money from AT&T, pharmaceutical company Novartis, and a Russian Oligarch for "insights" into the administration.  There is a clear ongoing pattern. Trump lies excessively, accuses others of what he himself is doing, and has no respect for ethics or laws. The Stormy Daniels situation matters because it isn't an exception but appears to be the rule. Anything Trump bothers to deny wind up to be true and anything he accuses others of seems to be the minimum we can expect from him. 

Quote

 

Donald Trump's former doctor has said he did not write a 2015 letter declaring the then-Republican presidential candidate's "astonishingly excellent" health, US media report.

"[Mr Trump] dictated that whole letter," Harold Bornstein told CNN.

The White House has not yet commented on the physician's allegation.

Mr Bornstein also said that Mr Trump's bodyguard had carried out a "raid" on his offices in February 2017, removing all of Mr Trump's medical records

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43970908

 

Quote

 

President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, contacted the drug giant Novartis after the 2016 election "promising access" to the new administration, and special counsel Robert Mueller later requested information from the company about the offer, a senior official inside Novartis told NBC News on Wednesday.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/stormy-lawyer-transactions-suggest-cohen-was-selling-access-trump-n872731

 

Quote

 

AT&T told employees Wednesday in a memo that it had hired Cohen as one of several consultants to "help us understand how the President and his administration might approach a wide range of policy issues important to the company, including regulatory reform at the FCC, corporate tax reform and antitrust enforcement."

AT&T is trying to buy media conglomerate Time Warner for $85 billion. The Justice Department opposes the deal on antitrust grounds, and now the companies are awaiting a verdict from a federal judge.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/09/att-paid-trump-lawyer-cohen-up-to-6000000.html

 

 

 

 

[iNow]

10 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I'd be extremely surprised if that was the case.

Your incredulity, is it really relevant here? Executive powers we significantly reduced after all of the Nixon shenanigans, too.

10 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Do you think they'd have started out differently aligned with him if the original In Touch magazine interview with Stormy Daniels from 2011 had been published and available to his opponents in the primaries?

Hard to say. They're clearly taking an "ends justify the means" approach, but much more so evangelicals seem much more vulnerable to tribal rigidity. I don't so much believe they're thinking through their positions, and instead feel this is more about protecting someone "on their side." 

It is, after all, what Jesus would've done. 

[swansont]

At the very least, two examples of norms that were not followed: disclosure of tax returns and possibly an independent health exam might be written into law.

Also I wouldn't be surprised if the legal wording against family members serving active roles in the WH was strengthened.

None of that weakens any legitimate presidential power, and none of them would seem to be partisan.