BrianBM

Kavanaugh vs. Stormy Daniels

64 posts in this topic

The first actions at law against the President to reach the higher courts, including the Supreme Court, are going to be the one brought by Stormy Daniels, and the one brought by some other former gropee (name forgotten) who was not encumbered by a confidentiality agreement. Assuming arguendo that Kavanaugh is confirmed (I think he will be) there is an interesting problem, lying in wait for Justice Kavanaugh.

 

During his time with Ken Starr, he wrote that one of the grounds on which President Clinton could be impeached was his lying to the public about sex with Monica Lewinsky. Not lying under oath, not lying to Federal investigators, just lying to the public. Thereafter, later in life, he's developed doubts that a President should be subject to any criminal or civil proceeding while in office, because it induces a paralysis of policy making at the highest level of government. That's a get-out-of-jail (so to speak) card that President Trump may need; that's why President Trump selected him, IMHO. 

 

The President initially denied any sexual relationship with Stormy. Thereafter, I think he's conceded the fact of the hush money payment. I DON'T know if the President has conceded that he got it on with Stormy, merely that he paid money so that she wouldn't talk about the sex that he may or may not have admitted having with her. (Anyone know for sure?)  

 

So, he was lying about that. This is one of those things where Michael Cohen could probably do him some injury. There's no reason to think that Stormy and Karen McDougal are the only women he rented.

 

What's the consensus of the Board as to what the Supreme Court should do, if the first case against President Trump personally is Daniels vs. Trump?  (I forget her real name.)  Kavanaugh will probably recuse himself. He's going to get a lot of questions about his change of heart on matters pertaining to Presidential immunity. However, what should the Court do. How would you like to see it rule, and on what basis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would Daniel's vs trump be a court case? I still cant even figure that out.  How does a porn star who takes a pile of cash for sex suffer defamation.  What are the damages?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JimG said:

Why would Daniel's vs trump be a court case? I still cant even figure that out.  How does a porn star who takes a pile of cash for sex suffer defamation.  What are the damages?  

Exactly. And going all the way to the Supreme Court? No way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stormy was scheduled to perform at a strip club in DC the night of the SC announcement, reports are her show was not sold out as many may have stayed away to watch announcement. If that is the case, Trump has won Round One by his use of Kavanaugh as a counter weight to  Stormy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What's the consensus of the Board as to what the Supreme Court should do"?

 

A-B-O-U-T  W-H-A-T  ?  :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

9 hours ago, BrianBM said:

 

 

Kavanaugh will probably recuse himself. He's going to get a lot of questions about his change of heart on matters pertaining to Presidential immunity. However, what should the Court do. How would you like to see it rule, and on what basis?

 

So what exactly is the context, you know, the full deal, that BK wrote in the Misseosta Law Review waaaay back in 2009? 2009, several lifetimes ago given how the politics have changed.

 

This is the bit that has the deranged Left screaming about conspiracy theories:

I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. . . But I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office.

So after his experience with the Ken Starr team, BK thought presidents should be allowed to focus in the business of running the state, maybe, "should".

 

But wait a minute, what if you actually continued reading the article and didn’t stop where the Media wants you to stop? 

Congress is free to provide a temporary deferral of civil suits while the President is in office. Congress may be wise to do so, just as it has done for certain members of the military. Deferral would allow the President to focus on the vital duties he was elected to perform.

Congress should consider doing the same, moreover, with respect to criminal investigations and prosecutions of the President. In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel.

So you get that? BK never mentions the SC and suggests, in the bit the conspiracists want you to not consider, that it’s Congress’s job to determine whether or not to exempt a President from prosecution. 

 

And has the the current Congress even discussed anything about settling this? Done anything prophylactically? No, but they could if a case if brought, right? 

 

Abd again, does Kavanaugh mention the SC as the center of this? No, yet, Congressional Democrats (and Mully) use these writings to concoct a conspiracy theory.

 

So like elections, "context matters". 

 

Over to you Mully.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by tomkaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually agree that a sitting president should not have to deal with lawsuits while in office...if the president has committed a crime while in office, the legal mechanism in place is impeachment by Congress...I didn't think Clinton should've had to deal with Paula Jones or Lewinsky issues while Prez, I don't think Trump should have to deal with some porn star ho trying to get out of an NDA either...

and zero point zero cHance that the Daniels case makes it to within a mile of SCOTUS...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 mins ago, LBI SurfRat said:

Wow. Lol. Stormy and surpreme court in the same sentence.  Lol. 

 

WOW. LOL

 

 

That was my first thought too. Mully has sunken to a new low. 

He reminds me of Dr Phil. At one time people listened and gave credence to his opinions. 

Lately, he's been reduced to another version of Jerry Springer. That's our BM.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how Trump/Daniels and Clinton/Lewinsky are comparable. Only someone with no ability to reason could come to this conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 mins ago, swnoel said:

Not sure how Trump/Daniels and Clinton/Lewinsky are comparable. Only someone with no ability to reason could come to this conclusion.

They aren't. Not even close. Not even  in the same hemisphere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's gonna need a new lawyer when Avenati runs for office. 

 

That's his ambition.  We all know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that LEO and internet investigateurs should be spending more time ferreting out Russians and less time with Stormy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw a news article that stormy Daniel's is coming to a strip club in jersey and the club is accepting reservations in advance.  

 

Sounds like her reputation has done the opposite of defamation.

 

I dont recall the last time a strippers scheduled pole dance made the news.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.