whats the over/under on affairs

[hollodero]

(02-16-2018, 06:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What you're missing is that the United States tends towards wanting moral authorities for their leaders. Divorce among the elite is still, for the most part, seen as a failing. Trump is only the second president to have been divorced and even though we know plenty about extramarital dalliances for others it is something that the American public has typically been rather unhappy about. I think Clinton's escapades may have changed that, some. This is just the first time that American prudishness has been tested in this way since then because of the strong marriages of Bush 43 and Obama.

Hm OK. I guess from what I see (which of course is not nearly the whole picture, only small slices) this ship has also sailed. It was already tough for Democrats to point at Republicans after Clinton, it's even tougher for Republicans now after Trump to point at Democrats, and I figure these are the more likely ones to point fingers to begin with, but as I said, I'd say that has to be pretty much done for good. Times sure were different in the past, but times change, will change further and marriages will get opener and opener, whether that's disclosed or not and whether people approve of that or not. There's nothing stopping that, I believe.

(02-16-2018, 06:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I will say this, though, about infidelity claims among elected officials. If it is done behind the back of the spouse, without their knowledge and permission, then I do see it as problematic. It shows that there is a lack of loyalty in place. I don't have a problem if someone comes out and says they have an open relationship or what have you, but if your marital institution is not agreed upon in that way, then you are being disloyal to your partner. If you are willing to be disloyal to your partner, why should we believe you would be loyal to the people you have been elected to serve?

I get this reasons why one would care personally,. Then again, I have no idea what Trump and his spouse agreed upon in private, maybe fidelity was never a part of the marriage deal to begin with. Since I'm almost always in that position of not knowing I decided not to care too much - fueled by my belief that indeed private life and public life are two very different things and what drives a person in private to things like infidelity doesn't necessarily have an impact on professional/jobwise conduct. I'd go as far as to say it shouldn't count for much either, but sure that's just me. I get why one might have a different viewpoint on that.

Things are different when politicians drag out their wifes in public to emphasize an apology attempt or things like these. Thinking of it, I might agree (although that's tricky in its own way) that an open marriage arrangement should be disclosed, so the spouse doesn't appear humiliated. Melania pretty much looks humiliated at this point and that's not a good thing and it's on grabby Donald. With Trump it's difficult for me because I loathe that man so deeply on so many levels that I really can't tell how much this particular instance adds to that. His way of handling his spouse and women in general doesn't appear noble for sure, but on this I agree with those that say well people knew that about him from the beginning and he was elected anyways. So how much do Americans really care about moral authority and all that?

[ballsofsteel]

Drumph's base, red necks and evangelicals don't care. He admitted on air that he is a sexual predator and is proud of it.

[Griever]

(02-16-2018, 02:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There's a population that cares what consenting adults do in their bedrooms.

and that would be republicans, for some reason

[GMDino]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/06/porn-star-stormy-daniels-files-lawsuit-against-trump-alleging-hush-agreement-invalid/401768002/

Quote:Porn star Stormy Daniels files lawsuit against Trump, alleging 'hush' agreement invalid

Stormy Daniels is back in the spotlight, and now she's saying President Donald Trump's personal lawyer broke their nondisclosure agreement. Veuer's Sam Berman has the full story. Buzz60



(Photo: Dan MacMedan, USA TODAY)

CONNECTTWEETLINKEDIN 20COMMENTEMAILMORE
The adult film star who allegedly had a sexual relationship with Donald Trump is suing the president, alleging the "hush" agreement that silenced the story was invalid. 

Stormy Daniels filed a civil lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court, contending that the non-disclosure agreement she signed was invalid because Trump never signed it. 

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, and Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, signed the agreement on Oct. 28, 2016, 11 days before the election. 

More: Alleged $150K payoff to Trump accuser, ex-Playboy model Karen McDougal: Was it illegal?
More: President Trump's lawyer leaves a string of questions about the porn star and Trump

The lawsuit, first reported by NBC News, is the first time Daniels has openly admitted to having a "hush" agreement to cover up her relationship with Trump, which she says lasted from 2006 to 2007, according to the lawsuit. 

Neither Cohen nor White House officials immediately responded to requests for comments about the lawsuit Tuesday evening.

In the lawsuit, filed by Los Angeles attorney Michael Avenatti, Daniels argues that because the agreement is invalid, she's under no obligation to remain silent. But the lawsuit says attempts to "intimidate" her "into silence and 'shut her up' in order to 'protect Mr. Trump' continue unabated."

As recently as Feb. 27 of this year, Cohen began "a bogus arbitration proceeding" against Daniels in Los Angeles to keep her quiet, the lawsuit argues. The agreement, attached as an an exhibit to the lawsuit, specifies arbitration as a way to resolve disputes.

Quote:[/url]Michael Avenatti@MichaelAvenatti

Earlier today, we filed this complaint seeking a ct order voiding the alleged “hush” agreement between our client S. Clifford aka Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ocvnkwprbs7enje/Filed%20Complaint.pdf?dl=0 …
7:49 PM - Mar 6, 2018

[url=https://t.co/upa9u10MqR]Filed Complaint.pdf
Shared with Dropbox
dropbox.com

Last month, Cohen admitted to paying Daniels $130,000 but did not say what the payment was for. He said he used his personal funds to "facilitate" the payment and was not reimbursed by the Trump campaign or the Trump Organization. 

The Wall Street Journal reported in January that Cohen arranged the payment with Daniels to keep her from publicly discussing the alleged sexual encounter during the presidential campaign.

After the report, In Touch published a 2011 interview with Daniels in which she claimed she and Trump had a sexual encounter after meeting at a golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, Nev., a year after his marriage to Melania Trump, his third wife.

In the lawsuit filed Tuesday, Daniels argues that Trump likely knows about Cohen's ongoing attempts to silence her because the rules of the New York Bar Association, of which Cohen is a member, require that he keep his client informed of his activities.

"It strains credulity to conclude that Mr. Cohen is acting of his own accord without the express approval and knowledge of his client Mr. Trump," the lawsuit adds

The lawsuit against the president from a former porn star comes amid days of upheaval and staff departures in the Trump White House.

Last week, communications director Hope Hicks, a trusted aide, announced her departure. On Tuesday, White House economic adviser Gary Cohn announced his resignation after a fierce debate with Trump over the president's plan to impose tariffs on foreign-made steel and aluminum.

Read the lawsuit here:

 

[Dill]

(02-16-2018, 06:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, that ship has sailed hasn't it.
---

  Boy howdy.

(02-16-2018, 06:10 PM)holloder0 Wrote: @topic I feel no one should care about any number of affairs as long as they don't impact the performance as a politician in any way. Which wasn't the case for Clinton (there were real impacts in efforts to deflect from Lewinsky, the world could see that), and which might not be the case for Trump if hush money was paid with campaign means.

When there's actual hypocrisy that's something sure worth mentioning, but one couldn't say that about Trump directly. One knew he was quite lewd beforehand.

Hey, we aren't the French. 

In most situations I too don't care what people do in their personal life if it isn't illegal and abusive. 

But the president is considered (or used to be) a role model children should respect, someone supposed to exercise good judgment and exhibit integrity.  (Recall he flap over Trump's speech to the Boy Scouts?)

So a horn dog for president is a serious problem.  It means he takes unnecessary risks, is disloyal to his life partner, can't judge possible repercussions of his actions very well.

And finally, the private life of public officials, most especially the president, is a national security concern.

Whatabout Clinton? Your note on the dysfunction of his presidency buttresses my case. And think of the grief he brought on Hillary, Chelsea, and his party. Trump couldn't learn from another's mistake? Voters could not see the risk of a repeat? 

LOL what would destroy any other president is now so trivial, given the many more serious consequences of the Trump presidency.  But even with the double standard for Trump, people should be able to see how bad personal behavior harms the office and "brand" America.

[hollodero]

(03-07-2018, 07:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Hey, we aren't the French. 

In most situations I too don't care what people do in their personal life if it isn't illegal and abusive. 

But the president is considered (or used to be) a role model children should respect, someone supposed to exercise good judgment and exhibit integrity.  (Recall he flap over Trump's speech to the Boy Scouts?)

So a horn dog for president is a serious problem.  It means he takes unnecessary risks, is disloyal to his life partner, can't judge possible repercussions of his actions very well.

And finally, the private life of public officials, most especially the president, is a national security concern.

Whatabout Clinton? Your note on the dysfunction of his presidency buttresses my case. And think of the grief he brought on Hillary, Chelsea, and his party. Trump couldn't learn from another's mistake? Voters could not see the risk of a repeat? 

LOL what would destroy any other president is now so trivial, given the many more serious consequences of the Trump presidency.  But even with the double standard for Trump, people should be able to see how bad personal behavior harms the office and "brand" America.

Yeah ok. Trump doesn't count to counter me. I wondered if expecting morals in form of strict monogamy from a president takes it too far and that there's a case to be made that he should not be seen as that flawless role model to begin with. I added a thousand words to that. I mean, it's more of a thought than a stance. I get what you're saying, these are fair points.
By that I did in no way mean that it's no one's business when a president whores around without filter, spews lewd comments, walks into girls' locker rooms, harasses multiple women and brags about grabbing them them by the  :andy:. I'd be willing to accept personal life choices, doesn't mean I'm willing to accept all that in a president. Of course not.

As for Clinton, of course he should not get a   from an intern in the oval office. And all his affairs were really a bit much. With the dysfunction following, that I see of course as his fault first and foremost, but partly also caused by a public being overly interested in every shrewd little detail, and a bit less attention would have caused a little less dysfunction. But that doesn't mean that I think Clinton's deeds were ok for a president. They weren't for me.

[Dill]

(03-07-2018, 07:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah ok. Trump doesn't count to counter me. I wondered if expecting morals in form of strict monogamy from a president takes it too far and that there's a case to be made that he should not be seen as that flawless role model to begin with. I added a thousand words to that. I mean, it's more of a thought than a stance. I get what you're saying, these are fair points.
By that I did in no way mean that it's no one's business when a president whores around without filter, spews lewd comments, walks into girls' locker rooms, harasses multiple women and brags about grabbing them them by the  :andy:. I'd be willing to accept personal life choices, doesn't mean I'm willing to accept all that in a president. Of course not.

As for Clinton, of course he should not get a   from an intern in the oval office. And all his affairs were really a bit much. With the dysfunction following, that I see of course as his fault first and foremost, but partly also caused by a public being overly interested in every shrewd little detail, and a bit less attention would have caused a little less dysfunction. But that doesn't mean that I think Clinton's deeds were ok for a president. They weren't for me.

Sure, I agree with you on that. President attempts one discreet affair, reconciles with wife. End of story--if he is competent at his job.

The dysfunction following Clinton's adventure was also a decision on the part of the press and the other party to break unspoken bounds regarding the president's private life in an attempt to bring him down.  Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy--all got a pass on that.

I salute your creativity with emoticons, by the way.  Adds an extra-expressive dimension to your writing!

[hollodero]

(03-07-2018, 09:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Sure, I agree with you on that. President attempts one discreet affair, reconciles with wife. End of story--if he is competent at his job.

Yeah and I wouldn't even mind if it's two or three. I couldn't judge because what do I know about the agreement these guys have, and when I like the job performance, so be it. Sure enough, when it's getting to double digits, that I probably would consider too much. Or as I said when they start dragging out the wife in shallow displays of public remorse, or when it turns Clintonesque.

(03-07-2018, 09:14 PM)Dill Wrote: The dysfunction following Clinton's adventure was also a decision on the part of the press and the other party to break unspoken bounds regarding the president's private life in an attempt to bring him down.  Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy--all got a pass on that.

Yeah, all that. I sure caught that only from across the ocean in pre-internet times, but this was quite followed even here, and the Clinton-Starr-sensationalism trinity was a top example for American weirdness. Which maybe isn't entirely fair, for close to none of European politicians are ever as exposed as an US president is. We Austrians usually know little about our politician's private life, and except for some post-menopausal women's magazines our leader's spouses usually aren't featured much. And that's good.

(03-07-2018, 09:14 PM)Dill Wrote: I salute your creativity with emoticons, by the way.  Adds an extra-expressive dimension to your writing!

I shouldn't have used that Dalton emoticon the way I did though. I feel bad about that.

[Dill]

(03-07-2018, 10:26 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, all that. I sure caught that only from across the ocean in pre-internet times, but this was quite followed even here, and the Clinton-Starr-sensationalism trinity was a top example for American weirdness. Which maybe isn't entirely fair, for close to none of European politicians are ever as exposed as an US president is. We Austrians usually know little about our politician's private life, and except for some post-menopausal women's magazines our leader's spouses usually aren't featured much. And that's good.

I shouldn't have used that Dalton emoticon the way I did though. I feel bad about that.

It was embarrassing, truly. I had just come back from Europe and was used to watching our antics from "across the pond" and thinking "How does this look?"

What bothered me in part was that Starr et al. never seemed to consider how they might appear, rabidly going after C. and dragging sordid, soggy details into the public light.  The effect of Whitewatergate and Travelgate and file gate and Paula Jones and Vince Foster along with this was to make all appear orchestrated, like a "vast right wing conspiracy" focused on bringing down one powerful, liberal family. Evangelicals were especially harsh, insisting Clinton's misdeeds characterized the Dem's rotten core, recalling the country to principled leadership.

So here we are 20 years later and the competent and focused Hillary is still far worse than Trump.

[GMDino]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/09/trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-says-he-paid-stormy-daniels-his-home-equity-line/412335002/

Quote:Trump lawyer Michael Cohen says he paid Stormy Daniels with his home-equity line


WASHINGTON — President Trump's longtime lawyer said Friday he used his home-equity line of credit to arrange a $130,000 payment to a porn star who claims she had an affair with Trump.

"The funds were taken from my home-equity line and transferred internally to my LLC account in the same bank," Michael Cohen told ABC News, as scrutiny intensified over the October 2016 payment to adult actress Stormy Daniels.

He also sought to dismiss allegations that his use of a Trump Organization email address to arrange the payment to Daniels signaled that Trump was aware of the transaction. 

"I sent emails from the Trump Org email address to my family, friends as well as Trump business emails," he told the network. "I basically used it for everything."

In a statement earlier this year, Cohen said that neither the Trump campaign nor the Trump Organization was party to the agreement to pay off Daniels or reimbursed him for the payment. His statement was silent on whether Trump personally reimbursed him.

Neither Cohen nor his lawyer Lawrence Rosen immediately responded to requests for more information.

Cohen's explanation is the latest twist in the saga over the payment to Daniels, just days before the presidential election as the campaign grappled with a wave of sexual misconduct accusations against then-candidate Trump. 

Trump's team has denied the affair.

Daniels' lawyer Michael Avenatti said on CNN that "it's absolutely laughable" that Trump was not aware of attempts by Cohen to pay Daniels.

Later, on Twitter, he questioned Cohen's assertion about relying on a home-equity line to come up with the money.

"So let me get this straight ," he wrote. "Cohen now claims he borrowed $130k on his house and pays interest on it in order to give that same $130k (on behalf of a Billionaire) to a woman who according to him was lying."

On Tuesday, Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, filed a lawsuit against Trump saying a "hush" agreement she signed with Cohen was invalid because Trump never signed it.

Daniels has sought to tell her story publicly, and Cohen last week won a temporary restraining order against the actress through a secret arbitration process. 

Daniels said she had an affair with Trump in 2006 and 2007. On Friday, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders declined to answer reporters' questions about Daniels.

[GMDino]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-15/trump-organization-lawyer-sought-to-enforce-hush-agreement

Quote:Trump Firm’s Lawyer Tried to Stop Stormy Daniels From Talking

New documents show that another Trump Organization lawyer tried to silence Stormy Daniels #tictocnews

A lawyer for the Trump Organization sought an order last month to stop porn star Stormy Daniels from talking about her alleged affair with President Donald Trump, according to documents provided by her attorney.


Jill Martin, an assistant general counsel with the Trump Organization, signed a Feb. 22 request for a restraining order by an arbitrator to prevent Daniels from breaching a confidential non-disparagement agreement she signed in 2016. The involvement of the Trump Organization lawyer is evidence Trump knew of the secret deal, according to Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for Daniels.

“Bottom line -- Trump’s claims that he didn’t know of the payment and agreement are patently false," Avenatti said in a statement. "He has his own internal general counsel enforcing the agreement!"

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, sued Trump on March 6 to nullify the agreement she says she struck with his personal lawyer in October 2016 to keep quiet about the alleged affair in the days before the presidential election. She argues the document is invalid because Trump didn’t sign it, even though she took the $130,000 offered in exchange for her silence.

Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, has previously said neither the Trump Organization or the Trump campaign were involved in the payoff.

Martin is listed as a lawyer for the Trump National Golf Club in Los Angeles County. On her LinkedIn profile she identifies as a vice president and assistant general counsel with the Trump Organization. She didn’t immediately respond to an email after regular business hours for comment on Avenatti’s assertion.

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier on Martin’s involvement in the request for a restraining order.

For emphasis:

Quote:“Bottom line -- Trump’s claims that he didn’t know of the payment and agreement are patently false," Avenatti said in a statement. "He has his own internal general counsel enforcing the agreement!"


...

Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, has previously said neither the Trump Organization or the Trump campaign were involved in the payoff.