Stormy Interview: Magazine Defies Trump Lawyer’s Threat Of A Libel Lawsuit and Publishes Full Interview With Alleged Mistress

The personal lawyer of President Donald Trump, Michael Cohen, reportedly threatened to sue a tabloid magazine if it published an interview with the former adult film star Stormy Daniels in 2011.  Daniels told In Touch that she had an affair with Trump that started shortly after Melania Trump gave birth to her son Barron.  The threat appeared to work and the story never ran.  During the presidential campaign, Cohen used a fake name and shell company to give $130,000 to the porn star to deny any sexual relationship.  The publication sets up an interesting legal question of whether Trump will sue as threatened and how this might play out under the standard set out in New York Times v. Sullivan.  You have a porn star who does have two clearly opposing statements on the affairs as the main source for the article. However, a lawsuit would present risks that few lawyers would consider worth taking in a legal action.


Cohen also threatened a defamation action against the publisher and author of the Fire and Fury book.  While Trump later called for changing libel laws, but there has been no mention of the lawsuit since the Cohen threat.  For Cohen not to sue over this publication as indicated, these letters will be cited as another example of empty postering and protestation by counsel.

Four former employees at In Touch magazine’s publisher are cited by The Associated Press as saying that Cohen threatened a defamation action in 2011.  Now that the magazine has belatedly defied Cohen, the question is whether this was just another empty threat or whether Cohen will actually file his promised lawsuit.

It would make for an interesting lawsuit.  The magazine would have been in a better position to publish in 2011 after it reportedly gave Daniels as polygraph (which she passed) and had no 2016 agreement denying any sexual relationship.  In 2016, Daniels said:


I recently became aware that certain news outlets are alleging that I had a sexual and/or romantic affair with Donald Trump many, many, many years ago. I am stating with complete clarity that this is absolutely false. My involvement with Donald Trump was limited to a few public appearances and nothing more. When I met Donald Trump, he was gracious, professional and a complete gentleman to me and EVERYONE in my presence.

Rumors that I have received hush money from Donald Trump are completely false. If indeed I had a relationship with Donald Trump, trust me, you wouldn’t be reading about it in the news, you would be reading it in my book. But the fact of the matter is, these stories are not true.

Stormy Daniels

However, in the interview (and reportedly in discussions with other people and reporters) Daniels said that she indeed had an affair.

Even with this contradiction, the magazine has a story of great public interest and could legitimately run both accounts.  The publication will have the advantage of standard that applies to both public officials and public figures.  The New York Times v. Sullivan  “actual malice” standard requires a showing that the newspaper published a false report with either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.  The publication’s 5500 word articles has a great deal of detail including references to witnesses, dinners, and telephone calls that can be verified.  She claims to have met Trump  at a golf tournament in Lake Tahoe in July 2006  four months after Barron was born. She goes into embarrassing detail about the sexual encounter in his hotel room and later affair.  Writing on behalf of Trump, Cohen has called the entire account and any alleged sexual affair as “completely false.”

If Cohen carries out his threat, Trump would have to be willing to face grueling depositions and discovery in such an action.  As I discussed recently with regard to Roy Moore’s empty promise to sue over sexual abuse allegations, it is easier to threaten a libel action than litigate one.  Moreover, this precisely what doomed the Clinton presidency. Bill Clinton was not impeached for being a serial adulterer.  He was impeached for lying under oath about one of those affairs.

Obviously, Daniels is hardly a compelling witness.  She is a porn star who by her own admission had an affair with a married man but later denied such an affair in a written statement.  Given these conflicting statements, she is demonstrably a liar.  However, that does not mean that she was lying in the 2011 interview as opposed to the 2016 statement.  The question is whether Cohen is serious that he wants to litigate to prove the falsity of one over the veracity of the other.  I remain skeptical.

198 thoughts on “Stormy Interview: Magazine Defies Trump Lawyer’s Threat Of A Libel Lawsuit and Publishes Full Interview With Alleged Mistress”

  1. One thing for certain, when the Left’s big story about President Trump is about an allegation of an affair he had 5 years ago as citizen Trump, then their anti-Trump tank is running on empty. Maybe they’re looking for anything that will distract public attention away from the FISA-memo. Good luck with that. LOL!

    1. We can check the levels in the tank after Mueller reports and, after the 2018 mid-terms. But, credit where credit is due, almost one-half of American voters were stupid enough to vote for an incompetent, impulse-driven guy, who knew nothing about national and international affairs (but, with first-hand knowledge about immoral affairs) -a fact likely enjoyed immensely in Russia. Doubly amusing in Moscow, the machinations of the Russians were neither identified nor stopped before the election. That travesty is owned by the American oligarchs who took down the U.S. democracy.

      1. almost one-half of American voters were stupid enough to vote for an incompetent, impulse-driven guy, who knew nothing about national and international affairs…

        Oh those stupid and deplorable voters backing a candidate that understood the electoral college process. That’s awesome! Apparently they did not want what Clinton knew about national and international affairs either. Especially important was keeping her away from anything having to do with national security; like the NSA,the FBI or classified material. 🙂

  2. Another example that the biggest losers of the last general election were “The Big Evangelical Ministries.”

    1. The National Review, in an article posted two days ago, includes mention of the Christian conservative, Rick Clay. The story about the NRA’s Paul Erickson and Russian, Maria Butina, is interesting.
      The article describes a business, Bridges LLC, that “apparently does not do business”. The Review reports it is jointly owned by Buttina and Erickson.

    2. Huffpo reported that, In one year, the Koch’s Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce gave almost $5 mil. to the NRA.

  3. The top trending hashtag being promoted by Russian bots and trolls is the one that denigrates Democratic politicians (Huffpo).
    Putin is all in for Trump. Has the NRA issued a statement yet about the Russian banker, Torshin?

  4. I don’t really give a hoot — get this country back on track and to hell with what he did 5 years ago or whatever. If you think this doesn’t go on with the “rest” of them you’re misinformed and foolish to think so. Power means power!

    1. Mary S, exactly! And I don’t think most of the people, especially the male commentary on this site, care. This country needs to pull out of the chaos caused by the left?

  5. I have two responses: 1) Trump is hot and I can’t wait to hear the “embarassing details”; 2) I’m sure Trump is the only man in human history to have an affair while his wife was falling in love with a new infant. Horrors!

    1. Perhaps there is an understanding. They look like they enjoy each other’s company.ntheir laughter together is genuine. Melania is his best decision.

  6. ALLEGED affair. ALLEGED fake name. ALLEGED shell company. ALLEGED $130,000. There are no facts supporting anything. The statements PURPORTEDLY made by a SECOND-HAND party to a THIRD PARTY about what Stormy Daniels purportedly said in an ALLEGED interview are NOT facts.

    However, one fact DOES remain. here. Journalism is dead and the Presstitutes have taken control of the mainstream media. Not for nothing do intelligent people consider these THIRD-HAND GOSSIP STORIES as FAKE NEWS manufactured by PRESSTITUTES.

    So, I know this will fall on deaf ears in the perverted “mentality” of the Leftists, but if you can come up with some FACTS then open your yaps. Until then, STFU!

    Of course, if you followed the rule of the last paragraph, the Left would never be heard from. But wouldn’t that be nice?

    1. I’ll gladly concede that allegations are not yet facts. Will you concede that denials of allegations are not yet facts, either?

    2. Ralph, just like the shithole story. Third-party reporting on alleged gossip.
      See the trend forming? MSM is now tabloid journalism.

        1. L4D,…
          I think you identified a fatal flaw in Hillary’s campaign.
          Instead of “a basket of deplorables”, she should have called Trump supporters “obscenities”.
          That would have turned out even better for her……if there’s another Democratic nominee who runs against Trump, that candidate needs to keep that sure winning strategy😏 in mind ( insulting your opponent’s supporters).

          1. Tom Nash, my people have a saying, “Insults are only to be added after an injury.” Therefore, Hillary’s infamous remark was technically out of order–at least according to my people. Meanwhile, if you seriously think that Trump never insults his opponent’s supporters, then you’re not thinking seriously. Wait.

            Is that a winky face? It looks more like a smirky face. It is a smirky face. Isn’t it?

            1. L4D,…
              I replied to your question, but it looks like it didn’t post.
              It is a “Wirky face”, which is a hyprid composite of a smiley face and a smirky face.
              I had it custom-made.

              1. Thanks Tom. I’m not sure I’ve earned custom punctuation marks–yet. So I hope you didn’t have the wirky-face made special just for me.

                P. S. I had the same posting problem on the “Common Cause” thread.

      1. Allow me to lay some truth on you. If this story had been released before Trump’s election, inauguration, or even in the first few months of his presidency, then yes, social conservatives would be up in arms. But we’ve witnessed an entire year of fake news, false witness, lies, and distraction. Why would social conservatives now come to believe this story? No one in their right mind expects the MSM to start practicing ethical journalism again. It’s like the boy who cried wolf. After a year of lies, no one will (or should) believe these stories. And the sad part is, a true story will be ignored too. So for all you liberals who never miss a chance to insult someone who you think is inferior, you’ve done it to yourselves. No one is going to believe you. This is what happens with liberal’s moral relativism.

        1. So the “alleged” payment of $130,000 of hush money for the NDA and the letter of denial (recantation), is also fake news??? Or did Trump have no choice but to shell out the hush money to suppress a false allegation??? Who does that? An artist of the deal?

          “I had to pay the liar for her silence. And now it’s all over the fake news, anyway. It’s not fair. It’s not fair. Its not fair. Besides, she started it.”

          P. S. If you truly are a moral absolutist, then what’s up with your abject denial of Trump’s immorality??? Oh! Wait. I spelled it wrong–again. You are a moral absolutionist; aren’t you??? Well, that’s different. Never mind.

          1. Why would Trump need to pay her off to keep the story quiet? He didn’t run as a saint nor does anyone have that expectation of him. It would be like the town drunk paying off the bartender to keep stories about his drinking quiet.

            1. Ah-ha! So the hush money is fake news, too. Since, obviously, the town lecher wouldn’t pay off the whore-house Madame to keep true stories of his debauchery quiet while campaigning for President of the United States. Everything is perfectly symmetrical in the post-hoc-ergo-prompter-hoc rear-view mirror.

            2. His margins in WI MI and PA were small. He needed to make women believe he only grabbed women in jest but did not have threesomes and cheat on his wife. It worked.

              1. Yes. Thanks for reminding me, swarthmoremom. Why do I keep forgetting these things? Is it because there are too many of them to remember them all? Had the Stormy Daniels story been made public after the Billy Bush tape and the 19 women who accused Trump of doing what he bragged about on the Billy Bush tape, Trump’s appeal to Catholic working-class voters might have evaporated into thin air.

                1. The 19 women who were paid off by Gloria Alred’s daughter? Bottom line, nobody cares about this story. Moreover, it’s a sales pitch for Stormy to generate sales on her current tour.

              2. L4D,…
                – Not necessarily.
                If the story had gone public before the election, Trump might have benifitted from a wave of nostalgia for our only Catholic president.

                1. Tom Nash, in the first place, you forgot your wirky face. Secondly, Trump is not Catholic. Thirdly, JFK was never divorced. Fourthly, you won’t find many Catholics of any social class who have nostalgic feelings for Henry VIII King of England. Fifthly, nostalgia is a rather anodyne euphemism for atavism. And finally, you made me clean my eyeglasses to get your point about correct spelling. Gee, thanks for benefite, Nash.

              3. L4D,..
                Doesn’t need to be Catholic to be Kennedhesque in his affairs.
                #3 So what?
                a. JFK era is more recent history
                b. Trump didn’t break away from the Catholic church and start one of his own.
                #5 Nostalgia is a fitting word since it can be a fondness for reversion to some of the characteristics of a bygone era and president

                  1. Tom Nash–

                    6) I can’t read anything wearing sunglasses.
                    5) Did you do your keyword search on “atavism” using the tiny little text window?
                    4) a. JFK had real hair.
                    b. Trump is fat like Henry VIII.
                    3) Catholics oppose divorce more strenuously than they oppose marital infidelity.
                    2) You changed your terms from “only Catholic President” to “Kennedyesque.”
                    1) Thanks for the wirky face, Tom.

                    1. L4D,..
                      I said that Catholics might feel a wave of nostalgia for our only Catholic president if Trumo’s alleged affair with the hooker were disclosed.
                      And that was in response to your comment that knowledge of that affair would have turned of Catholic voters, or enough Catholic voters , to the degree that they’d vote against Trump.
                      So the point was how Catholic VOTERS might view Trump, not whether Trump was a Catholic. I suggested that those Catholic voters might be nostalgic to see a repeat of an adulterous president.
                      As far as Catholics viewing divorce more harshly than infidelity, I doubt that either John Kerry’s or Ted Kennedy’s divorces cost them votes in Irish Catholic Biston.

              4. L4D,..
                PS ..
                I won’t correct the spelling errors in the last post.
                Nor will I again attempt to type in a reply box that’s as narrow as a thermometer needle😠, which prevents me from seeing any complete words I’ve typed until it’s posted.

  7. All women who have sex with men and not with women trade sex for favors or money. This can be the whole aspect of marriage or other things playing out in the business and free world.

    Donald is quoted back in the days of this one as saying: Pork em if ya gottem.

    1. There’s a grain of truth there but I wouldn’t go that far. Some women have sex with men because they enjoy having sex with men.

  8. Will here it is. Lady Gaga video with 486 million views. As for the me too & other gold diggers???

    1. Are you sayin all da women that marry or hang with T rump are gold diggers? Men like T rump and Weinstein attract some gold diggers but it is illegal to assault da women no matter how much gold these dudes have.

  9. Well, we certainly know which side of the political aisle Turley stands. He writes an article about a porn star instead of these choices:
    – FBI loses 5 months of text messages between anti-Trump agents
    – FISA court opinion describing systemic violations of the law by the FBI
    – CNN admits no one cares about its year-long “Trump-Russia” collusion fake story
    – The NSA deleted all Bush-era surveillance data is was ordered to preserve
    Congrat, JT. You have sunk to the bottom with CNN. Maybe you can get a spot on Dan Rather’s new program.
    (FYI, the only people who care about the porn star story are the liberal pundits who are trying to push it.)

    1. You’re right about Turley’s choices. A lot of his stuff focuses on “human interest,” a/k/a titillation. I guess he wants to have a broad spectrum of readers. He, too, can be a media hog. I would prefer that he stick to more important stuff. He’s certainly more interesting when he does.

      As to Trump’s threatened defamation lawsuit: I will take any wager that he will NEVER sue anyone for defamation. Does anyone think that he would open himself up to having to testify in depositions – which usually allow wide-open free-ranging questioning?

    2. Turley HAS to talk about the unsubstantiated allegations involving a former sex actress because he KNOWS the Left has NOTHING of substance to use against Trump. Their “Russian Collusion” hoax has been proven just that. They tried to make a big deal about Durbin’s unsubstantiated claim about some statement purportedly made, but that has gone nowhere. They are DESPERATE. And desperation requires desperate measure to do whatever they can, rather than to admit failure. And besides, Turley seems to be proud of being a presstitute. He enjoys it. So let him have fun being a presstitute. He’s probably better at that than he is at law anyway.

        1. That’s disingenuous of her, given that SHE was cheating on her boyfriend and husband-to-be at the same time! Take this woman’s words with a grain of salt.

          1. Trump never cheats on his wife with women who tell the truth. Trump only ever cheats on his wife with women who are proven liars. And that makes Trump, “not just smart, but a genius–and very stable genius at that.”

      1. We have every reason to believe that Turley’s moral prudery and ethical priggishness are genuine, sincere and thoroughly authentic; provided that Turley has not been retainer as counsel for the lecherous libertine at issue.

  10. If Michael D. Cohen failed to prove Daniels’ statements in the In Touch interview false, and if the lawyers for In Touch or for Stormy Daniels proved that the payment of $130,000 to Daniels was, not just for the non-disclosure agreement, but also for the letter in which Daniels denied the whole thing, then wouldn’t the risk to Cohen and Trump be subornation of perjury?

    Well, the letter in which Daniels denies the whole thing is not “sworn testimony.” But if Cohen submits that letter into evidence in a libel action against In Touch, then would it be subornation of a false statement?

    Cohen ought not to sue In Touch for libel unless Cohen is absolutely certain that he can prove Daniels’ statements in her interview in In Touch false and that the $130,000 payment to Daniels did not purchase her letter in which she denied the whole thing.

    1. It’d be admissible in a federal tort as a party admission. Not sure if all states have that exception, but I’d expect so.

      1. Fine, Drew. But if the party admission was bought and paid for, and if the party admission were proven false, then would the party admission be a false statement that had been suborned???

  11. Why do so many cultures punish the natural tendency for sexual encounters and glorify the natural tendency for violence and destruction?

    1. Inheritance of wealth. Dynastic succession. Various atavistic impulses taken as archaic survivals of past sexual mores based upon systems of primogeniture and dynastic strife. One could go on and on answering Bacon’s aporia. But I’ll leave it at that. And see what Chris comes up with in response.

  12. Pence was outraged over supporting a clean-needle program but this endless stream of polluted garbage, yeah sure fine.

    Imagine another seven years of this dumpster-fire Administration.

    1. Pence does not care about threesies unless they are guy.s. He says nothing about da Roman emperor atmosphere he is workin in. Thought good Christians were supposed to stand up
      To da devil.

  13. I understand Stormy is on a topless tour of parts of the US exploiting her fame. The question is: can you get past the NDA?

    1. If Cohen sues In Touch for libel, then Daniels’ NDA could not prevent In Touch from deposing Daniels in discovery nor testifying at trial. If Cohen does not sue In Touch for libel, then Daniels’ NDA remains in force. Cohen will not sue In Touch for libel.

  14. I can’t wait for the video deposition of Stormy: “Ms. Daniels, could you please re-enact your first night with Mr. Trump?”

  15. “Obviously, Daniels is hardly a compelling witness. She is a porn star who by her own admission had an affair with a married man but later denied such an affair in a written statement. Given these conflicting statements, she is demonstrably a liar.”

    And Trump is a better witness? A man with a video describing his own sexual assault, who had affairs with married and single women, (leaving one wife on account of one such affair). Given his conflicting statements, he is demonstrably a liar. Then there is the matter of the $130,000 payment? Explain that away?

      1. At least Daniels worked. Herr Drumpfenfuhrer was born on 3rd base and thought he hit a triple.

          1. The Lecher-In-Chief is practically a National Hero–eh Andy? When will you-all begin erecting statues to Don Juan di Mar-a-Lago in your town squares? Will you post armed Klansmen around the phalluses on those statues 24/7/364.25 in perpetuity??? Let me I tell you what happens to those National Heroic Phallic symbols if you don’t? No Wait. Let me allow you, instead, to conjure that image in your own mightnares. Huh? Did I spell that one wrong, too?

    1. Bill and Donald are a symptom of America’s decline. Not even the discovery of HIV, slowed down America’s debauchery.

      James 4:4( KJV)
      Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

    2. Why would being a porn star reduce her credibility as a witness? You sound like those who say just because a woman wore tight jeans she deserved to be raped.

          1. andrewworkshop – some professions are more respected than others. A two-bit whore gets less respect than a $5000 a night hooker. 🙂

            1. And Johns with lawyers get more respect than porn stars. Because . . . porn stars don’t have lawyers? What kind of respectable profession can be hired by both Johns and prostitutes, alike? The respect is in the dollar amounts from billable hours and fees for service–eh Schulteacher?

            2. PCS

              And some horses are faster than others. Being president hardly confers respect on a con artist whose approval remains decent only among a relatively small group of uninformed NASCAR fans.

              1. billmcwilliams – his numbers are higher than the Democrats in Congress and Hillary. 😉

          1. Andy, your “point” was a question, “Why would being a porn star reduce her credibility as a witness?”

            Enigma addressed that point. Are you now suggesting that your question was rhetorical? You had previously lodged a complaint against Ter ber that read, “You sound like those who say just because a woman wore tight jeans she deserved to be raped.” Sound to me like you agree with Enigma. Or maybe you’re not yet fully aware of your own thoughts.

  16. No problem for Trump. He just needs to learn from Bill Clinton and NOT lie about whatever did/didn’t happen. Should be a piece of cake for him.

    1. Impossible not to lie for Donald Trump. Lying is a basic part of his personality and by now at 71 years old, to change bad habits is very difficult.

      He openly explained he likes to grab women and see how much sexual response he can achieve by so doing.

      Definitely, DTrump refuses to be faithful to any woman who becomes his wife. And his history shows that he is ready to engage in sexual encounters any time a woman, who according to him is a 10 crosses his path.

      I am sorry for his children. It must be very depressing to have a father who does not respect the woman he chose to be the mother of his children.

        1. Chelsea looks more like Bill than Hillary.she has da curly hair. You just made that up cause T rump is so god awful to all his wives and kids. He is even mean to da women he assaults and da women he has affairs with. He is calling about 40 women liars. They say he has an affair going on da White House now. Who who is it?

            1. andrewworkshop has just officially forfeited the privilege of complaining about fake news. Mark it down. January 22, 2018 at 5:56 PM.

            2. AndrewWS,…
              About 20 years ago John McCain said that Janet Reno was her father.
              It was intended as a private, tasteless joke……when it was leaked to the press, McCain apologized.

Comments are closed.