“I Will Always Protect Mr. Trump”: Trump’s Attorney Claims Payment To Porn Star Was His Own Money, Not Trump’s or the Campaign’s Money

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedWe previously discussed the controversy surrounding President Donald Trump’s alleged relationship with porn film star Stormy Daniels.  At issue was not just the alleged affair previously described by Daniels in an interview in 2011m but a payment in 2016 of $130,000 in exchange for a denial of the affair.   That payment was later the basis for a lawsuit by Common Cause alleging possible campaign finance violations.  The source of the money, the lawsuit alleged, may have been campaign money and the use of such money for this purpose would have violated federal law. Now, the Trump attorney who created a shield company and anonymous identity to pay off Daniels has stated that the money was his, not Trump’s or the campaign’s. That disclosure however raises additional questions — both factual and ethical.

 

In an interview with NBC, Michael Cohen, said “Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly.”  He has also informed the Federal Election Commission that this was his money and thus not an illegal “in kind” political contribution. As a personal payment, Cohen insisted that it “was not a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure by anyone.”

Cohen told CNN “Just because something isn’t true doesn’t mean that it can’t cause you harm or damage. I will always protect Mr. Trump.”

Cohen’s incredibly generous payment for Trump does not resolve the legal questions.  If Cohen was receiving money from the campaign or Trump, the payment could be viewed as little more than a pretense or shielding tactic.  Cohen curiously set up a corporate structure and used an assumed name to carry out the transaction.  The use of personal funds added yet another wall between Daniels and Trump.  The question will likely be asked if Cohen received a padded or inflated payment to cover the “personal” payment.  Moreover, since Trump was running for president, the payment could be viewed as a form of political contribution that evaded federal election laws by the plaintiffs.

The obvious analogy would be to the prosecution of John Edwards who was also a presidential candidate.  He was accused of using hundreds of thousands of dollars from third parties to cover up an affair.  Those payments were alleged to be in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act and Edwards was charged with four counts of illegal campaign contributions, one count of conspiracy, and one count of false statements. The good news for Cohen and Trump is that Edwards escaped conviction but he did not escape the criminal charge.

There is also an interesting ethical question.  Cohen was representing Trump in this matter, including sending threats of defamation lawsuits.  He continues to represent Trump and has even become a plaintiff himself in a defamation action.

Becoming personally involved in a case of representation through personal contributions blurs the lines of the attorney-client relationship. It also raises the aforementioned questions of indirect payments and the use of counsel to circumvent reporting laws.  There is clearly a gray zone on gifts or such personal payments. However, attorneys are barred from entering into business transactions with clients.  This would not be a business transaction but it shows a level of personal involvement in a legal matter that most lawyers would not view as appropriate.  Lawyers struggle to keep the lines of the attorney-client relationship clear and distinct. This blurred those lines to a troubling degree.  It is difficult to see where the interest of the client ends and the lawyer begins.  It is not clear what Cohen was at that point: friend, lawyer, political fixer, or some ambiguous mix of the three.

The disclosure is designed to force the dismissal of the lawsuit since there is no evidence of a Trump or campaign payment. However, if the plaintiffs respond with an allegation of a quid pro quo deal, it could present a tough confidentiality fight. Common Cause could seek discovery on whether Cohen spoke with Trump or received funds meant to cover this large payment.  That could end up an issue for the court to resolve.  What is clear is that most judges would view this payment as irregular and concerning.  That may not be enough to overcome the confidentiality protections but Cohen may have only deepened this controversy with his claim of a generous contribution.

What do you think?

 

207 thoughts on ““I Will Always Protect Mr. Trump”: Trump’s Attorney Claims Payment To Porn Star Was His Own Money, Not Trump’s or the Campaign’s Money”

  1. Fishwings you asked for evidence of Obama official’s violation of the law. I just saw this JW and it refers to The Hill:

    “An FBI informant connected to the Uranium One controversy told three congressional committees in a written statement that Moscow routed millions of dollars to America with the expectation it would be used to benefit Bill Clinton’s charitable efforts while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quarterbacked a “reset” in U.S.-Russian relations.”

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/372861-uranium-one-informant-makes-clinton-allegations-in-testimony?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newslink&utm_term=members&utm_content=20180214183848

    1. OBAMA “USED” HILLARY’S ILLEGAL E-MAIL ADDRESS/SERVER

      Obama used a pseudonym in emails with Clinton, FBI documents reveal
      By JOSH GERSTEIN and NOLAN D. MCCASKILL
      09/23/2016 06:27 PM EDT

      “President Barack Obama used a pseudonym in email communications with Hillary Clinton and others, according to FBI records made public Friday.”

      “The disclosure came as the FBI released its second batch of documents from its investigation into Clinton’s private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.”

      “In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender.”

      “Once informed that the sender’s name is believed to be a pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: ‘How is this not classified?'” the report says. “Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.”

    2. OBAMA COMMITTED A CRIME BY USING HILLARY’S ILLEGAL E-MAIL/SERVER

      Clinton–Obama Emails: The Key to Understanding Why Hillary Wasn’t Indicted
      by Andrew C. McCarthy January 23, 2018 4:25 PM

      “New FBI texts highlight a motive to conceal the president’s involvement. From the first, these columns have argued that the whitewash of the Hillary Clinton–emails caper was President Barack Obama’s call — not the FBI’s, and not the Justice Department’s. The decision was inevitable. Obama, using a pseudonymous email account, had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her private, non-secure email account.”

    3. Sooooooo, where’s the indictments or guilty pleas? That’s what I asked for, not some hack from the republican party said so and so.

      1. FishWings, Give it time. The DOJ acted improperly under Obama and it seems his opposition believes in the rule of law. So far we have seen people disappearing from the DOJ and FBI at least in part because of wrongdoing. The left’s major claim to fame is the guilty plea of General Flynn something according to Comey’s statement in front of Congress that was not what the investigators felt to be true. Obama facilitated a runaway justice department that protected those that broke the law. It is hard to go from a lawless DOJ to one that abides by the rules.

        So tell me what indictments or guilty pleas directly involved the Clinton campaign or his Presidency? Exclude the process claims which are made against the individual that is supposed to have lied about what was said or tell us how the lie illegally impacted the Trump campaign.

      2. Res ipsa loquitur, Brainiac! The thing itself speaks. What did Obongo know and when did he know it? Obongo knew that Hillary was using an illegal e-mail and server when he used her e-mail address. Obongo’s use of that e-mail address and server is the crime and the proof of his commission of the crime and his complicity.

            1. LOL

              Racism is a horrid disease that afflicts people of all races, religions, nationalities etc. In the recent past and present, it has been used to extract money and political favor just to mention a few things racism is used for.

              I haven’t bothered to run the numbers on this particular blog.

              1. Allan, I noticed the audience cheering for its favorite “countries” at the Olympics. Is that different from cheering for one’s favorite race?

          1. markkernes, is it ‘racist’ to criticize or disagree with the policies or actions taken by a biracial former president?

            1. And how is it ‘racist’ to refer to someone who used to be in the Choom Gang as “Obongo”? I wouldn’t call that racist. Why do you?

              “The Choom Gang was a group of friends at Punahou School in Honolulu in the 1970s who got together to play basketball, surf and smoke marijuana.”

              1. Because his name is OBAMA, no matter what group(s) he used to belong to, and your use of “Obongo” was clearly meant to disparage him with what certainly sounds to me (and, I’m guessing, to many others) like a racist putdown. I’m unaware that Obama has ever played the bongos.

                1. No, it was just a disparaging play on words with his name that you labeled as racist. Obama was a Choom Gang member known for pot smoking which usually includes bongs. Obongo is the name George called him, not me. I find it disrespectful, but certainly not racist. People call politicians names all the time. Have you heard the names Trump is called?

            2. Well, the mere fact that you saw fit to describe Obama as “biracial” certainly suggests that at least YOU look upon his actions as having a racial overtone that many would not.

              1. No, George made a comment asking ‘what did Obongo know and when did he know it’ with not one mention of race. You then called George a racist. And the ONLY reason you can call George a racist is because Obama is biracial. And if you are Obama, it’s also called being able to forever hide behind a racial suit of armour simply because you are half black.

              2. markkernes – do you deny that Obama is biracial? Or that he threw his mother under the bus. Same in his official painting, there is nothing representing the white side of him (50%) except perhaps the sperm coming down his forehead into his hairline. He will be the only President in the National Gallary with sperm on his face. It may also be the only one done by the artist and his underpaid Chinese minions.

                  1. markkernes – you have to see it for yourself. The artist is known for this, he has sperm in a lot of his paintings, even the frames. It is pretty creepy. Take a really close look at his forehead in a blowup.

  2. So, Trump calls Cohen and gives him some details to toss to the press further down the line. “Tell them that you paid her off as a nuisance from the ‘slush’ fund. Remember ‘slush’ fund. There’s no ‘t’ in ‘slush’. Throw in the origin of the term ‘slush’. That will make you look smart, like me. When sailors were away for months at sea they would have barrels of salt pork to last between ports. At the bottom of the barrel would accumulate the fat or slush. When they arrived in a port they would sell the ‘slush’/fat to the locals and use the money to go out on the town, or whatever. Tell the press we used our ‘slush’ fund to pay off this bimbo rather than have it explode into our campaign. Now, remember, there’s no ‘t’ in slush. Now, get in there Lenny, yeah, Mickey.”

  3. What do I think? Every single day, the Office of the Presidency brings the integrity and esteem of this country down yet another notch. Trump is such a low-class liar that there is no hope for redemption, so he should just stop trying to start a war so he can be a hero. No one, and I mean no one, believes Cohen, except the Trumpsters, who’ll say they believe literally any manure shoveled by Hannity. When Chump gets caught with his hand up a woman’s skirt, they immediately pivot to Bill Clinton because President Obama has never been accused of such conduct. Some of these buffoons even pivot to JFK and FDR. These sad sacks listen to chain smoking (off-camera) Haniity like they’re listening to Billy Graham because they have a need to believe. I’m sad that I live in a country populated with such stupid people.

      1. What I need is for Fatso and his Slovenian Princess to get the hell out of the White House and to take hypocritical Mikey Pence and his fugly wife and Paul Ryan with them. With them gone, there’s some hope for this country.

        1. Melania is a very beautiful woman. Are you jealous Natacha? The President has been advised to lose some weight, but he isn’t that fat. A lot of Americans are too heavy, but that doesn’t make them stupid.

          Get over it Natacha. You are obsessed with good looks and the ability of an overweight man to catch such a beautiful woman. Maybe if you went to a good stylist you would have better luck and not have to be so envious of others.

          1. You really don’t see the big picture here–do you? Melania was PURCHASED as an accessory to make a fat, bald man look good, because he’s so shallow that he doesn’t understand that to most intelligent people, seeing a fat old man in a toupee squiring around someone young enough to be his daughter makes him look pathetic. Melania demeans the value of women every time she steps outside wearing her CFM pumps and designer clothes, accompanying a fat man old enough to be her father because he has money. She has no more value to him than a piece of jewelry or any other accessory, proven so many times. Stormy Daniels is just one example. Money buys everything–doesn’t it? It doesn’t buy integrity, respect, honesty or anything that nurtures the human soul. Melania has squandered her youth and fertile years because she was dumb and shallow enough to believe that living in a gilded palace with closets full of designer clothes and gold toilets and copulating with a fat millionaire was better than finding her soul mate or engaging in any endeavor that uses talent, as opposed to her looks, or doing something constituting a legacy. She’ll end up divorced and pathetic-looking just like Ivana.

            1. “You really don’t see the big picture here–do you?”

              Natacha, Trump likes the opposite sex and so do most men. That so happens to be how babies are made. If men had to listen to the squawking you provide here on a daily basis human beings would disappear from the planet.

              Trump is a bit overweight, but I don’t think he is bald. Apparently bald men, fat men, Republicans, Democrats that don’t toe the line etc. are not to your taste. Try in vitro fertilization and in that way you don’t have to be with the opposite sex and more importantly they don’t have to be with you.

              Money ” doesn’t buy integrity, respect, honesty or anything that nurtures the human soul.” That is adequately demonstrated by Hillary Clinton or is Bill The Rapist your preference?

              You need a hobby to get your mind off of sex and body parts. Try voyeurism from the wrong end of a telescope.

    1. NUT CHA CHA,

      You should look into relocating to Costa Rica with “Andrea X” where the “integrity and esteem” are high and the folks are high class truth tellers…but they are NOT African racists; oh no, heaven forbid!
      _____

      ‘I eliminated white people from my personal life’: Black woman’s retreat to heal from racism sparks outrage

      The Grio
      Jazzi Johnson
      Feb 13th 2018 9:56AM
      X

      “Unique way Black women are dealing with institutional racism has struck quite a nerve—with white women.

      In the segment, Andrea X discusses the Costa Rican retreat she created specifically for women of color to escape racism. The island getaway is not held at the exclusion of white people, but for the inclusion of Black women— to be exact. The Vice cameras follow Andrea and about a dozen of her attendees around for the week, as they experience the solitude and community of relaxing with one another away from the stresses of the world—particularly, those racist aggressions many experience in the United States.”

      1. What does this have to do with Trump’s lawyer bribing a porn star to keep quiet about banging him? The money was wasted, really, because his disciples like you don’t care what he does, hypocrites like Pence will “forgive” him, even though he didn’t ask to be forgiven, and the rest of us recognize what a complete waste of human life he is and want him gone. Melania is a purchased accessory without feelings, so from her perspective, so long as she trips around in the CFM pumps, wearing designer clothes, she’s done her job.

      2. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

        “as they experience the solitude and community of relaxing with one another away from the stresses of the world—particularly, those racist aggressions many experience in the United States.”

        Are you f*cking kidding??? American Black women are the most belligerent, savage, aggressive people on the planet! They’ll brawl at Chuck E Cheese, MacDonalds, parking lots, housing project yards! They’ll drop their babies to brawl! They will run each other over with cars!

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX2wGirNmzc&t=246s

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Tell your crew down at the klavern hall that there’s a “white sale” down to the Gibson’s on the interstate bypass this weekend. Your types run through white pillowcases like shit through a goose, I’ll reckon.

          this is to SqueeKKK

          1. Mark M:
            You know if you engage Squeeky on her arguments then we don’ think you’re just an ideologue. I’ve had some serious disagreements with her but she always backs up her case.

            1. I don’t engage flat-earthers, either. I ridicule nonsensical behavior and simplistic, unsupported-by-facts, “arguments” which are based on stereotypes, superstitions, “shit my mammy tole me” and “that’s how it’s always been done.” SqueeKKK doesn’t even attempt to hide whatever malevolent, hateful, and misguided nonsense she carries around in her head. I went to law school with black people who are infinitely better than the type of people who spew the crap squeeKKK vomits here daily, so I know the real story. One doesn’t argue with incorrigible racists, you just outvote them and wait for them to die off. As an aside, my goal here is amusement and entertainment. I’m not seeking to convince anyone of anything; if that’s the purpose of an “ideologue” then I’ll put on that jacket.

              This is to Mespo

              1. “if you engage Squeeky on her arguments then we don’ think you’re just an ideologue.”

                mespo, Mark can’t engage. He is a dirtbag. One of the foaming at the mouth types.

                1. You missed the new word of the day from hannity; it’s no longer “dirtbag.” Curiously, it’s been replaced this time by an entire phrase: “guilty, your honor.”

                  this is to “but I thought hannity said everything was gonna be swell” allan

                  1. Mark must watch a lot of Hannity for I never heard Hannity use the word dirtbag. Did you want to be on his show? He stays away from the dungheaps. By the way, he is a pretty smart guy so I am glad you picked up his channel.

      3. Excellent. Kindly post more of this “material.” It reinforces the smug sense of self-superiority held by rational, logical, evidence-based humans.

        this is to “champion of bedlam” geogie

    1. Darren, sometimes comments end up in cyberspace instead of the blog and are too time-consuming to rewrite. I just had that trying to respond to FishWings. I wonder if there is a setting that would send one’s replies back to them so if not posted it could be copied and reposted. I note we all have lost quite a few.

      1. Allen,

        I checked all three traps for your lost comments and did not locate any. Possibly for whatever reason they went into the ether. One method that could be useful, though it is of a greater inconvenience, is to highlight all of what you type then copy it ( [Control] [C] on Windows) prior to clicking the post button. That way if it vanishes, at least you retained what you created.

        I haven’t located any functionality that auto-responds to a commenter when a comment fails to post. The closest behavior is to inform the user that there comment is pending moderation, which is most likely due to violating posting rules due to having a prohibited word. If the server shunts what is considered spam into the Spam trap, there is no notification.

        But if you run into trouble, just make a request to look and find the lost comment I and will see what I can do.

        1. Thanks, Darren. I had a copy, but it posted on what appeared to be a new page. I, therefore, enclosed another reply to it stating that the post was to Fishwings and posted what FishWings had said in the earlier page. No such new page exists. I didn’t know that until responding to another much later.

          I would think WordPress would have included a reply to sender since that seems to be a common item in the email programs on my computers.

  4. I suspect the attorney will somehow be reimbursed through some kind of extra fee or a lot more billable hours.

  5. Your question is foolish. It is now on record that Comey said Flynn wasn’t guilty and the investigation of Carter Page is based on legal activities that occurred before Trump decided to run. Let’s take what actually happened in the Obama administration. Legitimate complaints were levied against the IRS and Lois Lerner. When she was forced to testify she refused and was later given immunity without ever providing the testimony required. Hillary Clinton (not presuming guilt or innocence) despite the evidence that demonstrated illegal activity or management of classified material wasn’t even recorded when she was interviewed. She was found by Comey to be shall we say “innocent” before the investigation even took place. The FISA warrants appear to have been based upon mistruths or a lack of disclosure. On and on we can go as to the questionable practices of the DOJ, IRS and other agencies under Obama.

    This didn’t only happen within the government. It also involved private persons. Benghazi was blamed on a youtube video that was the proximate cause for a citizen to be jailed. It was known beforehand proven in emails that Benghazi didn’t have a relationship to the youtube video. There have been many private citizens injured by the practices of the Obama administration, but in your eyes, they don’t count because they are conservatives.

    Finally look at the Nunes Memo and tell us what you think is not true.

    You seem to be totally unaware of the world around you.

    1. This was a response to FishWings: “If Obama did ANYTHING close to what Trump and his staff has done, you would be screaming from the rooftops. Question….How many staffers or Obama’s people where indicted or pled guilty?”

    2. Allan: do you play music when you do the Kellyanne Pivot? Does your face seem to be melting off your skull like hers? Sir, you are a dupe.

      1. Natacha, what did I say that wasn’t true?

        The problem is that you make all sorts of comments that aren’t true or at least haven’t been proven, but when comments are made that are proven in black and white or in recordings whether it be congressional notes or quotations from another you balk if you don’t like the opinion.

        Who is the dupe? The one that spews ideology or the one that is able to quote actual statements made and recorded? Natchach, you have proven yourself to be the dupe.

      2. If Flynn’s not guilty, why did he plead guilty? What does Obama have to do with Trump and his crimes, anyway? You’ve been watching Hannity so long that you can’t even think rationally.

        1. You apparently have no knowledge of what a government suit against an individual entails. The government can spend infinite amounts of money persecuting an individual while disrupting his life and make things untenable for the people around him. Therefore, it is easier to settle and if pleading guilty is the only penalty then it might be worth it if the person has already been destroyed or can’t raise the money to fight.

          The government has done this to corporations as well as individuals. Think of it this way. It will cost $500 or more likely in the vicinity of $1,000 for Flynn to get an adequate defense lawyer. There will be high payments of other fees and this case could go on for years. Hundreds or thousands of hours could be spent. How much money do you think Flynn had?

          Thinking rationally is something I don’t think you have ever experienced.

            1. “You are an example of what’s wrong with this country.”

              According to you, yes. I am a male. Next time you wear that pussy hat wear it on your head instead of in front of your eyes.

    3. Fake News. Next. Pro tip: change the channel. Reality is very different from your current location.

      this is to “I have a hannity tattoo on my lower back” allan

      1. Marky Mark Mark – you might want to change the channel yourself and get the truth. You are being lied to.

        1. Paul, Mark is a dirtbag so knowledge and truth are foreign to him. He is probably posting from his local whore house.

      2. “Fake News.”? It so happens to be in the Congressional Record in black and white. But Mark doesn’t know anything so he makes things up and never adds anything to the discussion. He’s a dirtbag.

        1. Awesome. We now know that hannity’s most recent “word of the day” is “dirtbag.”

          this is to “hannity is my truth-whisperer” allan

          1. As a rule, I don’t listen to Hannity though from what I have seen I both like and respect him. He is honest and perhaps not as direct as I am so I doubt he uses such a word as dirtbag even though it applies so nicely to your persona.

            You must like Fox News a lot since you so often are busy mentioning Fox News and its participants. Alternatively, you get your information elsewhere like the dung heap. It doesn’t really matter where because nothing you say has any fact involved just dung heap muttering from a dirtbag.

  6. Nobody cared about Clinton boinking interns in the White House, but they are outraged by Trump boinking porn stars before he got there. Innocent interns vs. porn stars. In the oval office vs. before getting to that office. If you can figure any of that out…

    Attorney-client priveledge allows an attorney to tell the media that his client did, indeed, boink a porn star? Really? Did he see that in person, or did his client tell him that? If his client told him that how is he now able to spew it all over the media? Guess how open I’m likely to be with my attorney now.

  7. So, then, just why did Cohen make the $130K payment? A Christmas present? I agree with Isaac. If the money from Trump goes in one of Cohen’s pockets, but the payment to Stormy comes out of another one, that makes it all right, I suppose. It is hard to believe anyone could take Cohen’s claim with a straight face.

    It’s too bad that lawyers are not subject to cost accounting rules like (say) Government contractors, where each expenditure has to be tied to a particular funding source. For all of Cohen’s money to be just one big slush fund is nothing but obscuration.

      1. A slight Tapper rewrite:

        A manager for @StormyDaniels tells AP she “believes Trump’s lawyer invalidated a non-disclosure agreement by publicly discussing the payment” and thus she is now free to make up any kind of sh*t she wants to about the alleged 2006 affair.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. So, again, why did Cohen make the $130 K payment? Just for fun? If there was no porking or affair, why did this episode happen at all?

          1. My guess is to not even have to deal with this skank. If I was a billionaire, I would pay her $130,000 not to lie about me. Just Go away, Ho!

            And if she did give him “oral satisfaction” say, well that isn’t sex at all, right?

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. Mistresses have been common in many cultures. Only the prudish or the have-nots get so much satisfaction talking about another’s mythical sex life. Perhaps that is the way they ‘get off’.

              1. Oh, I can see the lurid appeal of the story, but it is not something I care much about because when it happened, Trump wasn’t President, Trump hasn’t lied about it under oath, there wasn’t any boss-employee relationship, the chick is somebody who performs fellatio and other sex acts for the cameras for a couple of thousand dollars and is thus not exactly believable to me, nobody can prove what happened or didn’t happen, and because I just don’t give a flip.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                1. What does it matter to me or anyone else if sexual relationships are consensual and do not cause undue harm to the innocent? I guess it matters when these crazies are sexually deprived or deprived of love because their ideology teaches them that sex and race is a tool that is used in lieu of hard work.

                  Trump is a bit eccentric, but from what I have seen from afar and close up he is a decent man who loves America and wants to do good for America and the American people. That is a lot better than what the self hate or the hate America crowd have to offer.

                2. Squeeker: So, if I understand you correctly, Trump didn’t have sex with Daniels, but if he did, it was only oral, which as far as you (and Bill Clinton) is concerned, isn’t really sex, so Cohen didn’t have to pay her off because who’d believe her lies anyway, but if he did, it was only to stop her from telling her lies, except that Cohen’s discussion of the affair leaves the legal door open for Daniels to discuss it anyway, but who’d believe her because she’s had sex on camera, and who in their “right” mind would believe anything a porn star said, correct?

                  I’ve known Stormy for more than 15 years, and while she’s milking this coverage for every buck (and strip club engagement, TV interview and news coverage) she can get out of it, I have no reason to believe that what she told InTouch magazine several years ago wasn’t the truth—and if there’s one thing we know about the Pussy Grabber In Chief, it’s that he likes his women, so only an idiot would be surprised by this “revelation.”

                  1. Squeeker: So, if I understand you correctly, Trump didn’t have sex with Daniels, but if he did, it was only oral, which as far as you (and Bill Clinton) is concerned, isn’t really sex, so Cohen didn’t have to pay her off because who’d believe her lies anyway, but if he did, it was only to stop her from telling her lies, except that Cohen’s discussion of the affair leaves the legal door open for Daniels to discuss it anyway, but who’d believe her because she’s had sex on camera, and who in their “right” mind would believe anything a porn star said, correct?

                    Yes! And they said you were slow!

                    And yes, you have a very good reason to believe Stormy isn’t being honest, to wit, and to quote you, “I’ve known Stormy for more than 15 years, and [] she’s milking this coverage for every buck (and strip club engagement, TV interview and news coverage) she can get out of it.”

                    Squeeky Fromm
                    Girl Reporter

                    1. @Mark K

                      Was it out of context??? You said you had no reason to disbelieve her, after you just said she would milk the crap out of this for all the money and attention that she could. Don’t you see a little logical disconnect there???

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    2. Taking advantage of the publicity she has received because Trump had an affair with her doesn’t say anything about her honesty—but it does say something about your assumptions.

                    3. @M Kernes

                      “Taking advantage of the publicity she has received because Trump had an affair with her doesn’t say anything about her honesty—but it does say something about your assumptions.”

                      Well, it could say something about her honesty if she is the one who profits by it. Saying “nothing happened— move along” means no $75,000 fees for taking your bloomers off in public, when the world has already seen you butt nekkid at a much “firmer” and sexier time of your life.

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    4. But that’s not the point, is it? Trump had sex with her, and someone close to Trump paid her to keep quiet about it—except that Trump’s hitting on Stormy and several other porn stars at a 2006 golf tournament has been in the news for more than a year now, and since Stormy is in business to make money (as is everyone else who has a job), it makes no sense for her not to capitalize on it if she can—and with Cohen having broken their privacy agreement himself, she’s even freer to do that.

                  2. Oh, and since you are here, can you give a better estimate of how much Stormy would charge for doing a porn flick??? My guess is a couple of thousand, but not having ever performed in one, I am basing my estimate on stuff I have read.

                    Thanks!

                    Squeeky Fromm
                    Girl Reporter

                    1. For several years until very recently, Stormy was under contract to Wicked Pictures, so she was paid a salary (whose amount I don’t know because it’s none of my business) plus a bonus for every movie in which she performed (whose amount I don’t know because it’s none of my business). She has also directed a number of movies for them in which she did not perform, again for a fee above her contracted salary, which I again don’t know because it’s none of my business. Her income would also include fees from strip clubs where she performed and whatever tips the patrons gave her—one club in Vegas boasted last month that they paid her $75,000 for one night’s appearance—and she may also be receiving income from sex toy manufacturers who have molded various of her body parts and sold such toys under her name.

                      So while I don’t know how much money Stormy’s been making annually for the past few years, it wouldn’t surprise me if it were in the $150,000 range or more—and about double that in 2016, thanks to the generosity of Donald Trump, er, Michael Cohen, and who knows how much she’ll make this year, thanks to Donald Trump not being able to keep his dick in his pants.

                    2. Sooo, the $75,000 was AFTER the alleged Trump affair. Yes, I would say that if she can pull that in for a few more months, she has every reason to keep this alive! What do you think an aging porn star would have earned BEFORE Trump???

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    3. I’ve known some very popular porn stars who’ve had thriving careers both in porn and at strip clubs, who have earned several hundred thousand dollars per year—and that was WAY before Trump. Seems sex and seeing naked bodies is pretty popular in some (possibly most) circles.

                    4. markkernes – it is my understanding that the women make more money than the men in porn.

                    5. That’s correct. Newcomer women can easily make $2,000-$3,000 for their first scene, though later scenes will pay anywhere between $700 and $1500, depending on how producers assess their probable popularity. Men tend to earn between $200 and $800 per scene, depending on their acting ability and “staying power.”

        2. I haven’t followed this story real closely, but I thought that Stormy Daniels took the $130,000 to keep quiet about the affair, then violated the non-disclosure agreement by revealing the affair.
          I thought that the idea of hush money/ non-disclosure agreement was that the person receiving the payment was not supposed to refrain from mentioning an incident, rather than publicize it.
          I wonder if Cohen could sue to get his? money back?

          1. should be “was supposed to refrain”
            The “not refrain” got in their because I started out typing “not discuss”.

        3. “free to make up any kind of sh*t she wants to about the alleged 2006 affair” = free to accept $5 million from Hillary & Co. to make up any kind of sh*t Hillary wants her to = free to start accepting more bids, to talk or not to talk or author a tell-all book.

  8. This is really about “Tribalism” – Fred Flintstone can lie, cheat and steal as long as he is doing it for the perceived benefit of his tribe. (maybe it was the Grand Poobaa!).

    The Founder of the Republican Party was against tribalism warning that “a House divided against itself cannot stand”. That Republican was talking about the nation as a whole – Americans that place tribalism above the nation’s welfare will destroy the United States.

  9. ” Lawyers struggle to keep the lines of the attorney-client relationship clear and distinct.”

    Huh??? I thought all that stuff went out the window when Cheryl Mills was allowed to represent Hillary Clinton and others during the Email Scandal. Was I wrong???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Did Cheryl Mills ever make six-figure hush money payoffs to anybody? But in any event, how does your implication excuse or relate to the Stormy Daniels situation? Or do you just believe “All lawyers are corrupt, so it’s not a surprise that Cohen is” ?

          1. I don’t care about the alleged payoff. I work for an attorney, and she does Domestic Relations work. Cheating is rampant. Sexcapades are rampant. Lies about sex are rampant. I have become jaded about sex, and could care less who paid or didn’t pay Stormy Daniels. Down here, a common sex lie is, “I came in and found Buford having sex with the dog!” Ex-wife will say it. Ex-mother in law will say it. Sometimes they convince one or more of the kids to say it. And it is always bullsh*t. They are just lying to keep momma from losing the kids because she is a drugged-up whore who is sleeping with her meth dealer, and anything else in pants. Or simply for revenge. Or simply for the pure joy of lying.

            Sooo, do I think a porn star, somebody who, for a couple of grand, will blow a couple of dudes right there on camera, for all posterity to see, not to mention letting them double-team her and shoot whatever all over her face- – – all for a few thousand dollars. . . do I think this person would lie like a cheap rug for $130,000??? Hell yes! And further, I don’t have any desire to read anymore about her. I could simply care less if somebody paid her to just slink away. If I cared about her sex life, I would just buy one of her videos, assuming they aren’t somewhere free on the web.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

              1. Well, true. . . porn stars just lay it all out there for the world to see. I guess you could call that a form of “transparency.” OTOH, they get paid a few bucks to do all sorts of awful things on camera. So it isn’t like their mouths are prayer books or anything.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

  10. Once Trump is (barf) out of office, he’ll be looking for wife and family #4 as Melania flees.

    But, at least Trump isn’t vomiting Christianity at the country, because doing so after getting spanked and paying-off a pornstar would make him a lying panderer — and Evangelicals, hypocrites.

    And that would be uncharted territory for both. So totally uncharted.

    1. I have been hoping that Melania would decide that enough was enough, and bail out. But she is probably kept on a very short leash, with spies and lackeys to keep her in line.

    2. When evangelicals supported Trump, he thanked them and then HONESTLY stated that he wasn’t sure he deserved their support. Pragmatism reigned over ideology. It was a breath of fresh air.

    3. Dave137, how many times have you been divorced? Do you pay your alimony on time? How many persons have you bedded while your partner thought you loyal?

        1. Congratulations Dave 137. You are in the minority so does that make you holier than though so you can advocate conviction of all those that aren’t so holy?

          1. I’m not preaching fake values and trying to use the government as a tool to promote some warped morality — unlike the tons of so-called Christians who do so.

            1. “I’m not preaching fake values ”

              I can’t help what you think because you are preaching fake values and demeaning others like Christians that have well-established values over the centuries. You can very easily stop preaching by judging the President (and Christians) on what he does, not his lifestyle which for all we know could be better than yours. For example (something I don’t believe to be true) for all we know you are married as you say you are, but your wife and yourself might be totally miserable while the children being so miserable will become gangsters. I’ll repeat, “I don’t believe to be true”, but it is one possibility of many so stick to the facts and quit trying to preach fake values.

  11. Not JT’s blog for commenting it’s ours at this point and apparently as in other comments you do not know better but then unliike most of us regulars Who You? Answer., Nothing.

  12. I think everyone in this administration needs lessons in diplomacy. Sheesh. That said, Trump was far from the first, it didn’t happen in the White House, and if we really want to address this sort of thing we will have to go far deeper than a sitting president, as that is but a symptom.

  13. Well, I guess that this ‘completely exonerates’ Trump. The porn actress was paid off, but???? The lawyer, who receives payment for services from Trump, paid the porn actress to keep her affair with Trump quiet (until after the election?). However, the lawyer paid the porn actress with money out of the pocket on the left side of his pants, while putting his pay from Trump into the pocket on the right side of his pants; depending on which side he ‘dresses’. Yup, Trump never boinked the porn star while not wanting to have sex with his wife, who had recently given birth to their son. She would have been down the road if she didn’t get her body back into shape quick, in order to get back into bed with the ‘hunk-Trump’.

    This makes Slick Willie’s squirming look even more amateurish. All hail the Master of Squirm, our President, Donald Trump. The mouths saying the words, Huckabee-Sanders and the mutt lawyer, look stupid and are paid to look stupid, to distract from the fact that the words belong to Trump.

    Is this too far? Should we just let Trump do his job and see what he is capable of?

    1. Is there yet any proof of the whole incident? No that makes the left look even more amaterurish especially their imported foreign idologue.

        1. Jay S, first you have to ascertain whether it was a gift (as defined by the IRS) or not. Stormy likely should have declared it on her taxes.

      1. Michael

        Trump’s lawyer.
        Trump’s battle cry-“Never pay those who try to sue you for money or try to get money out of you.”
        Trump’s history of going bankrupt rather than paying debts.
        Trump’s history of fighting accusations but when losing, never admitting guilt-racial profiling with his father eg.
        Trump pays his lawyers well to support him.
        Trump’s lawyer admits to paying porn star-but out of the other pocket.
        Porn star states/refutes/restates… that she boinked Trump for a while, after Trump’s woman gave birth.
        Porn star is a bimbo.
        Lawyer is a shill.
        Trump is a liar.

        If you don’t get it, you have been completely duped. Never get completely duped. Never go full retard. When it walks…….duck…..just might be a duck.

        Now, let’s have your rejoinder all about how foreigners are not as smart as you.

        1. issac – would you rather have her paid off or the Clinton method which was to destroy her life and reputation? Which is it? And it was consensual.

        2. issac – would you rather have her paid off or the Clinton method which was to destroy her life and reputation? Which is it? And it was consensual.

  14. Johnny Edwards and his attorney were indicted on a payment to a mistress. Cause Stormy is a porn star mistress do T rump and Cohen get a pass with da T rump supporters?

    1. Was she? Other than a repudiated statement have we seen anything approaching facts? Sounds more like a shakedown or a setup.by Jamaican illiterate to me. .any facts at all other than the ha ha ha NYT?

    2. “Johnny Edwards and his attorney were indicted on a payment to a mistress.”

      The jury felt otherwise and there was a much better case against Edwards.

  15. “Lawyers struggle to keep the lines of the attorney-client relationship clear and distinct.”

    Tell that to Hillary and Cheryl Mills.

    Meanwhile, I don’t think anyone that supported Trump’s election was under the impression that he’s a boy scout. I believe all of his supporters realized that what was needed is a street fighter. Anyway, I still say Turley needs to keep his eye on the ball. Unless Trump murdered someone, I’m not concerned about his conduct prior to becoming President. It’s his conduct in office that matters to me, and he’s the ONLY president that’s come along in my lifetime that’s been willing to shine a spotlight on corruption in the media and corruption in our government and do battle. He could have slept with every porn star on the planet for all I care.

    1. It’s his conduct in office that matters to me

      That’s the problem for the Left…he’s in office and that is just not acceptable. They couldn’t care less about the oath, rule of law or separation of powers.

      1. Exactly. The dems are supposedly concerned about DACA, yet here they are with deadlines approaching and a million people sweating out their status, and dems are focusing on aging porn stars and whether someone on Trump’s staff clocked his wife a thousand years ago. Can’t seem to stay focused on issues that matter to the citizenry or even issues that supposedly matter to the democrat constituency. Character matters to democrats — except when it doesn’t.

        The oath of office is to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.” There’s nothing in it about using protection when bedding down the cast of Backdoor Babes 9.

        And I say that having also not given a rat’s rear end about Clinton’s affairs — although some of that happened while he was IN OFFICE. Too bad he felt the need to lie about it. People aren’t saints. Least of all politicians.

        I think we all knew what we were getting with Trump. I don’t recall him putting up a big façade concerning who/what he is — and that’s an important kind of honesty that should be considered in the context of some of his statements that turn out to diverge from total accuracy. I can overlook a lot, if he continues to try to do the job we hired him to do. And whatever else happens, I’ll always be grateful for Trump having kept the Clinton machine out of the White House. Just think of all the things that were going on that we’d never have learned about if Trump hadn’t been elected.

    2. We have created a country where rules and regulations step on one another. A personal donation as Dinesh D’Souza learned has all sorts of rules and regulations when one can donate even more money to a PAC and avoid a potential jail term which makes what D’Souza did to be an innocent violation of law that did not deserve a jail term. No one else would have served time in jail, but the bureaucracy in charge wanted to get the man, not to preserve the law. They got the man.

      The same is occurring in this question of payment. Donald Trump could have paid directly. A PAC could have paid and anyone on this list could have paid. In the zeal to get the President suddenly regulations are being converted to law where the interpretation of the regulation is open to political interpretation where a conservative is held to a higher standard than a Liberal. That is not good for the nation, but whoever said that leftists are good for any nation? Leftists only know how to tear things down, but they do not know how to build.

      1. It was Obama that increased the power of the Executive Branch that Trump is now giving up. All Presidents can be accused of acting like Grand Emperor’s, but when one compares Trump to Obama one quickly learns Obama acted the part and Trump has not.

        1. If Obama did ANYTHING close to what Trump and his staff has done, you would be screaming from the rooftops. Question….How many staffers or Obama’s people where indicted or pled guilty?

            1. Look up Ben Rhodes. He was initially denied an interim security clearance by the FBI. Yet he went on to serve as Obama’s deputy national security advisor (has an MFA in fiction writing) and architect of the Iran deal. The cause for denial of his interim clearance did not have to do with drinking, drugging, or womanizing. So figure it out.

          1. I posted a reply that seems to have gone into cyberspace. I assume that reply made it to your inbox so you can repost the entire reply here and answer the charges I made in that response. In summary, if we compared Obama to Trump one would easily see that the Obama administration including the DOJ, and IRS functioned on what should be considered an illegal level.

            WordPress seems to have too many problems for this is not the first time this has happened.

            1. Allan and his struggles: “WordPress seems to have too many problems for this is not the first time this has happened.”

              WordPress is smarter than I thought. : ) (WordPress coding: “If Allanonsense, then delete.”)

              1. (Copy (and later paste, if necessary), brainiac, as Darren said kindly. Or save your comment as a document, if it’s that important. Better yet, get into one of your interminable “discussions” with someone from WordPress. There’s probably a forum for the issue.)

                1. Apparently, you didn’t read my entire response to Darren. Then again what would make anyone think you could read at a grade school level?

              2. If WordPress were that smart you would have unceremoniously been dumped long ago. You are the filler people use to add weight and substance to something of value.

          2. Oh but Obama did plenty FishWings. It’s just that the media doesn’t want to tell you about that kind of news.

            Like how Obama’s DOJ was shaking down big banks and then funneling billions (yes with a “B”) of mandatory settlement money to its favored Democrat/leftist activist groups instead of returning the money to actual victims of the financial crisis or back into the treasury.

            Like the unmarked hundreds of millions, perhaps billions in cash Obama flew to Iran, the number one state sponsor of terror, in the dark of night in unmarked cargo planes. No one knows how much was actually given to Iran b/c Obama bypassed Congress and conducted the operation in secret.

            Like the IRS targeting of conservative groups by using inappropriate criteria to delay or deny tax exempt status to these groups that effectively silenced them during the campaign period leading up to Obama’s 2012 reelection.

            Like the Obama administration’s unprecedented attacks on the press and investigative journalists that included wiretapping, stonewalling, secrecy, and intimidation tactics called “alarming” and similar to the Soviet Tass even by left-leaning media organizations. Have a listen to journalist Sharyl Attkisson in her testimony before Congress:

            1. Please elaborate on this vast, tentacled media conspiracy that you have so cleverly uncovered. Who new? The media sells the unsuspecting public on the “fiction” that they are in competition to get out the story, allegedly because they are in a race for the “scoop” or the Pulitzer Price, or some other distracting bauble. Through your dogged sleuthing however, we now see that the media is obviously in cahoots for some nefarious purpose; likely to impose a collectivist/communistic society on us; to eradicate the esteem that all good ‘Mericans hold for mom and apple pie; or to fluoridate our precious bodily fluids, or some such.

              this is to “Inspector Gadget at your service” T-hot bobbie

              1. Please elaborate? For real? Okay then go ahead and do a Google search for this DOJ slush fund story that I mentioned and then take a look at which news sources have actually reported on the story. You won’t see CNN, MSNBC, etc, but you will see Fox News and a host of right-leaning independent media stories. Why is this story not being covered more broadly? Most of the MSM didn’t find this story all that newsworthy. If any of them mentioned it at all, it was on page A19 buried at the bottom of the page.

                Then do a Google search for the IRS targeting story and each of the other stories I listed including Sharyl Attkisson’s lawsuit against the DOJ. Why wouldn’t any of these stories be widely reported on? Especially Sharyl’s story since she is an investigative journalist who was spied on and intimidated by the Obama administration. Isn’t that newsworthy? Apparently not. Why? Because it hurts Democrats and their hero Barack Hussein Obama.

                Now do a search for “Obama’s scandal-free administration” and tell me how many stories come up under MSM sources?

                See a pattern Marky Mark?

                1. Fake News. I easily found coverage of the bank mortgage settlement situation in two of the papers that I read: the Washington Post and the paper of record, the New York Times, I didn’t check the Houston Chronicle or the Austin-American Statesman. Far from being a “slush fund,” as part of the settlement agreement, the money was donated by the settling banks to organizations which assist distressed homeowners and communities underserved by the traditional mortgage lenders. Moreover, the contested amounts were not in the billions, but rather, only in the millions. Pro tip: for a more effective search, refrain from using language ginned-up by Pravda Faux News to fire up the gullible rubes, i.e., the words “slush fund” are a misnomer, and won’t reveal any news stories in the reputable media sources.

                  this is to “oh, I never thought the shills at Pravda Faux News would make shit up” t-hot bobbie

                    1. The dirtbag who calls himself Mark gets his information from the dung heap and doesn’t even quote it correctly. He is illiterate when the subject is about financial institutions. The only thing he knows about them is they have wide and deep entryways for him to sleep in at night. Don’t give him money for it will be wasted. Provide him with cardboard so he has some protection from the wind.

                  1. The money was donated to liberal housing nonprofits and legal advocacy groups and other progressive organizations as directed by the DOJ, not by choice. The banks were told where to “donate” the money.

                    “The probe by the two committees revealed that, in approximately the last two years, the DOJ used mandatory donations to direct nearly $1 billion to activist groups.” (Forbes)

                    So Marky, Forbes said the amount was close to one billion, and I consider Forbes to be a ‘reputable media source’ — as you say.

                    https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2017/01/25/house-republicans-target-slush-funds-created-by-doj-lawsuits/#e4e210a44a86

                    1. Did you even read the Forbes article you cited? The supposedly “liberal” groups you claim the DOJ donated to are the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, a group that works to keep our natural resources from being destroyed; the U.S. Coastguard Alumni Association, again hardly a “liberal” group; and an unnamed group interested in “affordable housing”—something that Goldman Sacks helped destroy with its subprime loan securities before the last recession!

                    2. markkernes, Yes, those groups were identified in the Forbes article, and other activist groups not specifically mentioned in the article include the National Urban League, the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America and the National Council of La Raza, among others. The investigations found DOJ was steering ‘donations’ to primarily left-leaning activist groups. Point is that DOJ should not be picking and choosing which nonprofit groups or third party organizations should receive mandatory ‘donations’ from the settlement banks. It was determined to be a back-door funding scheme for liberal groups.

                    3. All of the groups you mention serve poor and disenfranchised citizens who generally have little voice in the political sphere, and of course absolutely NO voice in the Trump administration—so of course, cutting off funds to them not only helps (mildly) decrease the multi-trillion dollar federal deficit that Trump and Congress have created, it keeps those voiceless citizens voiceless—A DOUBLE WIN!

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: