Criminal law, Media, Politics

Stormy Daniels Arrested Under Rarely Enforced Ohio Law [Updated]

1531390682941The arrest of Stormy Daniels at an Ohio strip club in Columbus raises a credible question of selective enforcement of a 2007 state law called the Community Defense Act. The law  prohibits dancers from touching customers and vice versa.  It is a law honored mainly in the breach in strip clubs.  However, the police appeared ready to pounce on any touch by Daniels and she was taken to the Franklin County Ohio Sheriff’s Office and charged with misdemeanor sex offenses. Update: Charges have now been dropped, though without an explanation of why the string operation and original charges.

According to news reports, a female policer undercover officer says that Daniels was topless when she “knowingly” touched the officer’s buttocks, placed her hands on the officer’s breast and then put her chest in the officer’s face while “on the premise of a sexually oriented business.”

Notably, the law does not even allow the touching of clothing.  Here is the pertinent section:

(1) No patron who is not a member of the employee’s immediate family shall knowingly touch any employee while that employee is nude or seminude or touch the clothing of any employee while that employee is nude or seminude.

(2) No employee who regularly appears nude or seminude on the premises of a sexually oriented business, while on the premises of that sexually oriented business and while nude or seminude, shall knowingly touch a patron who is not a member of the employee’s immediate family or another employee who is not a member of the employee’s immediate family or the clothing of a patron who is not a member of the employee’s immediate family or another employee who is not a member of the employee’s immediate family or allow a patron who is not a member of the employee’s immediate family or another employee who is not a member of the employee’s immediate family to touch the employee or the clothing of the employee.

(D) Whoever violates division (B) of this section is guilty of illegally operating a sexually oriented business, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

Former Trump campaign adviser A.J. Delgado has suggested that the arrest could be a case of entrapment.  That is highly unlikely.  The Supreme Court has noted that “[t]o determine whether entrapment has been established, a distinction is made between a trap for the “unwary innocent” and a trap for the ‘unwary criminal.'” Sherman v United States, 356 US 369, 372; 78 S Ct 819; 2 L Ed 2d 848 (1958).  Entrapment requires a showing that the “conception and planning of an offense by an officer, and his procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for trickery, persuasion, or fraud of the officer.” Sorrells v United States, 287 US 435, 454 (1932). The courts are unlikely to see this as a case of entrapment unless the officers literally pulled Daniels into contact involuntarily.

Selective enforcement is another possibility but such claims are difficult to maintain in court. The first such Supreme Court case was Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) where an otherwise facially neutral law was found to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause when administered in a prejudicial manner. The case involved an ordinance enacted in the 1800s by San Francisco requiring all commercial laundries to be in brick or stone buildings absent approval from the Board of Supervisors.  The board approved waivers for white owners but denied every one of the nearly 200 Chinese petitions.

However, these claims are easier when used for racial or discriminatory purposes against groups.  In United States v. Armstrong (1996), Justice Rehnquist wrote that a selective-prosecution claim in the criminal context requires proof not only of a discriminatory purpose but a discriminatory effect.  The Court stressed:

“In order to dispel the presumption that a prosecutor has not violated equal protection, a criminal defendant must present “clear evidence to the contrary.” Chemical Foundation, supra, at 14-15. We explained in Wayte why courts are “properly hesitant to examine the decision whether to prosecute.” 470 U. S., at 608. Judicial deference to the decisions of these executive officers rests in part on an assessment of the relative competence of prosecutors and courts. “Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution’s general deterrence value, the Government’s enforcement priorities, and the case’s relationship to the Government’s overall enforcement plan are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake.” Id., at 607. It also stems from a concern not to unnecessarily impair the performance of a core executive constitutional function.”

The Court then ruled that the evidence of the lower courts and the challengers fell well short of that standard.

This case involves the trickier element of the use of the law to limit free speech by a critic of the President.  However, the law itself is designed to limit conduct in the form of touching as opposed to the act of dancing.

That makes it an even more difficult challenge to bring on a constitutional level.  What is weird is that the law does not include a type of de minimus violation exception. Any touching is criminalized under the vague and sweeping provision.

The police account does not describe a de minimus violation and more than one officer may have been touched.  With multiple accounts from undercover officers, it is the type of offense that is treated as largely unassailable by courts unless they believe that multiple officers are making false statements.

224 thoughts on “Stormy Daniels Arrested Under Rarely Enforced Ohio Law [Updated]”

  3. I might add one more thing that people should find shocking. Cops say they need to have sex with sex workers to actually make a good arrest. Not making that up! It’s a shameful practice which should be considered a violation of due process!

    http://reason.com/archives/2017/05/25/cops-fight-for-the-right-to-sexually-exp

    Alaska Cops Fight for the Right to Sexually Exploit Prostitution Suspects
    New laws are under debate, but the practice is more common than you think.
    Maggie McNeill | May 25, 2017

    Katarzyna Bialasiewicz | Dreamstime
    Once again, cops are arguing that they need to be allowed to have sex with suspects in order to investigate prostitution allegations. And once again, lawmakers and journalists are acting like exploitation and assault of sex workers by law enforcement is a rare occurrence, rather than a national epidemic.

    Most people would agree that the deception, the power differential, and the subsequent arrest of sex workers make such contact utterly unacceptable, even if they don’t think that it rises to the level of rape. Yet the behavior is common enough to bring police unions to its defense on a regular basis.

    This month the fight is in Alaska, where the Anchorage Police Department is opposing two bills that would criminalize “sexual contact” with suspected sex workers. House Bill 112 states, in part, “An offender commits the crime of sexual assault in the third degree if the offender…while acting as a peace officer in the state, engages in sexual penetration with a person with reckless disregard that the person is…the victim, witness, or perpetrator of a crime under investigation by the offender.” Deputy Chief Sean Case told the Alaska Dispatch News that the freedom to engage in sexual behavior with people under investigation is vital to doing police work. That’s because sex workers can engage in “cop-checking,” he says—vetting possible clients by asking them break laws that restrict law enforcement. A suspect might ask him to touch her breast, he explained. “If we make that act (of touching) a misdemeanor we have absolutely no way of getting involved in that type of arrest.”

    In the same interview, however, Case claimed that police “are not out there to go out and find that street prostitute….What we’re interested in now is the trafficking.” In other words, Anchorage police are arguing that they must be allowed to molest trafficking victims in order to do their jobs.

    The Alaska bills were introduced through the efforts of sex worker activists, who well know that in every place where sex work is criminalized or even semi-criminalized (and that includes all 50 American states) police and/or their paid informants routinely take sexual liberties ranging from groping to full intercourse with women they’re “investigating.” Sometimes they claim this is necessary for “gathering evidence” or (as in the Anchorage excuse above) part of the process of arresting the sex workers. Other times the activity somehow doesn’t make it into police reports at all. (Imagine that!) This is exactly why Alaskan activists want the contact prohibited.,,,,

  4. This reminds me a little bit of the Dinesh D’Souza case, except with nudity. Except with Dinesh, his crime had never been prosecuted in the history of the United States. Anyone caught doing what he did would get hit with no more than a fine. And it has not been prosecuted since. One should note that Rosie O’Donnell used 5 different spellings of her name and different addresses to mask her own donations exceeding the limit, and yet she was not charged and sent to prison. And she has done this regularly, for years. Will she face the same consequences? It is true that Trump pardoned Dinesh, noting that he was clearly singled out and treated differently than any other citizen ever. But he cannot take away serving his sentence or the damage to his reputation. That happened. However, when her serial over donations were revealed, the NY Post noted that her candidates are refunding her the money…at least for this year.

    1. Some have tried to argue that it was a simple mistake on Rosie’s part, with no intent to deceive. However, she used 5 different addresses and 4 different spellings of her names to try to conceal her donations.

      1. The incarceration of Dinesh and the deal he was forced to make should infuriate any American that believes in the law and civil liberties. That so many lefties show a blind eye tells us the left is strongly authoritarian.

        1. Allan: Frankly, I’d be happy if ALL political campaign donations were barred, and each candidate was allotted a set amount of funds by the government to place ads for themselves, with no other candidacy advertising allowed. The current state of affairs has gotten us to this point, the brink of an abyss that can only lead to the destruction of the United States—and frankly, I expect that to happen pretty soon.

          1. and each candidate was allotted a set amount of funds by the government to place ads for themselves, with no other candidacy advertising allowed.

            Yeah, rationed speech. And federal inspectors chasing down and suing every tom, dick, and harry who places an ad.

            1. It is amazing how SOT/DSS/NIS/TSTD misses salient points in a quest to be the sharpest knife in a very dull drawer.

              “… and suing every tom, dick, and harry who places an ad.” — Spasticboy

              Did you note the qualifier offered by Mark to your lame response:

              “… with no other candidacy advertising allowed …”

              As to your argument of “rationed speech” it seems safe to assume that you believe that money equals speech and any encroachment on this perspective is invoking Stalin.

              NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) should be compelled to carry political ads free of charge — given their mandate to provide public service for using publicly owned spectrum. Cartoons in the morning are really not a public service, are they?

              This would quickly remove the need for large war chests of political banter.

              You have fun, SOT/DSS/NIS/TSTD, don’t fall on your face too many times, and keep your responses in the vein their going, which is to just say ‘No’ and declare one an idiot.

              You have become laughable in your much too much time here — good luck convincing.

          2. “I’d be happy if ALL political campaign donations were barred…”

            Markkerns, I am not willing to give up that right or even more of our individual sovereignty. The winds change in direction so while you are happy when the government gains power supporting you, it can, in the future be your worst enemy. We should protect our civil liberties to the maximum while protecting our national security.

  5. Don’t hold back, Bill—tell us how you really feel about people whose sexuality is more open and honest than your own!

  6. good for them but I would say the management of the adult film industry could probably care less because their whole gig is legal. i suspect that is window dressing for them. Url https://amzn.to/2N9MarN

    1. now that was a bot. it copied my comment and added a link to a coat sold on amazon. sheesh! i wonder if it was a russian bot? lol

  8. What else are the Columbus vice cops up to recently?

    https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/operation-in-plain-sight-shuts-down-columbus-massage-parlor

    read it. basically the massage workers were suspected of giving handjobs so they went in and boarded the place up under the phony pretense of “human trafficking”

    I would bet this “human trafficking” investigation has zero evidence of anything qualifying as such under the state law. as do 90-% of them. occasionally they arrest a pimp exploiting and underage girl or some indentured servant enslaved brough here by foreigners but damn few massage parlor raids ever end if prosecution and they are a constant feature around the country.

    it’s pathetic and unfair and it shows what a bunch of louts they are in columbus. Stormy was an afterthought, just another bogus arrest.

  9. Did Stormy Daniels resist Donald Trump, or was he a cash paying client? Something tells me for the right prices anyone( male or female) could touch Stormy all they wanted and where ever they wanted.

    1. Bob: Nope, no money allegedly changed hands when Stormy had sex with Trump; it was just one of those things where they met up at a golf tournament, he invited her back to his room, she went, and though she said she wasn’t particularly attracted to him, she let him f*ck her anyway. (Some people are a bit looser about sex than others.) The money trouble began when she gave an interview to InTouch magazine about the affair in (I think) 2011, Trump got wind of it, managed to get the piece killed, and then had Cohen offer her the $130K if she’d keep her mouth shut about it.

      1. rich and famous dudes pull this kind of stuff all the time. there’s a lot more fixers out there than cohen. hell major universities have whole staffs of lawyers fixing the dirt thrown up by steroid infused ballers that go too far etc. of course the tattletale metoo phenom will affect that line of work singficantly

        personally i also dislike the metooers who all pretend they are so afflicted but it’s chickenscratch next to what the average sex worker may have to put up with. clearly they are a bunch of hypocrites. there is an opening for the right here to step up to the plate and get behind legalization but I doubt they are up to it.

        1. but it’s chickenscratch next to what the average sex worker may have to put up with

          She puts up with it because it’s worth it to her.

          1. fair enough, there are a lot of trades where they have to put up with risks of crime like 7/11s and liquor stores that have to fear constant robbery in bad locales.

            but it doesnt make the crimes right just because they are convenient for the perps and they happen a lot. if public order is a priority then policing has to focus on serious things and take human nature into account. prosecution of sex workers is on the whole counterproductive of public order. licensing of sex workers and legalization of indoor venues would take a lot of the crime out of it just as legalizing and licensing many forms of gambling has helped public order.

        2. Mr K: Got that right! Considering how much sex work (and I don’t mean dancing) goes on in America and how many politicians and rich folks are involved in it, mostly as paying customers. I continue to be surprised it isn’t legal anywhere but a few counties in Nevada. But sex workers are starting to make their voices heard. I attended a “workshop” and demonstration on International Whores Day recently, and wrote about it here: https://avn.com/business/articles/legal/adult-industry-workers-come-out-for-international-whores-day-779349.html

          1. good for them but I would say the management of the adult film industry could probably care less because their whole gig is legal. i suspect that is window dressing for them.

            the article is interesting it points out that feminist icon and leftist blatherer extraodinaie elizabeth warren is a cosponsor of a bill to allow seizure of sex worker bank accounts. some help working women get from her!

            1. Mr K: You’d be surprised how interested the porn industry is in sex worker rights, in part because a lot of the “new guard” in the industry are the performers themselves, who make their own videos, sell them on sites like ManyVids and Clips4Sale, and even run some production companies. You might want to check out the website of the industry trade organization, Free Speech Coalition: https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/ It might surprise you.

                1. Sure is! (Back In The Day, they used to send me to D.C. to cover cases like this, and Ricci Levy who runs Woodhull is a pal.)

                  1. mark i just looked at your tweeter and I challenge you to write more about the legitimate social interests of sex workers. i think the anti trump and pro gay lobbies are very strong already and you may wish to consider helping give somebody more humble a louder voice with your experience as a journalist. today here you have said a lot of things that average people might be interested to know. a lot of conservatives and republicans and trumpers and christians may not be so closed minded on this topic as you may suspect.

                    btw, presently I consider this blog the best on the topic

                    https://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/

                    1. oh and dont forget we have Roger Stone who is a libertine to put it nicely

                    3. Mr K: Maggie is excellent; no doubt about that. As for myself, I tweet infrequently, mostly as the “spirit” moves me on one issue or another, and there’s only so much time in the day (too much of it I’ve wasted here already), plus I’m approaching 70 years old and need my “down time.” Still, my main duties are to write about the porn industry and issues that affect it, though I do put in sex-positive and sex-worker-positive content when I can.

                  2. Mark that is a good one about Roger Stone. It may surprise some people that not every pro Trump Republican is a prude, and not every Christian is a Puritan.

                    Thanks for showing up and making an interesting commentary here today Mark!

      2. One succinct paragraph from someone familiar with the source and who has credibility and objectivity. That’s what I like to see in the announcement of information.

        Why can’t we have this on a national scale, without the drama, opinion, conjecture and lies? Facts without the BS, then each person can arrive at their own conclusions within the context of their own lives and experience.

        On a tangent to this a hobby and expertise of mine is designing systems or processes. The more open the truth the better the resulting system or policy. I enjoy efficiency and effectiveness and I admire well organized enterprises, whatever they may be especially ones directly beneficial to as many as possible. The worst impediment to this goal is politics and the worse the politics in an organization the greater the frustration because you end up being forced to accommodate stupidity and egos.

        This is one of the reasons why I’ve lamented our country would be better governed by robots.

        1. Darren: It’s always fascinated that, considering the role that sexual intercourse plays in the lives of everyone on the planet, that people aren’t more open about their sex lives, their likes and dislikes, their fantasies—really, anything having to do with sex. For example, the porn industry makes a lot of money—less than it did a few years ago, but still a pretty good amount—but much of that would go away if people were, for instance, making their own videos and sharing them with their friends—or if prostitution were legal. So, all you rabidly religious folks out there, the porn industry thanks you heartily for keeping them in business!

          1. the rise in porn came with technology. first vcrs then the cell phone explosion facilitated by the CDA safe harbors. which are now under fire from sosta and sesta. religious opposition was shortsighted in that it totally misunderstood the compelling effects that technology would have on human society.

            and the bigger issue, the worse dehumanization than all the porn put together, is the sad state of affairs that everyone is walking around with their noses buried in their cell phones and all these electronic media. when they could and should be out experiencing life face to face and not always in a virtual reality

            to be honest I think that is another reason why I advocate the legalization of sex work, because, quite simply, I think it is psychologically more healthy for people to have a face to face sexual interaction with a sex worker, a real live person like you and me, that’s a better thing (in moderation) than all this anonymous and solitary masturbation encouraged by digital media.

            But again if you look at the economics of it, the vendors of technology like appple or google have a lot to gain by selling porn and porn viewing devices, and precious little to gain from face to face interactions by consenting adults engaging in a quintessentially social activity.

            1. In fact I want to call out the religious opposition to legalization of sex work, because they have turned a blind eye competely to the sexualization of minors that has been facilitated by online porn downloaded into cell phones. It’s like they totally pretend that doesnt exist.

              I watched my first porn when I was old enough to rent a video. Before the internet. Now the kids see them a lot younger. Where are all the religious in organizing against this or better yet finding a way to help families and parents monitor the problem. A total zero. Instead they are window dressing with efforts to fight sex work like all these abundant local supposed human trafficking investigations that never end in any significant number of prosecutions.

              And I tell you who REALLY wanted to get SESTA and FOSTA passe, the most. A very very small number of plaintiff lawyers who have a handful or real victims of sex trafficking that were pimped out on backpage or whatever and they want a slice of the asset forfeitures which are coming. That’s the real energy behind it. They want to sue internet portal who are protected or were protected by the CDA. And they could care less about the bigger problems of exploitation of minors or immigrants or any of that stuff that supposedly is behind these bogus laws.

              How to sort it all out? By not oversimplifying everything for starters. And by having a real attention span. And that goes right back into technology eating away at all our brains. But it’s all moving too fast for anybody to give the deep effects much of a thought at all.

              Instead however there is enough energy to arrest a woman like Stormy for flopping her plastic mams in a cop’s face. Wow, really, no priorities or insight or wisdom at all.

            2. “But again if you look at the economics of it, the vendors of technology like appple or google have a lot to gain by selling porn and porn viewing devices, and precious little to gain from face to face interactions by consenting adults engaging in a quintessentially social activity.”

              In essence what you seem to be saying is that rules and regulations have unintended consequences. Rules preventing real life sexual actions are creating an entire virtual world

              1. kind of. i think the volume of porn circulating on the internet just as a volume of informational transmissions is mind boggling. i read an article comparing different metrics about this and somebody came up with 10% of the internet. that’s a lot of data! and i am not an anti-porn crusader at all. it’s socially acceptable, let’s be honest. but is it so much healthier than different forms of face to face sexual encounters between consenting adults which may involve a monetary transaction?

                put differently, is all this solitary self gratification so much more healthy that going to see a stripper, or a roll in the hay with a sex worker?

                but we are out there policing that other stuff aggressively and all the porn well, that’s great. and anyways apple and google etc are making billions off of it so trust me it aint going away. meanwhile the humble sex workers all over america are considered a menace to society and get locked up because cops tricked them into agreeing to sell some sexual satisfaction.

                1. One can’t completely curtail human nature. To do so requires a police state and even then total success is rare. Live and let live with both parties being more caring to the other, but human nature can interfere with that as well.

      3. But now Trump and Stormy are going tit for tat……. (sorry, I couldn’t help myself)

    2. What about Melania? What was her original relationship with Trump?

      2. Peter Hill: Well, we know she was a model, and the sexual behavior of models varies widely from essentially Puritan to unabashed partying. A search of Google Images will probably turn up the photos of her naked with another naked woman, so her sexuality is anyone’s guess—except perhaps The Donald’s.

  10. “a law that is rarely enforced” is a phrase that suggests things far more wrong with our criminal justice system than people would like to admit.

    I’m sure team Mueller with regard to Trump, and team Starr with regard to Clinton, did plenty of that. Those cases, in contrast to the vast majority, deal with upper income people.

    Outside of special councils and prosecutors, our “fabulous” criminal justice system enforces any number of the thousands of laws now on the books when dealing with poor people (many of whom are minorities) more often than with rich.

    Smell some cocaine when dealing with some teenagers in Georgetown? Time to call the parents.

    Smell some cocaine when dealing with some teenagers in some “other” areas of Washington? Time to call the swat team.

    The solution to the Daniels incident is that the law shouldn’t have been on the books in the first place. And it’s time we started casting a cynical eye on legislators who want to legislate more “crimes.”

    1. Again, the notion that the law is ‘rarely’ enforced is in the moderator’s imagination.

      In re Starr, Richard Posner’s assessment, FWIW: prosecutorial discrection would not have saved Bill Smith had he committed subornation of perjury and the federal sentencing guidelines recommend 30-37 months for said crime.

      1. “that the law is ‘rarely’ enforced is in the moderator’s imagination”

        I don’t think you backed that up. How many strip clubs have you been to in order to verify this? In addition, I said that this law shouldn’t be on the books.

        If you like that law, more power to you. But don’t complain to me when the cops are too busy at a strip club to assist you when you’re getting mugged.

        1. I don’t think you backed that up.

          Neither did he.

      2. I’m unaware of a Bill Smith involved in the Starr investigation.

          1. Oh, so all those lies Trump is telling you are metaphors? I get it. This isn’t about politics; it’s literary criticism.

            1. Once more with feeling:

              Posner was addressing the complaint that Bill Clinton was subject to selective prosecution for attempting to arrange for perjured testimony in a civil suit. Posner denies this contention and states that an ordinary federal prosecutor would have proceeded with the case had it been a generic defendant. This point is really not that obscure.

              1. Well you do realize that Kavanugh, now after he’s off the Starr team, rejects this. Perhaps he should not be confirmed.

                1. I haven’t read any remarks Kavanaugh has made on that specific point (and, while we’re at it, you have a penchant for getting simple things wrong, much less a more esoteric question like that). I don’t really care one way or another at this point.

                  1. Simple things like what? That Kavanaugh said public statements outside a courtroom are grounds for obstruction of justice? That’s a simple statement? It’s a ridiculous statement — I’ll give you that.

              2. So you meant Bill Clinton, not some hypiothetical Bill Smith. these meataphors are so hard to grasp. Is Teaching Spastics to Dance a metaphor too?

  13. Stormy, I don’t like her. But arresting a stripper for this is ridiculous. Then again all these kinds of laws against trivial sexual touching between adults are ridiculous. I would not call it selective enforcement in particular because every single one such arrest is in itself selective enforcement. The cops go get handjobs from massage parlors, scare the women into doing it, pay them extra, and then arrest them for it. How’s that due process?

    https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1635&context=flr

    Oh and what the devil has this got to do with “sex trafficking?” nothing, that’s just a new fancy name for sex worker prosecutions! For every hundred sex trafficking investigations– netting lots of asset forfeiture cash for police– they probably make 1 percent rate of prosecution. What a fraud!

  14. Michael Avenatti opined, correctly, that this is proof of just how desperate Trump, et al are. Why were police women sent there undercover in the first place?

    Meantime, in his vainglory tour, Trump lies to the world at large. No NATO ally agreed to anything other than the 2% by 2024 as previously settled. No one agreed to spend more on their military. His 2 days there did nothing, other than upset people. Nothing Trump did accomplished anything good, but he did do considerable damage to the U.S.’s reputation and standing in the world by his arrogance and lying. The U.S wasn’t being cheated by anyone, and Trump has proven, once again, that he is a world-class ass. Can’t wait for the wide angle shot with Trump and Trump Baby balloon in the same frame. There are considerable numbers of protesters in London.

    We ask again: where are the babies, where are most of the girls, and why isn’t Jon using his platform to do some good for these innocent babies and children?

    1. What like Trump told them to do it? BS, grow up. It’s just regular beat vice cops doing their usual stupid routine. Don’t blame Trump for something he had nothing to do with. You’re obsessed!

      2. You don’t think Ohio lawmakers and enforcers aren’t Republican and pro-Trump? You think Stormy isn’t pissing him off? You think that the undercover policewomen routinely go to this club?

        1. The legislation was enacted 11 years ago. The mayor, who supervises the chief of police, is a Democrat. So is the county sheriff (though his deputies do not patrol in Columbus).

          1. TS to Dance,…
            – What you say is true, but will not satisfy those who suspect Trump’s hand in the charges against Skanky Daniels.
            It was virtually inevitable that some would see “Trump Collusion ” with the Columbus cops.
            That’s why I’ve recommended another Special Counsel appointment to get to the bottom of this.
            They new Sp. Counsel could also branch out into “other matters that may arise out of the investigation”.
            E.G., maybe a minor conned the establishment once with fake ID, maybe the place where Stormy performed missed the legal closing time a few years back, etc.
            A friend or former collegue ( not sure if he has any friends left from the former partnership) of Avenatti might be a good choice for Rosenstein for this new Special Counsel appointment.

            1. No, the chief of police in Los Angeles reported to a commission serving fixed terms.

                1. No, it was a failed attempt on your part to be clever.

                  1. No, the police commission at the time was a rubber stamp. Bradley’s struggles with Gates were legendary. That’s reality, not a metaphor.

                    1. It’s not a reality at all, it’s your latest improvisation. Bradley ‘struggled’ with Gates because he couldn’t fire him. Because the commission wasn’t a ‘rubber stamp’.

        2. I dont know if they are or not. Prolly some are republicans and dems and a lot of both are pro trump. so what?

          i think stormy is a gnat on elephant trump’s ass. i bet he thinks very rarely of her. seriously.,

          i also think YES those cops probably go there all the time if they are locals. cops are notorious for liking strip clubs. and they like massage too.

          there is zero proof that she was targeted for her obnoxious vendetta against DJT. Dont make more out of it than it is. It is just another bogus arrest of a sex worker, that’s all. Don’t hang this on Trump, that’s total paranoia

Comments are closed.