|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 15 2018 00:33 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 23:40 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2018 20:59 Plansix wrote:
Apparently attorneys are not supposed to do what Trumps lawyer claimed he did, which only deepens my suspicion that it is a lie. I doubt 1.8(e) applies here. There’s no pending or contemplated litigation. If I'm understanding correctly, he's saying he paid it himself because if it came from Trump or his campaign that would be illegal. How does that not qualify as pending or contemplated litigation? For the record, I'm not saying I don't believe you. You're the lawyer. That's just baffling to me. In situations where it would be illegal for me to pay someone money, can I actually just have my lawyer do it and it's fine?
It’s not illegal for the lawyer to pay her off, just a violation of ethical guidelines set by the BAR. It puts his license to practice law at risk(not likely, but it could). It would be illegal for Trump to use campaign funds to do it. He could use his personal funds and it wouldn’t be an issue.
Edit:
Also
|
On February 14 2018 23:33 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 20:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Good thing that those christian conservatives elected and stand by a man who defends family values (it was always about bullyiing women anyway so they are good)
On a serious note I assume part of those peole is sincere, so what would it take them to abandon DT? If he came out pro-abortion, surely? That seems to be the true line in the sand for the right wing grass roots. I think they're flexible on immigration, but that one would be a bridge too far.
Currently pro-choice, maybe. Anytime before 2016 on the record as pro-choice wouldn't matter, the phantom of "I've changed" has a powerful draw.
|
I can think of other rules of professional conduct that may have been violated here, but I don’t think that 1.8(e) applies on its face.
|
On February 15 2018 00:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 00:33 ChristianS wrote:On February 14 2018 23:40 xDaunt wrote:I doubt 1.8(e) applies here. There’s no pending or contemplated litigation. If I'm understanding correctly, he's saying he paid it himself because if it came from Trump or his campaign that would be illegal. How does that not qualify as pending or contemplated litigation? For the record, I'm not saying I don't believe you. You're the lawyer. That's just baffling to me. In situations where it would be illegal for me to pay someone money, can I actually just have my lawyer do it and it's fine? It’s not illegal for the lawyer to pay her off, just a violation of ethical guidelines set by the BAR. It puts his license to practice law at risk(not likely, but it could). It would be illegal for Trump to use campaign funds to do it. He could use his personal funds and it wouldn’t be an issue.
Exactly. The statement is about it not being payed with campaign money, but makes no mention whether or not Trump himself authorized or reimbursed him.
|
On February 15 2018 00:47 xDaunt wrote:
I can think of other rules of professional conduct that may have been violated here, but I don’t think that 1.8(e) applies on its face.
I'm genuinely curious. How is this different from what happened with John Edwards? I remember that it involved secret hush money to a mistress which was paid by his lawyer to prevent Edwards from getting directly financially involved in the coverup. Edwards got indicted on six felony charges for violating campaign finance law, but he did not get convicted on any of them.
|
And I didn’t think there was a case that was even close to on point, but then LordofAwesome reminds me of John Edwards.
|
|
|
|
|
On February 15 2018 00:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 23:33 iamthedave wrote:On February 14 2018 20:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Good thing that those christian conservatives elected and stand by a man who defends family values (it was always about bullyiing women anyway so they are good)
On a serious note I assume part of those peole is sincere, so what would it take them to abandon DT? If he came out pro-abortion, surely? That seems to be the true line in the sand for the right wing grass roots. I think they're flexible on immigration, but that one would be a bridge too far. Currently pro-choice, maybe. Anytime before 2016 on the record as pro-choice wouldn't matter, the phantom of "I've changed" has a powerful draw.
Trump has an impressive ability to let people fool themselves. In some ways his Presidency lets us see how a con man really works on the highest stage imaginable; it's less that he fools people, but gives them the excuse they want to fool themselves. He makes a flat statement, his base celebrates, then he waffles and equivocates when challenged, then reiterates later, and the people who want to believe in him conjure the image of a strongman genius 5D chess player who is the greatest political mastermind of his generation, when they'd undoubtedly describe anyone else with the same qualities as a weak-willed, clueless flip-flopper clearly out of their depth.
|
Regardless of the ethical/legal implications, or the fact he is certainly lying about Trump not knowing, the end result is this affair being a bigger story, and more widely followed, than it was previously. Thanks Cohen.
It has also brought attention to Fire and Fury's throwaway line by Bannon that Trump's lawyers did this with some 100 girls leading up to the election. Expect more shoes to drop. Someone even mentioned possible NDAs regarding abortions. Now wouldn't that be juicy if true.
Though I'm sure the Evangelicals twisted logic could find some way to still support him.
|
On February 15 2018 00:57 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 00:47 xDaunt wrote:
I can think of other rules of professional conduct that may have been violated here, but I don’t think that 1.8(e) applies on its face. I'm genuinely curious. How is this different from what happened with John Edwards? I remember that it involved secret hush money to a mistress which was paid by his lawyer to prevent Edwards from getting directly financially involved in the coverup. Edwards got indicted on six felony charges for violating campaign finance law, but he did not get convicted on any of them.
It all depends upon where the money came from and how involved Trump was.
|
On February 15 2018 01:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 00:57 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 15 2018 00:47 xDaunt wrote:
I can think of other rules of professional conduct that may have been violated here, but I don’t think that 1.8(e) applies on its face. I'm genuinely curious. How is this different from what happened with John Edwards? I remember that it involved secret hush money to a mistress which was paid by his lawyer to prevent Edwards from getting directly financially involved in the coverup. Edwards got indicted on six felony charges for violating campaign finance law, but he did not get convicted on any of them. It all depends upon where the money came from and how involved Trump was.
I'd like to know why he tried to hide the payment, regarding an allegation he doesn't believe about a client who is already an admitted womanizer/known cheater, by funneling it through a LLC set up in Delaware, which is the go to place if you fear transparency?
But nah, I'm sure this was all on the up-and-up.
|
On February 15 2018 01:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 00:57 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 15 2018 00:47 xDaunt wrote:
I can think of other rules of professional conduct that may have been violated here, but I don’t think that 1.8(e) applies on its face. I'm genuinely curious. How is this different from what happened with John Edwards? I remember that it involved secret hush money to a mistress which was paid by his lawyer to prevent Edwards from getting directly financially involved in the coverup. Edwards got indicted on six felony charges for violating campaign finance law, but he did not get convicted on any of them. It all depends upon where the money came from and how involved Trump was.
If the women was threatening to go public with the information about the affair, how Trump’s attorney withhold that information from Trump and not violate a whole bunch of attorney guidelines? And how could that attorney act to resolve the problem to Trump’s benefit and not tell Trump?
|
I remember there being much consternation over the Clinton campaign allegedly paying for the Steele Dossier via FusionGPS via the campaign's legal counsel. But clearly paying off a porn star via a LLC by way of your personal lawyer is A-OK.
|
On February 15 2018 01:33 ticklishmusic wrote:
I remember there being much consternation over the Clinton campaign allegedly paying for the Steele Dossier via FusionGPS via the campaign's legal counsel. But clearly paying off a porn star via a LLC by way of your personal lawyer is A-OK.
This just really is not a good week for Trump. Porter and the Pornstar week
|
Seems like more of the same and some remarkably sloppy propaganda reporting to boot.
NBC News has already used the data to expose how Russian accounts impersonated everyday Americans and drew hundreds of millions of followers
NBC News did no such thing.
|
On February 14 2018 23:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 22:59 Grumbels wrote:On February 14 2018 20:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Good thing that those christian conservatives elected and stand by a man who defends family values (it was always about bullyiing women anyway so they are good)
On a serious note I assume part of those peole is sincere, so what would it take them to abandon DT? There's probably some taboos that Trump can't cross to continue to enjoy the support of evangelicals. Not rape, which evangelicals don't seem to care about, but maybe pedophilia. Also, they would drop him the moment he would, say, promote programs that primarily help black people. Really who did the party of god endorse in Alabama again?
Well, what Moore did was not really considered pedophilia by many Alabama voters, who just said courting teenagers was part of the culture (and Moore did lose a lot of support, actually). I mean, it is pretty common for older men to lust after 15 year olds, historically, not saying it is right. I watched a movie the other day where it was presented as a sensible choice for a 15 y/o to marry someone who could be her grandfather because he promised to take care of her and her mother also. I think if Trump could be very definitely linked to some child sex ring with Epstein, with graphic proof or what not, that would be sufficient to take him down.
I recall that in 2016 I was ignorant enough to say: "who could possibly vote for Trump with all of these sexual misconduct allegations against him?", and clearly Evangelicals did not care, but I still do think that a sufficiently dark tale of taboo breaking behavior could topple even Trump.
|
On February 15 2018 01:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Seems like more of the same and some remarkably sloppy propaganda reporting to boot. Show nested quote +NBC News has already used the data to expose how Russian accounts impersonated everyday Americans and drew hundreds of millions of followers NBC News did no such thing.
You saying "none of this is true" isn't really convincing anyone. Your unwillingness to acknowledge it doesn't really mean anything.
|
|
|
Breaking: Thing everyone knew would happen is indeed happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
