Yeah but Clinton didn't lie after he paid her off.
To be fair, he probably did.
One of the main purposes of an NDA is to stop a truth being told. And to allow the other person to live a lie.
I have never been an American Lawyer. I am no longer an English Lawyer. But where I have the advantage over people who either want to Defend Trump or crucify him is that I have been in the position where I have created this sort of NDA for people in the position of Trump. Have advised people in the position of Daniels. And have advised people in a similar position to Trump once Daniels acted as she did.
The first simple rule is to disregard anything pathetic w4nkers like "thegatewaypundit" say.
They just spout nonsense. From the start of their existence. To the end. About to disappear. Not because of "defamation lawsuits". Because they tell lies. And get caught telling lies. Which is why they get sued into oblivion. No doubt to be replaced by the next set of crazed loons.
The Far Right try to have it both ways. Trying to say both that this sort of payment is perfectly legal and that Clinton did the same thing. There is no convincing lie like a half-truth.
I never gave moral advice in these sort of situations. People paid for my professional opinion in solving problems. Not my personal ones. I don't know what happened. But I can make an informed guess.
1. Trump was perfectly entitled to arrange for the NDA to be created. That is perfectly legal. He could have paid this money from his own money perfectly legally. But he chose to make the payment via means which have legal consequences if you hide it
2. I will always despise people who do what Stormy Daniels did. She would (or at least should) have been advised that she had 2 options. She could open the box (insert joke here!) or take the money. What she could not do was both take the $130,000 and then blab about the stuff she had just been paid not to disclose
3. Once she had decided to do both, Trump had options. And Lawyers don't tell Clients what to do. They set out the options. He should have been advised that he could sue Daniels. And would be likely to win. Alternatively, he could choose to hold that over her-because if he did not sue now but threaten to sue later, it would then not be wise for Daniels to provide evidence in any Criminal trial. She would pretty much have to plead the 5th. In short, he could win a battle. But at the risk of losing the War. He chose to sue. Bit tricky denying the NDA if you have already gone on public record suing someone for breaking it
4. Why did Trump not take the stand? Not because he was Guilty. Because, when it comes to Legal matters, he is an uncontrollable loose cannon. Regardless of whether he was Innocent or Guilty. Who could **** defeat from the jaws of victory. Because he fails to follow advice. And grandstands when he should not. In short, because no Lawyer wants to allow a Client to speak who thinks he is above the Law and thinks it is wise to accuse the Judge of being "corrupt" to speak
5. Are the criminal convictions the key issue? No. They are the lowest rung of Felonies. He is a pathetic elderly man with no previous convictions. With lots of money to pay Fines. And they may on appeal be reduced to Misdemeanours. The key issue, IMHO, is his attack on the Judge and the System. The American system. Which he believes works well when it is in his favour. But not when it is not
It is perfectly possible to believe that someone in a position of authority (like, say, a President) is entitled to pick Republican Judges in the Supreme Court. And gloat about it
It is also perfectly possible to rail against a system whereby somebody else in a position of authority selects a Judge who may (or may not) be a Democrat. And believe that no Judge whose personal opinions lean 1 way is anything other than partial, even corrupt.
What is not possible is to believe both those statements apply.
Trump may well rage at the judge but wasn't he found guilty by a jury. Or was it a directed verdict.
Of course not.
The Jury had to decide whether a Lawyer was telling the truth when he said he paid Daniels money, and where that money came from
Whether Daniels was telling the truth about receiving the money
And whether to prefer the evidence as to where any money came from in relation to a man who didn't provide witness evidence. And did not provide any evidence to show it did actually come from his own bank accounts.
People tend to bleat about a "system" when the facts don't suit them...
1 part of me really doesn't care that an entitled rich man believes the Rules should not apply to them. Happens. All the time.
It is the shameless lies after being caught that make him unfit for Office...
Back in the day, I had zero interest in Family Law. Not for me. But I knew (just) enough to conduct the first interview if all the knowledgeable people were busy.
I have no intention of boring people with Law. Suffice it to say it is necessary to establish that the Marriage has irretrievably broken down, and which of 5 "Facts" may prove that.
The answers are normally dull. And most certainly do not stick in the memory. See if you can spot where I felt that the Romance may have gone on this one...
I do not love him. I don't even like him. I don't want to share his bed. And I no longer wish to be filled with his vile sludge...
I may have misremembered parts of that. But I'm sure on 2 words...
If anyone was on the fence about POS ( missed ‘ex’ and capital letter intentional) being guilty, the fact that Boris Johnson is speaking up for him says it all really.
Comments
One of the main purposes of an NDA is to stop a truth being told. And to allow the other person to live a lie.
I have never been an American Lawyer. I am no longer an English Lawyer. But where I have the advantage over people who either want to Defend Trump or crucify him is that I have been in the position where I have created this sort of NDA for people in the position of Trump. Have advised people in the position of Daniels. And have advised people in a similar position to Trump once Daniels acted as she did.
The first simple rule is to disregard anything pathetic w4nkers like "thegatewaypundit" say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit
They just spout nonsense. From the start of their existence. To the end. About to disappear. Not because of "defamation lawsuits". Because they tell lies. And get caught telling lies. Which is why they get sued into oblivion. No doubt to be replaced by the next set of crazed loons.
The Far Right try to have it both ways. Trying to say both that this sort of payment is perfectly legal and that Clinton did the same thing. There is no convincing lie like a half-truth.
I never gave moral advice in these sort of situations. People paid for my professional opinion in solving problems. Not my personal ones. I don't know what happened. But I can make an informed guess.
1. Trump was perfectly entitled to arrange for the NDA to be created. That is perfectly legal. He could have paid this money from his own money perfectly legally. But he chose to make the payment via means which have legal consequences if you hide it
2. I will always despise people who do what Stormy Daniels did. She would (or at least should) have been advised that she had 2 options. She could open the box (insert joke here!) or take the money. What she could not do was both take the $130,000 and then blab about the stuff she had just been paid not to disclose
3. Once she had decided to do both, Trump had options. And Lawyers don't tell Clients what to do. They set out the options. He should have been advised that he could sue Daniels. And would be likely to win. Alternatively, he could choose to hold that over her-because if he did not sue now but threaten to sue later, it would then not be wise for Daniels to provide evidence in any Criminal trial. She would pretty much have to plead the 5th. In short, he could win a battle. But at the risk of losing the War. He chose to sue. Bit tricky denying the NDA if you have already gone on public record suing someone for breaking it
4. Why did Trump not take the stand? Not because he was Guilty. Because, when it comes to Legal matters, he is an uncontrollable loose cannon. Regardless of whether he was Innocent or Guilty. Who could **** defeat from the jaws of victory. Because he fails to follow advice. And grandstands when he should not. In short, because no Lawyer wants to allow a Client to speak who thinks he is above the Law and thinks it is wise to accuse the Judge of being "corrupt" to speak
5. Are the criminal convictions the key issue? No. They are the lowest rung of Felonies. He is a pathetic elderly man with no previous convictions. With lots of money to pay Fines. And they may on appeal be reduced to Misdemeanours. The key issue, IMHO, is his attack on the Judge and the System. The American system. Which he believes works well when it is in his favour. But not when it is not
It is also perfectly possible to rail against a system whereby somebody else in a position of authority selects a Judge who may (or may not) be a Democrat. And believe that no Judge whose personal opinions lean 1 way is anything other than partial, even corrupt.
What is not possible is to believe both those statements apply.
And I quote "at no time did I ask anyone to lie, to hide or destroy evidence or to take any other unlawful action.''
Here is a link with transcript, sorry its not a right wing underground fake news QI link with eerie music.
Just a straight up link.
https://publicapologycentral.com/apologia-archive/political-2/bill-clinton-monica-lewinsky/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton–Lewinsky_scandal
The Jury had to decide whether a Lawyer was telling the truth when he said he paid Daniels money, and where that money came from
Whether Daniels was telling the truth about receiving the money
And whether to prefer the evidence as to where any money came from in relation to a man who didn't provide witness evidence. And did not provide any evidence to show it did actually come from his own bank accounts.
People tend to bleat about a "system" when the facts don't suit them...
1 part of me really doesn't care that an entitled rich man believes the Rules should not apply to them. Happens. All the time.
It is the shameless lies after being caught that make him unfit for Office...
A tidy ship is a happy ship is a save ship.....shape up or ship out.
Back in the day, I had zero interest in Family Law. Not for me. But I knew (just) enough to conduct the first interview if all the knowledgeable people were busy.
I have no intention of boring people with Law. Suffice it to say it is necessary to establish that the Marriage has irretrievably broken down, and which of 5 "Facts" may prove that.
The answers are normally dull. And most certainly do not stick in the memory. See if you can spot where I felt that the Romance may have gone on this one...
I do not love him. I don't even like him. I don't want to share his bed. And I no longer wish to be filled with his vile sludge...
I may have misremembered parts of that. But I'm sure on 2 words...