## Stormy Daniels

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Rob Lister
Posts: 20183
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

### Re: Stormy Daniels

Anaxagoras wrote:
Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:05 am
Oh dear. How shockingly unshocking.

Stormy Daniels’ lawyer Michael Avenatti reportedly arrested for domestic violence
Michael Avenatti wrote:She hit me first!
Michael Avenatti wrote:I have never struck a woman. I will never strike a woman.
Perhaps she watched Fight Club.

ed
Posts: 33907
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp

### Re: Stormy Daniels

#belivethechick

Sorry to make you cry Michael.
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!

shuize
Posts: 617
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:32 am

### Re: Stormy Daniels

Let me guess, now due process matters again.

gnome
Posts: 22443
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL

### Re: Stormy Daniels

How much process is appropriate in evaluating a nominee is a significant question.

How much process is appropriate in a criminal prosecution is a far less ambiguous principle.

Unless you're arguing they should be to the same standard, this is a fallacious callout.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

ed
Posts: 33907
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp

### Re: Stormy Daniels

Ummm ... I don't think so.

Unless you are suggesting that any uncorroborated accusation should be sufficient for a "conviction" you have due process. It is sorta like being preggers, you are or you ain't.

I am very very uncomfortable with the "I believer her/him" or "S/he is credible" standard. People lie, people can appear credible. They call it acting.

Can you imagine a circumstance where you would feel comfortable having your son "convicted" of anything whatsoever simply on the word of an accuser?

It is positively medieval. It is a recapitulation of the Fuhrer princip. It flies in the face of 500 years of western jurisprudence.

I think of that Ford person. Before I'd giver her an ounce of credibility, I'd demand to see the transcripts of her shrink sessions. I would have to be convinced that she did not "recover" those memories thanks to the shrink.
Last edited by ed on Fri Nov 16, 2018 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!

Giz
Posts: 1554
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: UK

### Re: Stormy Daniels

ed wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 5:48 pm
.

Can you imagine a circumstance where you would feel comfortable having your son "convicted" of anything whatsoever simply on the word of an accuser?
Oh, not a conviction. just that his son couldn’t get an otherwise sure thing dream-job because of an unsubstantiated accusation.

ed
Posts: 33907
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp

### Re: Stormy Daniels

"Conviction" has air quotes around it.

Let me ask the multitudes, what is the difference between an accusation not subject to due process and plain old character assassination?

Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!

Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 72894
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago

### Re: Stormy Daniels

In or not in a court of law?
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

gnome
Posts: 22443
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL

### Re: Stormy Daniels

Giz wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 5:52 pm
ed wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 5:48 pm
.

Can you imagine a circumstance where you would feel comfortable having your son "convicted" of anything whatsoever simply on the word of an accuser?
Oh, not a conviction. just that his son couldn’t get an otherwise sure thing dream-job because of an unsubstantiated accusation.
Neither. It may be a nit to pick, but I'm going to pick it, that a difference of opinion on what matters for confirmation or "the court of public opinion" as it were, does not equate to questioning the burden of proof in criminal cases. It's two separate opinions and it can be independent of each other without hypocrisy.

In this case, someone can have the wrong opinion in one without presuming they have the wrong opinion on the other.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

gnome
Posts: 22443
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL

### Re: Stormy Daniels

Giz wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 5:52 pm
ed wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 5:48 pm
.

Can you imagine a circumstance where you would feel comfortable having your son "convicted" of anything whatsoever simply on the word of an accuser?
Oh, not a conviction. just that his son couldn’t get an otherwise sure thing dream-job because of an unsubstantiated accusation.
Neither. My point is that someone can be wrong about "due process" for nomination hearings without it being considered an attack on criminal due process. It's two different things to be wrong about. It may be a nit to pick but I'm picking it. I'm not a fan of conflating issues for a sound bite.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

shuize
Posts: 617
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:32 am

### Re: Stormy Daniels

By the "Believe all Women" standard Avenatti advocated with respect to Judge Kavanagh, he is an abuser of women and deserves to have his career ruined based on the accusation alone. If he strongly denies the charges or gets upset about being so accused, it only shows he is unfit to practice law.
Last edited by shuize on Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ed
Posts: 33907
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp

### Re: Stormy Daniels

One might argue that there is no law per se.
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!

Giz
Posts: 1554
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: UK

### Re: Stormy Daniels

There's tribal law

xouper
Posts: 9295
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA

### Re: Stormy Daniels

gnome wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:12 pm
How much process is appropriate in evaluating a nominee is a significant question.

How much process is appropriate in a criminal prosecution is a far less ambiguous principle.

Unless you're arguing they should be to the same standard, this is a fallacious callout.
There is already a range of standards for "conviction", criminal and civil and others, so no, I don't think anyone is seriously arguing they should all be the same standard.

Example: OJ Simpson was acquitted in the criminal trial but lost the civil trial because the burden of proof was different.

See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

In my opinion, the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice needs more than just "some evidence" to support allegations of sexual misconduct. Ford's testimony all by itself is not sufficient. Neither was Avenatti's "testimony".

In any case, none of the sexual allegations against Kavanaugh came even close to meeting that lower standard.

Regardless what standard is used, the point is obvious that Avenatti has a double standard when he is the target of an accusation.

Anaxagoras
Posts: 22900
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

### Re: Stormy Daniels

‘He’s going through a pretty rough time’: Avenatti crashes and burns
Michael Avenatti’s cable TV bookings have dwindled. He was uninvited from one prominent Democratic event and skipped out on another. Now his highest-profile client is bringing new allegations against him.

In just a matter of weeks, Avenatti’s fortunes have taken a nosedive, rapidly downshifting him from 2020 presidential prospect to political pariah.
Avenatti himself though doesn't see it that way:
Avenatti told POLITICO he will be fully exonerated when the facts and evidence relating to the alleged incident are known. If anything, he said, the conditions for his bid have improved.

“I think the field is shaping up to be even more advantageous for someone like me, not less,” Avenatti said, declining to elaborate. “I think my chances have only gone up, not gone down.”
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

Doctor X
Posts: 68755
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah

### Re: Stormy Daniels

But it was His Turn?

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X6!!!!!!

Witness
Posts: 18254
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

### Re: Stormy Daniels

'If these allegations prove true I will be seeking new representation': Stormy Daniels reveals she is standing by her lawyer Micheal Avenatti... for now.... as she talks porn with university students in her address to prestigious Oxford Union

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... dents.html

Skeeve
Posts: 10748
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

### Re: Stormy Daniels

Stormy Daniels canceled an appearance over a homophobic slur against her assistant
Stormy Daniels isn’t here for homophobia. The porn actress and stripper, who gained national attention for her lawsuit against President Trump, shared on Instagram Friday that she wouldn’t perform at a Florida club after a reported homophobic incident. Daniels claimed that the Goldfinger owner called her assistant a “f***ing f*gg*t.”

“I will NOT be performing at Goldfingers tonight because the owner called my assistant a ‘f***ing f*gg*t’ after asking me to do something not in my contract,” Daniels wrote in her Instagram post. “That kind of abuse will not be tolerated.”
What, someone asked her to do anal?

Enquiring minds want to know!
Then Skank Of America could start in...

Anaxagoras
Posts: 22900
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

### Re: Stormy Daniels

Oh dear:

Stormy Daniels Ordered To Pay Trump $293,000 In Fees In Defamation Lawsuit Good work there, Mr. Avenatti! Adult film star Stormy Daniels, who says she had a sexual encounter with Donald Trump more than a decade ago, has been ordered to pay him nearly$293,000 for attorneys' fees and another $1,000 in sanctions after her defamation suit was dismissed. Earlier this year, a federal judge dismissed Daniels' defamation case, which she filed over a tweet President Trump sent in April suggesting Daniels was lying about being threatened in 2011 not to go public with her story of an alleged 2006 tryst. Trump denies Daniels' claims of a past sexual relationship with him. On Tuesday, the Los Angeles judge ruled on the amount Daniels must pay, though it's almost a quarter less than the almost$390,000 that Trump's attorney had wanted.
Avenatti's response:
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

Anaxagoras
Posts: 22900
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

### Re: Stormy Daniels

By the way, remember this?

Stormy Daniels: Michael Avenatti Sued Trump For Defamation Against My Wishes (Daily Beast, Nov. 28th)
Michael Avenatti sued Donald Trump for defaming Stormy Daniels against her wishes, Daniels told The Daily Beast in a statement on Wednesday.

Avenatti also started a new fundraising site to raise money for her legal defense fund without telling her, Daniels said. She said she is not sure whether or not she will keep Avenatti on as her lawyer.

Here is her full statement, provided to The Daily Beast:

“For months I’ve asked Michael Avenatti to give me accounting information about the fund my supporters so generously donated to for my safety and legal defense. He has repeatedly ignored those requests. Days ago I demanded again, repeatedly, that he tell me how the money was being spent and how much was left. Instead of answering me, without my permission or even my knowledge Michael launched another crowdfunding campaign to raise money on my behalf. I learned about it on Twitter.

“I haven’t decided yet what to do about legal representation moving forward. Michael has been a great advocate in many ways. I’m tremendously grateful to him for aggressively representing me in my fight to regain my voice. But in other ways Michael has not treated me with the respect and deference an attorney should show to a client. He has spoken on my behalf without my approval. He filed a defamation case against Donald Trump against my wishes. He repeatedly refused to tell me how my legal defense fund was being spent. Now he has launched a new crowdfunding campaign using my face and name without my permission and attributing words to me that I never wrote or said. I’m deeply grateful to my supporters and they deserve to know their money is being spent responsibly. I don’t want to hurt Michael, but it’s time to set the record straight. The truth has always been my greatest ally.

“My goal is the same as it has always been—to stand up for myself and take back my voice after being bullied and intimidated by President Trump and his minions. One way or another I’m going to continue in that fight, and I want everyone who has stood by me to know how profoundly grateful I am for their support.”
So basically, now she owes Trump's lawyers almost \$300,000 for a defamation lawsuit that she says she didn't approve of. Perhaps her "legal defense fund" will cover it, but Avenatti seems to be in control of that and hasn't kept her in the loop about it.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare