Trump's Stormy Explosion Thread

(1) No one has tried to conflate the Stormy situation with the #MeToo movement to my knowledge, so why are you doing it? The issue about Daniels is not that she was abused, and she's never claimed that to have been the case. On the contrary, she's said that she had sex with Trump more because he seemed pathetically to need it than for any other reason. Her suit is about getting out from under a non-disclosure agreement so she can profit from her story, and in that regard to counter Trump's claim that her story is false. On the second she's already proven her point many times over; on the first, as a good capitalist you should salute her entrepreneurial spirit.

(2) Even Monica has said that she pursued Clinton, not the other way around, so that also is not a #MeToo issue. He shouldn't have allowed himself to let his dick override his head, but it's hard to find any evidence that he coerced Monica into doing anything, and she left the WH after her internship to move on to a career of her own choice. Her biggest complaint was that this consensual act got caught up in the highly-politicized Whitewater investigation, a true "witch hunt" for which Ken Starr later apologized to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

If you're going to make posts can you at least try to make them sensible? Oh, right: you've learned from Limbaugh, so it's a new idea, but give it a whirl, eh.

It got buried because I acceded to your several requests to pin the Endangered Species thread.  Five is the max I'm willing to have, and this one was expendable.  The article you posted is itself irrelevant to the Trump scandals.

It's too bad the linked story contradicts this characterization:

"The suit says that Cohen was desperate to have Daniels appear on Fox News to deny the affair, even after Davidson said she would not be able to appear on Hannity's show that particular evening.  'I'm trying to get her to commit for tomorrow,' Davidson texted Cohen, the suit says.  The suit goes on to say that Cohen, 'in a panic,' sent several other texts 'in a desperate attempt to convince Ms. Clifford, with the assistance of Mr. Hannity, to lie to the American public about her relationship with Mr. Trump via the Fox News broadcast.'  

"According to the suit, in one of those subsequent texts, Cohen wrote Davidson: 'This is no good. We need her as by doing tomorrow you just create another news cycle instead of putting an end to this one.'  But less than three hours later, Cohen allegedly texted Davidson again, saying, 'Keith, The wise men all believe the story is dying and don't think it's smart for her to do any interviews. Let her do her thing but no interviews at all with anyone,' according to the suit.  'Thanks pal,' Cohen wrote, after allegedly getting Davidson's agreement, the suit says...'Mr. Davidson's communications with Mr. Cohen were inconsistent with his obligations to Ms. Clifford, including his obligation to maintain client confidences and his duty of loyalty to Ms. Clifford,' the suit says."

This is a classic case of a lawyer colluding with the lawyer for the other side against the interests of his own client.  And Avenatti obviously now has the email traffic that shows, as the suit alleges, "Starting in January 2018 at the latest, Defendants Davidson and Cohen acted in concert to benefit not Ms. Clifford, but a client of Mr. Cohen's, namely Mr. Trump."  As a JD you obviously understood this, so I assume your post was tongue-in-cheek.  Indeed, even the right-wing media circus understands what's happening:  "Fox News did not immediately respond to a request for comment."  Of course they did, poor dears!