General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAvenatti: "We have a litany of more evidence in this case, and its going to be disclosed"
We have a litany of more evidence in this case, and its going to be disclosed, and its going to be laid bare for the American public, Avenatti told Good Morning America.
Direct evidence from President Trump that would prove an affair? host George Stephanopoulos asked.
Absolutely, Avenatti responded. He did not reveal what kind of evidence Daniels might have.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/stormy-daniels-lawyer-promises-to-reveal-a-trove-of-evidence-proving-trump-affair/
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Far too many in middle America are going to ignore this. I was disappointed they didn't show any proof last night.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...for another thrilling episode of "the really good stuff is just around the corner."
Direct evidence from President Trump that would prove an affair? host George Stephanopoulos asked.
Absolutely, Avenatti responded. He did not reveal what kind of evidence Daniels might have.
Is there anyone that doubts they had sex?
HipChick
(25,485 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The only thing that has happened is that Daniels has filed suit in state court to rescind a contract in order to get out from under an adverse arbitration award. The other side has filed a notice of removal to federal court.
What do these television appearance do to advance any proposition in the litigation toward a favorable ruling from a court?
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)He is keeping this in the public eye and making people talk about it. Team trump has to guess what comes next. Show all your cards up front, and you will lose. Drag it out until the other side makes a mistake, and you win. So far, his strategy is winning.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)In the quote above, Avenatti is talking about having proof they had sex. That's not even an issue in dispute in the lawsuit.
And as far as "showing your cards up front" is concerned, yes, that's exactly what you are required to do at the appropriate stage of the litigation.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)That causes the party on the other side to make mistakes.
Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)...and his reputation is still on the line if he's bluffing.
I don't know...so far, nothing has been revealed that is outside of what we'd expect, based on Trump's past behavior. He likes to invite women to his room for unprotected sex on the first "date."
McDougal was invited to the Beverly Hills Hotel for "dinner," and she probably had visions of an expensive restaurant meal, and it turned out to be unprotected sex in Trump's bungalow.
My "WTF" moment in last night's Daniels interview was when she said
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stormy-daniels-describes-her-alleged-affair-with-donald-trump-60-minutes-interview/
She "deserved" sex with Trump?
Meanwhile, Cohen is issuing "cease and desist" orders against people who talk about Michael Cohen being Michael Cohen.
Trump's silence on this is telling, though. I'm sure he's being told to STFU while this plays out, but it definitely goes against his nature.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Only about the payoff and the threats.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...and she's certainly not disputing the payoff.
cyclonefence
(4,483 posts)why any more proof is needed, or what we're trying to prove here. First of all, they had sex *once* which to me sounds like a one-night stand, not an affair. Second, it was clear to me that she was continuing to take his calls and stringing him along (he was obviously hoping for more sex) to see if she could get on the Apprentice. I just don't get it--there must be something else going on here because Spanky and his lawyers are so frothed up, but we already knew he was an unfaithful husband and a creepy guy about his daughter--why is Stormy Daniels so threatening to Spanky and his gang?
I guess the best that could happen is we could find out that campaign funds were used to silence her, which would be aces, but I really don't understand how she could possibly harm Spanky personally more than she has already. Which I think is minimally.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)It keeps the story alive. It also keeps Trump twisting in the wind in regard to the story. There is a lawsuit involved but I think there is also more to the story unrelated to the lawsuit. The lawyer has to keep his focus on that suit and everything related to it. There is more to this than just the act of sex.
Locrian
(4,522 posts)mental picture.... ewww
dameatball
(7,400 posts)dalton99a
(81,636 posts)Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)The bluff has already been called. I don't see him pursuing this unless he has a solid reason to do so.
oswaldactedalone
(3,491 posts)Spell it out soon or lose credibility.
MrsCoffee
(5,803 posts)Just thinking of the paternity clause. Abortion, miscarriage. Adoption less likely but possible. Something along those lines. I read that she didn't decide she wanted kids until after she got married. She would obviously have medical records, etc. to prove it.
It would have been incredibly sloppy for his lawyer to include that language about paternity in there for no reason.