CMV: The recent letter sent by Michael Avenatti on behalf of Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) has not backed Donald Trump and his lawyer Michael Cohen into a corner. Furthermore, Ms. Clifford will not be able to share her story and this scandal will not turn the tide of public opinion
I would love to be proven wrong, but I don't see this scandal as doing any significant damage to Trump.
There are three articles I would like to link:
These articles essentially establish what I understand about the scandal. Trump had an affair with a porn star that began 4 months after the birth of Barron Trump, a year after marrying Melania Knauss. There is ample evidence that this occurred including a stained dress from the night the two had sex, Trump's rhetoric throughout the entirety of being in the public spotlight, a dress stained from one night Donald Trump had sex with Stormy, the two being pictured together, Stormy having photographic evidence, and an interview she gave to "In Touch" back in 2011. Stormy's allegations also substantiate claims made in the Steele Dossier that Trump is susceptible to black mail, including a "pee tape" the Russians might have on Donald Trump.
Stormy signed an NDA stating that she would not be allowed to publicly share about the affair. Stormy was paid $130,000 as compensation for signing the NDA. This NDA was drafted sometime between August and October of 2016. Only Michael Cohen signed the NDA, Trump never signed the NDA. Stormy argues that therefore the NDA therefore was validated. Cohen admitted to paying Stormy $130,000 after the story caught legs, but claimed the money had come from his own pocket. Cohen created an LLC at the time specifically to pay Stormy the money. There is a good deal of evidence the payment originated from campaign funds, one bit of evidence I'd like to retroactive add is this highlighted bit from the Trump Campaign's Finances.. Cohen complained about not being compensated for his payment, as well as it being illegal for him to pay out of pocket. Cohen claims that the NDA was only made to prevent Stormy from bringing allegations against Donald Trump and that this does not substantiate her claims. Stormy claims that by talking about the NDA Cohen has broken it and she should be allowed to speak about it. Michael Cohen has since successfully filed a restraining order against Stormy Daniels to prevent Stormy from speaking about the affair. Per Article 12, Cohen has also threatened CBS with an injunction in hopes of preventing them from sharing an interview Stormy did about the affair with 60 Minutes recently.
Article 10 and Article 11 are honestly the two I'd like to focus on. Michael Avenatti sent a letter representing Stormy Daniels stating that she would be willing to return the $130,000 to break the NDA. To quote the letter:
Please note that this offer shall remain open until 12:01 pm EST on Tuesday, March 13, 2018. In the event this offer is not accepted in a writing delivered to me on or before that date and time, the offer shall automatically be deemed withdrawn in its entirety and shall be null and void.
So then if Trump simply ignores this or refuses the money on the grounds that Stormy's allegations are not true then the case is back to square 1. And my understanding of square 1, though I'm admittedly still confused, is that Stormy earning the right to share the story and her evidence will be an uphill battle (see article 11).
And if she does not earn the right to share it, how does this change anything? The biggest part of this scandal is the LLC set up to pay her through and the use of campaign funds for the payment. If Trump ends up simply denying it and she can't speak about it, then no matter how much evidence against Trump there might be, and regardless of how the simple existence of the NDA and Trump's own bragging throughout the years pointing to the validity of Stormy's statements, I don't see how this necessarily changes anything. The Access Hollywood tape didn't sway a large portion of people against supporting Trump. There are two affidavits with substantial evidence that did not accomplish such a feat. In one case:
Defendant Bmdley J. Edwands' Statement Of Undisputeed Facts
Epstein v. Edwards, et al.
Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG
Trump was quoted in a Vanity Fair article about Epstein as saying "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy." "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it - Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
"In exchange for pleading guilty to charges of solicitation of prostitution and soliciting minors to engage in prostitution in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, Epstein was not charged with any federal counts. As part of the agreement, Epstein had to register as a sex offender and agree to settle civil lawsuits that his roughly 30 victims filed against him." source
(side note: Epstein had a Russian intelligence expert visit him while in jail) source
Anyways, the other Trump related affidavit that I'd like to bring attention to is
Jane Doe V. Donald J. Trump And Jeffrey E. Epstein (Filed 06/20/16)
A direct quote from that affidavit is:
10. Defendant Trump initiated sexual contact with Plaintiff at four different parties. On the fourth and final sexual encounter with Defendant Trump, Defendant Trump tied Plaintiff to a bed, exposed himself to Plaintiff, and then proceeded to forcibly rape Plaintiff. During the course of this savage sexual attack, Plaintiff loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to stop but with no effect. Defendant Trump responded to Plaintiff’s pleas by violently striking Plaintiff in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted. Exhs. A and B
11. Immediately following this rape, Defendant Trump threatened Plaintiff that, were she ever to reveal any of the details of the sexual and physical abuse of her by Defendant Trump, Plaintiff and her family would be physically harmed if not killed. Exhs. A and B.
He didn't sink then, he won't sink now. The only thing this does is provide Mueller with additional ammo, but that's still putting our faith in Mueller that he'll actually be able to successfully bring down Trump regardless of everything he's done. Beyond that, I don't see such a tacit admission as enough to put a dent in that portion of the American public that supports Trump. He will still deny it and people will still eat it up. I hope Stormy is able to share her story, but right now I don't see that being the likely outcome. And subsequently, I don't see this story as being impactful in swaying a large portion of people against Trump. As no allegation in the past, regardless of how severe, substantiated, and evil those acts might be, have swayed a large portion of people against Trump. Why would this allegation that Trump's team is vehemently denying be any different?
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views**! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
Posted Mar 12, 2018, 9:16 PM UTC