Explains the attempts at intimidation.

Interesting, no? ~ ~ Sooz

Wall Street Journal publishes polygraph results backing Stormy Daniels
The Hill / Brett Samuels / 1 hr ago

A polygraph exam taken by adult-film star Stormy Daniels in 2011 supported her account of an affair she said she had with Donald Trump five years earlier, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

The newspaper obtained reports of the exam, which Daniels took on May 19, 2011. The polygraph showed she truthfully said she had unprotected sex with Trump around July 2006.

She also said Trump told her she would get on his television show, "The Apprentice," but the accuracy of that answer was inconclusive.

The White House and Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, have denied that the president ever had an affair with Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.

While the exam supports Daniels's version of events, polygraph results are generally not admissible in court on the grounds that they are not "generally accepted" as scientifically reliable evidence.

Daniels's alleged affair with Trump has remained in the spotlight since The Wall Street Journal reported in January that Cohen paid her $130,000 as part of a nondisclosure agreement just weeks before the 2016 presidential election.

The Journal reported Tuesday that before the story was published, Cohen reached out to Daniels and her attorney to request they craft a denial that she had an affair with Trump.

Cohen has acknowledged the payment, but denied it violated campaign finance laws or had to do with the election.

Daniels filed a lawsuit earlier this month claiming the agreement is void because Trump never signed it.

The president accused the adult-film star in court papers filed last week of repeatedly violating the nondisclosure agreement. He is seeking up to $20 million in damages.

Daniels recently spoke with Anderson Cooper in an interview that is scheduled to air on "60 Minutes" on Sunday.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wall-street-journal-publishes-polygraph-results-backing-stormy-daniels/ar-BBKtDT1?li=BBnb7Kz

When asked about Trump's equipment she said, "Let's not go there. It's such a tiny, little detail".

To anyone who believes this LULU, I have some ocean-front property in Arizona for sale ~ ~ Sooz

Trump lawyer: Pre-election payment to porn star unrelated to election
03/20/18 09:20 AM
By Steve Benen

When it comes to Donald Trump’s Stormy Daniels scandal, some of the most interesting revelations come from one of the president’s personal attorneys, Michael Cohen. He’s the one who quietly created an LLC in 2016 to pay $130,000 in hush money to the porn star, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.

It was Cohen, for example, who publicly confirmed the $130,000 figure. It was Cohen who said he borrowed against his home equity in order to facilitate the payment. And now it’s Cohen who’s now denying any connection between the pre-election payoff and the election itself.


Given the circumstances, this isn’t a surprising argument. As Cohen no doubt realizes, if the hush money was delivered as part of an effort to improve Trump’s chances of winning, then it may have been necessary to report the $130,000 as a campaign-related expenditure – and failure to do so may have violated federal election laws.

And so, naturally, the president’s lawyer is now eager to make the case that this had nothing do with the 2016 campaign. Cohen would’ve paid hush money to the adult-film actress at any time, the story goes, and it’s just a remarkable coincidence that the developments unfolded in late October 2016.

If it seems difficult to believe Cohen’s claims, it’s probably because of what we know about the larger context.

Let’s not forget what we already know. In the weeks leading up to Election Day 2016, Donald Trump’s campaign was already struggling to deal with reports of the Republican’s mistreatment of women – he was recorded bragging about sexual assault – when Stormy Daniels was getting ready to talk to the media about her alleged affair with the candidate years earlier.

With less than a month to remaining, Daniels believed Trump World was late in making its payment to her, and on Oct. 17 – roughly three weeks before Election Day – her attorney was prepared to walk away from the deal altogether.

On Oct. 27, Daniels received the $130,000, and her planned media blitz was called off. By that point, Election Day was less than two weeks away.

“People are mistaking this for a thing about the campaign”? Yeah, imagine that.

As for the purported threats Daniels has received, Cohen told Vanity Fair he’s never spoken to Daniels. Asked whether others in Trump’s orbit may have threatened his alleged mistress, Cohen replied, “I can only speak for myself…. I have never threatened her in any way and I am unaware of anyone else doing so.”

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-lawyer-pre-election-payment-porn-star-unrelated-election

I'm thinking this entire battle is from UNDER estimating the women and OVER estimating the DiC and his "legal" team ~ ~ "live links" in original ~ Sooz

‘Stormy is controlling the narrative’: CNN panel gobsmacked that Trump is getting schooled by a porn star
Sarah K. Burris / 21 Mar 2018 at 07:50 ET I

A Wednesday panel on CNN discussed the latest developments between President Donald Trump and three women who say they had an affair with him. The panel agreed that Trump is losing the battle of public opinion.

Overnight, Daniels released a photo of herself taking a polygraph test to verify the statements she gave to In-Touch Weekly magazine about her affair with Trump. CNN editor-at-large Chris Cillizza argued that the science behind the tests verify that they are accurate.

“I don’t know that the real debate is did Donald Trump engage in an extramarital affair with Stormy Daniels,” he continued. “The debate is Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s lawyer, paid this woman $130,000 from a shell company that he created in Delaware. Why? He says Donald Trump didn’t have anything to do, he didn’t think he had an affair. OK, well, he paid her for some reason.”

He went on to note that the American public isn’t likely to learn anything new about Trump. It was not as if “he was elected as the beacon of moral turpitude in this country,” Cillizza noted, despite Trump’s multiple endorsements from the evangelical community.

“He may have been elected as a beacon of moral turpitude but he was not seen as a moral giant,” host Chris Cuomo said.

“Good point,” Cillizza agreed. “Look, I think it will continue to generate a massive amount of publicity. Other women are saying, ‘Wait a minute, there is a legal venue I can seek out?’ I do not think that this is the thing that people flip the switch and say, ‘Wait a minute, Donald Trump may not have been the greatest husband ever.’ I don’t know that that is stunning information.”

Eva Martin, author of Make it Rain: How to Use the Media to Revolutionize Your Business and Your Brand, pushed back, saying that the difference between what the public knows now and what what was known on Election Day is that people didn’t know these women were paid off to stay silent.

“So, I think that’s the distinction in this story, is that all of this effort to keep her from telling her story,” Martin continued. “So, we knew about affairs. No secret, Donald Trump had affairs. He cheated on his wife.”

Cuomo noted there is nothing illegal about what happened between Trump and the women, but Martin argued the hush money is what could change how women see him.

Erica Hill, filling in for co-host Alisyn Camerota, argued that the thing that is hurting Trump the most is “the constant drip, drip, drip of information” and that it is not letting up.

“And this is so ironic,” Martin argued. “Trump prides himself on using the media, telling the narrative, controlling the narrative. Now Stormy Daniels and her lawyer are controlling the narrative.”

However, according to Martin, Trump is going down in flames in that battle.

“Even though they may not win this case in court, because there are some issues with the legal case. But in the court of public opinion, they’re winning,” she continued. “This story is front and center. You look at Karen McDougal and now the former ‘Apprentice’ star, you’ve got the president involved in potentially three civil lawsuits. He could be subjected to depositions, a discovery where he has to answer questions under oath, and subpoenas.”

She explained that such a presidential problem is unprecedented in modern times. Even in the case of former President Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky never sued him and was never paid to keep silent. Trump, however, is facing three potential affairs in addition to multiple sexual harassment accusations.

Watch the full discussion below: [video accessible via the end link]

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/stormy-is-controlling-the-narrative-cnn-panel-marvels-that-trump-is-getting-outplayed-by-stormy-daniels/

Roland B. Hedley Jr.
‏@RealRBHJr

Worried for @POTUS, as Stormy no ordinary adversary. Like Trump, porn stars don't experience shame, and humiliation is Trump's only superpower. Even unflattering Abu Ghraib-like pic working for her, shows grit.

Is that what they call them? grits?

In a nutshell ~ ~ Sooz

Yep - perfect!

I would have real difficulty with "C".

The much-hyped "Stormy interview" is tonight on 60 Minutes ~ I'm going to watch for a couple of reasons: I'm curious how CBS is going to "control" this lurid/salacious story during TV "prime time", and I want to judge her credibility for myself, especially since Karen McDougle has claimed [in her CNN interview this week] to have had a long-standing affair with the DiC at the same time ~ ~ Sooz

Seven things to watch for in the Stormy Daniels interview
The Hill / Max Greenwood / 17 mins ago

Stormy Daniels' interview with CBS's "60 Minutes" is set to air Sunday night, raising questions about what the adult film actress could reveal about her alleged affair with President Trump.

The interview has so far been shrouded in mystery. Even Daniels' lawyer, Michael Avenatti, acknowledged on Sunday that he is not entirely sure what will be included in the segment. He has also teased the possibility that Daniels will unveil hard evidence to back up her claims.

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, alleges that she carried on an affair with Trump in 2006, and that she was paid to remain silent on the matter as the real estate mogul sought the presidency in 2016.

Hanging over the interview are questions about whether she will throw out a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) with Trump and speak openly about the alleged affair, and what the segment could mean for her ongoing lawsuit.

Here are seven things to watch for in Daniels' interview:

1. Will she give details about the nondisclosure agreement?

Daniels has never spoken publicly about the nondisclosure agreement that purportedly bars her from admitting to her alleged affair with Trump.

But a lawsuit filed by Daniels earlier this month confirmed the existence of such a document, arguing that it is invalid because it was never co-signed by Trump himself.

Whether Daniels will discuss the details of the agreement in the "60 Minutes" interview remains to be seen. Her lawsuit seeking to void the contract is still pending, and NDAs often prohibit signatories from speaking about the agreements.

Daniels has hinted that that is true of her NDA. During an interview with late night host Jimmy Kimmel in January, Kimmel pointed out that Daniels would likely be barred from discussing the agreement if it, in fact, existed.

"You're so smart, Jimmy," was her cagey response.

2. Will she talk openly about the alleged affair?

Daniels has implied that she was paid $130,000 by Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen weeks before the 2016 presidential election to keep quiet about the alleged affair.

Speaking openly about her alleged affair with Trump would certainly violate the terms of the disputed NDA, and could subject Daniels to legal penalties.

In court papers filed earlier this month, Trump's lawyers said that Daniels could face up to $20 million in damages for allegedly violating terms of the agreement.

One question that remains is whether Daniels could toss out the NDA completely in her "60 Minutes" interview, and provide details about her alleged relationship with the president. The last time she spoke about it was 2011, when she gave an interview to InTouch magazine that wasn't published until this year.

3. Will she mention possible video or photographic evidence?

Avenatti has repeatedly hinted that video or photographic evidence of Daniels' alleged affair with Trump exists.

The March 6 lawsuit filed by Daniels to void the nondisclosure agreement with Trump refers to "certain still images and/or text messages which were authored by or relate to" the president. While the NDA reportedly required her to turn over such material and get rid of her own copies, Avenatti has suggested that Daniels may have retained it.

Avenatti hinted this week that he may be in possession of such material, tweeting a cryptic photo of a compact disc inside of what appeared to be a safe.

"If 'a picture is worth a thousand words,' how many words is this worth?????" he wrote on Twitter.


4. Will she address whether she was physically threatened?

Avenatti prompted questions earlier this month when he said that Daniels had been threatened with physical harm in connection with the alleged affair with Trump.

Asked on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" whether Daniels had been physically threatened, Avenatti bluntly replied, "yes."

Exactly who may have threatened Daniels or what the nature of those threats may have been is unclear, and Avenatti has declined to discuss the matter in greater detail.

Daniels herself has not addressed any potential physical threats that she may have gotten, leaving open whether she will discuss the topic in the "60 Minutes" interview.

5. Will she discuss whether Trump knew about the $130k payment?

Cohen himself has acknowledged making the payment to Daniels, but has insisted that the money came from his personal funds and that Trump was never made aware of the transaction.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has said she does not believe Trump knew about the payment.

But Avenatti has argued otherwise, saying the fact that Cohen used a Trump Organization email address backs up his claim that the real estate mogul was aware of the transaction.

In an interview on "Morning Joe" last week, Avenatti also suggested that he had more evidence that Trump knew about the payment. Asked by Willie Geist if his "belief that the president directed this payment is based on more than a hunch," Avenatti simply replied, "yes," but declined to provide any evidence.

6. Why does she want to talk about the affair now?

Daniels' lawsuit claims that she expressed interest in discussing the alleged affair publicly in 2016 after The Washington Post published a now-infamous 2005 recording in which Trump could be heard boasting about groping and kissing women without their permission.

It was at this point that Cohen and Trump "aggressively sought to silence Ms. Clifford," according to the lawsuit, which claims that the $130,000 payment and nondisclosure agreement soon followed.

But for more than a year after that, Daniels was silent about the alleged affair, and it was only in recent months that the accusations resurfaced.

One thing to watch for is whether Daniels addresses her motives in the "60 Minutes" interview, or answers questions about what she hopes will happen next.

7. What happens next?

There may be hints of what Daniels' next steps are in the interview. A planned court hearing for Daniels' lawsuit is still months away. However, whatever Daniels reveals in the interview may force the hand of Trump's own legal team.

After news broke that CBS intended to air the "60 Minutes" segment with Daniels, speculation swirled that Trump's lawyers would take legal action seeking to block the broadcast.

Such legal action would have been unlikely to proceed, because courts rarely allow such prior restraint of speech, particularly regarding the news media.

But Trump's legal team has already signaled they're willing to fight Daniels on her claims. They reportedly asked for a temporary restraining order against her last month and have asked to transfer the lawsuit from California state court to a federal court in Los Angeles.

But how Trump and his lawyers respond to the interview after it airs will be closely watched.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/seven-things-to-watch-for-in-the-stormy-daniels-interview/ar-BBKGnqh?li=BBnb7Kz

The lady was bribed to lie by omission.

There is obviously a LOT of attention on this again today ~ my own view of last night's interview is that Stormy seemed credible to me [and certainly FAR more credible than anything the DiC says] ~ Anderson Cooper asked some very direct questions, and I liked that she took responsibility for her own actions ~

There were only 2 real new facts [to me, at least]: she was threatened while holding her infant daughter [and she believes that was the work of Michael Cohen], and [sexually] this was NOT an "affair" but rather was a one-nighter [altho the DiC did pursue her afterwards with promises of "big deals"] ~

This story is NOT going away anytime soon ~

Sooz

I also found her credible and very straight forward. I liked the fact she did not pretend to be anything other than herself, and took responsibility when it was called for.

her memory is also quite precise. that always impresses me.

Didn't watch it, but if those other 2 women making allegations corroborate the Trump behaviour, this could be the beginning of Trump's downfall into oblivion... along with the GOP.

I didn't see the interview but I keep wondering what something that happened 12 years ago by consent is so news worthy. Considering he was married and his wife just had a baby it was kind of icky but not really worth all this fuss and bother.

The other thing I wonder about is did the "grits" appear real.

There's a legal issue here.... Is the $130,000. an illegal political contribution? I think that might give some leeway towards getting a deposition from Daniels.

That contribution is potentially grounds for disbarring his lawyer so the question goes beyond whether or not it constituted a political contribution.

I'm nominating Bruce's mind for placement in the "national treasures hall of fame" ~ ~ Sooz

He should be disbarred anyway - on the principle that he's too dumb to be a lawyer.

LMAO. As if lawyers hand out $130k on a whim.

The White House has denied allegations that Donald Trump had an affair with an adult film actress.

Stormy Daniels gave details about the alleged 2006 affair during an interview on CBS News' 60 Minutes programme.

"The president doesn't believe that any of the claims that Ms Daniels made last night in her interview were accurate," said spokesman Raj Shah.

President Trump's lawyers are seeking $20m (£14m) in damages from her, saying she broke a non-disclosure deal.

More-> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43549767

Want another theory?

Trump was a producer of porn flicks, among his more unsavoury careers.