- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump seeks more than $300,000 in legal fees from Stormy Daniels
Posted on 10/29/18 at 10:17 pm to BBONDS25
Posted on 10/29/18 at 10:17 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Are you claiming the 9th is partisan and unable to rule on the merits?
No. I'm saying that ruling of the trial court and what he said excused Trump's statement was incorrect.
The Judge ruled that Daniels did not “sustain a cause of action for defamation” because she did not establish how Trump “knew or did not know about the 2011 threat in the first place.”
The claim was based on this Trump tweet:
quote:
A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!
2
Posted on 10/29/18 at 10:19 pm to Hangit
quote:
Plus, he paid her to shut up and she didn't. I bet his accountant still has the receipt. He should be able to get that money back too.
He did?
It’s like you don’t know what’s going on.
Posted on 10/29/18 at 10:20 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Oh no, they are getting their money. This is not going to Trump. This is lawyer fees. Her life is pretty much over. They will seek judgments on everything she even looks at to buy
Ok. Lol
Posted on 10/29/18 at 10:20 pm to texridder
quote:
No. I'm saying that ruling of the trial court and what he said excused Trump's statement was incorrect. The Judge ruled that Daniels did not “sustain a cause of action for defamation” because she did not establish how Trump “knew or did not know about the 2011 threat in the first place.” The claim was based on this Trump tweet:
The tweet in no way negates your interpretation of the judges ruling. Do you know the standard the 9th circuit uses. Apply that to your post.
This post was edited on 10/29/18 at 10:20 pm
Posted on 10/29/18 at 10:21 pm to ABearsFanNMS
quote:
Cohen served a purpose....what has CPL done?
You can’t be serious. Lol
Posted on 10/29/18 at 10:21 pm to FightnBobLafollette
quote:
Ok. Lol
The legal process is pretty clear. Where are you getting confused?
Posted on 10/29/18 at 10:25 pm to BBONDS25
Dance for me.
Posted on 10/29/18 at 10:25 pm to FightnBobLafollette
Translation: I have zero clue how the legal process works.
It’s ok to ask for help from those who are smarter than you. In your case, that means you can ask just about anyone.
It’s ok to ask for help from those who are smarter than you. In your case, that means you can ask just about anyone.
This post was edited on 10/29/18 at 10:27 pm
Posted on 10/29/18 at 10:48 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
The tweet in no way negates your interpretation of the judges ruling.
You always say this dumb stuff like you are so sure.
The tweet refers to the composite sketch of the man who Daniels said threatened him.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 2:29 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Translation: I have zero clue how the legal process works.
It’s ok to ask for help from those who are smarter than you. In your case, that means you can ask just about anyone.
The guy that bores you has you dancing.
It’s funny. And sad.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 3:22 am to FightnBobLafollette
See many of your posts. You are tiresome and boring.
Arrogance does not become you. That would require a few good intellectual counterpunches.
Enjoy your trolling.
Arrogance does not become you. That would require a few good intellectual counterpunches.
Enjoy your trolling.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 4:45 am to IslandBuckeye
quote:
See many of your posts. You are tiresome and boring.
Arrogance does not become you. That would require a few good intellectual counterpunches.
Enjoy your trolling.
Yet here you are commenting on tiresome and boring.
That weird. I don’t waste my time on things that are tiresome and boring.
I must conclude your are lying. Or your life is so empty that commenting on my tired and boring posts is still better than doing anything else with your time.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 5:05 am to texridder
Are you implying the judge’s factual findings were incorrect?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 6:14 am to texridder
quote:
The tweet refers to the composite sketch of the man who Daniels said threatened him.
And? How does that negate the judges reasoning? Specifically? And the reason I say stuff like I am sure is because I have a modicum of experience. Just because you play pretend lawyer on the internet....it clearly has not given you basic legal analysis skills.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 6:15 am to FightnBobLafollette
quote:
The guy that bores you has you dancing. It’s funny. And sad.
Translation: Bonds made me look silly.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 6:22 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Trump’s attorneys said they are seeking $341,559.50 in attorney’s fees from Daniels,
Didn’t she have a GoFund me page that the sky screamers contributed to? If so, wait until they realize they essentially contributed money directly to President Trump!
Posted on 10/30/18 at 6:42 am to texridder
quote:
Does he think the 9th Circuit will let that lower court ruling stand??
i mean, it's pretty clearly the right ruling. anti-slapp laws are pretty simple
hell earlier in his presidency, it was the left arguing for stroger anti-SLAPP laws
Posted on 10/30/18 at 6:51 am to texridder
quote:
The Judge ruled that Daniels did not “sustain a cause of action for defamation” because she did not establish how Trump “knew or did not know about the 2011 threat in the first place.”
no
1. it was a cause of public concern
2. she could not establish a prima facie case of defamation b/c it was an opinion (they called it "rhetorical hyperbole") and she painted herself as the national, public foil to Trump
the argument you cited was in reference to her attempt to use discovery as a "fishing expedition". in the argument the court had effectively dismissed her claim but went th extra mile (likely because of the political nature of this claim) to explain how CPL/SD were trying to abuse the judicial process and use the claim of defamation to get the right of discovery on Trump
Posted on 10/30/18 at 6:55 am to BBONDS25
quote:
And the reason I say stuff like I am sure is because I have a modicum of experience. Just because you play pretend lawyer on the internet
It's like I told a know-it-all one time - you're like a right-handed person telling a left-handed person how to use his hand.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 6:58 am to SlowFlowPro
Thank you SFP. The reason I kept saying he wasn’t even proving His interpretation of the judges ruling is because it was almost certain he had the ruling wrong. Even then, he couldn’t support his interpretation.
I love this place. Have fun in court today!
I love this place. Have fun in court today! 
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News