What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.42: Who Needs Tax Increases? If You're Rich Just Write A Check.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Sicatoka said:
It's not his fault, but just the same I'm guessing you don't step out in front of speeding buses either.
Click to expand...

Yeah why should a Saudi National feel safe in his own embassy...

You would have been one of the people saying it wasn't our business who Hitler killed prior to Pearl Harbor. They aren't American so who cares amirite?

It's cool though...let's just normalize their behavior. What have the Saudis done to us right Mr. Security?

The fact that you were more outraged over Hillary's emails than us ignoring (and taking a bribe...err money from) the assassination of someone from the media by a terrorist nation tells us all we need to know.
 
Last edited:
SJHovey said:
Barbaric middle eastern leaders and regimes have been slaughtering individuals, including US journalists, for years. The correct response from the administration should be, "We are shocked, outraged and condemn this barbaric act," and not, "it's bad, but they're spending a lot of money with us."

On the other hand, let's not pretend like the US government has ever really done anything about the murders of guys like Daniel Pearl, et al, in the past. Sure, if we can find the guy that actually cuts the head off we're more than happy to turn him into dust with one of our drones, but it's not like we don't continue to treat the nation-states involved in whatever way we think is in our best political or financial interest.
Click to expand...

The US is in bed with thugs and have been forever. That doesn't make this ok. Every President who bowed to these murders and terrorists are accountable.

Trump could have taken a stand and didn't. He also basically admitted what we all know... money means more than doing what is right. Probably helps they have been giving him money for decades...just like some other terrorist thugs he bends over for.
 
Re: POTUS 45.42: Who Needs Tax Increases? If You're Rich Just Write A Check.

SJHovey said:
Barbaric middle eastern leaders and regimes have been slaughtering individuals, including US journalists, for years. The correct response from the administration should be, "We are shocked, outraged and condemn this barbaric act," and not, "it's bad, but they're spending a lot of money with us."

On the other hand, let's not pretend like the US government has ever really done anything about the murders of guys like Daniel Pearl, et al, in the past. Sure, if we can find the guy that actually cuts the head off we're more than happy to turn him into dust with one of our drones, but it's not like we don't continue to treat the nation-states involved in whatever way we think is in our best political or financial interest.
Click to expand...

No, the correct response is to be strong enough in our position that it just doesn't happen in the first place. The reason you don't cede international authority is because actual nations go ahead and pull **** like this. Not many nations have had the chutzpah to go into another nation and off someone, especially a journalist so brazenly. And this administration's *Aw shucks* response has also been disgusting. They should have immediately put the arms deal on hold and investigated the murder. You know, kind of like these people. They should have strong-armed the Saudi's into allowing Turkish authorities to inspect the house of the consul general.

And Daniel Pearl was murdered by a terrorist organization. Khashoggi was likely murdered at the direction of the state for being a critic. I don't understand how you can even compare the two. And maybe you just conveniently forgot this.

The US stands up for a free and independent press. Or at least it used to.
 
Re: POTUS 45.42: Who Needs Tax Increases? If You're Rich Just Write A Check.

dxmnkd316 said:
No, the correct response is to be strong enough in our position that it just doesn't happen in the first place. The reason you don't cede international authority is because actual nations go ahead and pull **** like this. Not many nations have had the chutzpah to go into another nation and off someone, especially a journalist so brazenly. And this administration's *Aw shucks* response has also been disgusting. They should have immediately put the arms deal on hold and investigated the murder. You know, kind of like these people. They should have strong-armed the Saudi's into allowing Turkish authorities to inspect the house of the consul general.

And Daniel Pearl was murdered by a terrorist organization. Khashoggi was likely murdered at the direction of the state for being a critic. I don't understand how you can even compare the two. And maybe you just conveniently forgot this.

The US stands up for a free and independent press. Or at least it used to.
Click to expand...

How do you do that, exactly?
 
Re: POTUS 45.42: Who Needs Tax Increases? If You're Rich Just Write A Check.

burd said:
How do you do that, exactly?
Click to expand...

First, lead by example. Don’t cede the moral and political authority. Then when someone does step over the line, you punish them and do it by coalition. Don’t put unilateral sanctions on someone. Get the EU and other first world allies to punish the behavior. And do it consistently. Finally, don’t put money over basic tenets.

Freedom of the press is a pretty important standard and we’re the vanguard of that ideal. Always uphold it. Always. $100 billion seems cheap when it comes to protecting something we hold dear.

If a nation doesn’t just get a “we’re concerned” and instead gets a persuasive response, others won’t be so eager to follow.
 
Re: POTUS 45.42: Who Needs Tax Increases? If You're Rich Just Write A Check.

Wisko McBadgerton said:
If Stormy cashed the $130,000 check, I think it's very likely that Trump's missing signature is irrelevant on this type of contract, as she proceeded as though the NDA contract was indeed valid.
Click to expand...

They could then just analyze it as an oral agreement supported by substantial performance.

I know next to nothing about the case, but does Avenatti really care that much about the ultimate outcome? I don't mean to say he is just seeking publicity for himself. If he can put trump through the process long enough and hang some stink on him, it appears he will feel he has accomplished much of what he set out to do.
 
Re: POTUS 45.42: Who Needs Tax Increases? If You're Rich Just Write A Check.

I'd agree with that in principle, but how do you punish by coalition? Do you have a modern day example in this part of the world?
 
Re: POTUS 45.42: Who Needs Tax Increases? If You're Rich Just Write A Check.

I mean, they worked perfectly. Until dipsh-t McF-ckface took office.
 
Slap Shot said:
That we, "shouldn't be surprised" is beside the point and another deflection from the, "just asking" crowd.
Click to expand...

"America has killed a lot of people too".

The same people here who castigated Obama for bowing to a king, have nothing to say when Red Don curtsies before one, nor when his incompetent son in law conducts his own rogue foreign policy with a brutal, dictatorial regime, basically giving them carte Blanche to do what they want in the region, as long as that regime keeps funneling money into their pockets.
 
Re: POTUS 45.42: Who Needs Tax Increases? If You're Rich Just Write A Check.

burd said:
They could then just analyze it as an oral agreement supported by substantial performance.

I know next to nothing about the case, but does Avenatti really care that much about the ultimate outcome? I don't mean to say he is just seeking publicity for himself. If he can put trump through the process long enough and hang some stink on him, it appears he will feel he has accomplished much of what he set out to do.
Click to expand...

There's some question as to whether a NDA would fall outside California statute of Frauds, which could apply to an unsigned contract. But I think there are precedents in CA that would lead one to believe a NDA does fall outside that statute, so to me Stormy's case on that front looks pretty weak. Not only did she cash the check but she denied the affair to the press. She was following the agreement. Oddly, if she didn't cash the check, the question of the legality of the payment probably goes away, so we're pretty sure she did.

I agree that Avenatti doesn't care if they lose the case. I think he demonstrated with Swetnick he doesn't care much about the client. Thing is, if they do lose, there's a good chance Daniels is ordered to pay Trump's legal fees, just like in the case the other day. I don't imagine Trump has a cheap legal team, either. Plus if the contract is good she may be open to the original penalties as she has proceeded, (presumably on the advice of counsel, although I don't doubt Avenatti has protected himself from liability somehow) to break the NDA and the restraining order quite often. Maybe Avenatti has something strong up his sleeve other than bluster, but if he doesn't, Daniels could very well get screwed. (again!)
 
Re: POTUS 45.42: Who Needs Tax Increases? If You're Rich Just Write A Check.

Wisko McBadgerton said:
There's some question as to whether a NDA would fall outside California statute of Frauds, which could apply to an unsigned contract. But I think there are precedents in CA that would lead one to believe a NDA does fall outside that statute, so to me Stormy's case on that front looks pretty weak. Not only did she cash the check but she denied the affair to the press. She was following the agreement. Oddly, if she didn't cash the check, the question of the legality of the payment probably goes away, so we're pretty sure she did.

I agree that Avenatti doesn't care if they lose the case. I think he demonstrated with Swetnick he doesn't care much about the client. Thing is, if they do lose, there's a good chance Daniels is ordered to pay Trump's legal fees, just like in the case the other day. I don't imagine Trump has a cheap legal team, either. Plus if the contract is good she may be open to the original penalties as she has proceeded, (presumably on the advice of counsel, although I don't doubt Avenatti has protected himself from liability somehow) to break the NDA and the restraining order quite often. Maybe Avenatti has something strong up his sleeve other than bluster, but if he doesn't, Daniels could very well get screwed. (again!)
Click to expand...

Even statutes of fraud can be overcome sometimes without a writing, when there is strong evidence of performance. Of course, all that is jurisdiction specific.

I think Avenatti probably cares about his clients. Plaintiffs trial lawyers (the ones who don't shrink from trying big cases) are often type A gunners, though, and regularly behave like he has been. Not all--the best ones are just smart, organized, and tireless preparers. The smart part often means they hire excellent associates and staff and use them wisely. Mueller comes to mind, though if he were not working for the government, he'd probably be a defense counsel. Not one you'd want to face unprepared.
 
Re: POTUS 45.42: Who Needs Tax Increases? If You're Rich Just Write A Check.

burd said:
Even statutes of fraud can be overcome sometimes without a writing, when there is strong evidence of performance. Of course, all that is jurisdiction specific.

I think Avenatti probably cares about his clients. Plaintiffs trial lawyers (the ones who don't shrink from trying big cases) are often type A gunners, though, and regularly behave like he has been. Not all--the best ones are just smart, organized, and tireless preparers. The smart part often means they hire excellent associates and staff and use them wisely. Mueller comes to mind, though if he were not working for the government, he'd probably be a defense counsel. Not one you'd want to face unprepared.
Click to expand...

I agree it could be overcome either way. That's why I say it doesn't look that great for Stormy so far.

I get that plaintiff lawyers often say ridiculous and outrageous things on behalf of their clients. But when I consider the risks he's put his clients at, I'm not sure it leads me to believe he has their best interests at heart. I'll skip what I think he did wrong with Swenick, but with Daniels, she had $130k in her pocket but had to keep her mouth shut. Not great, but not out on the street either. Avenatti told her she didn't have to honor the NDA and in fact he himself broke her agreement in the first paragraph of the suit he filed to invalidate the NDA. If he's wrong, and as we have been suggesting he very well could be, she is in big trouble, Avenatti's not. In fact he's famous and running for President. Doesn't seem entirely on the up and up from that point of view.

But maybe he's just a misunderstood guy with a heart of gold under that $3000 suit. :cool:
 
Wisko McBadgerton said:
I agree it could be overcome either way. That's why I say it doesn't look that great for Stormy so far.

I get that plaintiff lawyers often say ridiculous and outrageous things on behalf of their clients. But when I consider the risks he's put his clients at, I'm not sure it leads me to believe he has their best interests at heart. I'll skip what I think he did wrong with Swenick, but with Daniels, she had $130k in her pocket but had to keep her mouth shut. Not great, but not out on the street either. Avenatti told her she didn't have to honor the NDA and in fact he himself broke her agreement in the first paragraph of the suit he filed to invalidate the NDA. If he's wrong, and as we have been suggesting he very well could be, she is in big trouble, Avenatti's not. In fact he's famous and running for President. Doesn't seem entirely on the up and up from that point of view.

But maybe he's just a misunderstood guy with a heart of gold under that $3000 suit. :cool:
Click to expand...

I’d be some nervous if I was his E&O carrier.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top