Attorney For Stormy Daniels: Client Was Physically Threatened To Remain Silent

A new bombshell allegation in the Stormy Daniels affair.

Michael Avenatti, the attorney representing adult film star Stormy Daniels, appeared on Morning Joe this morning ostensibly to discuss his client’s upcoming 60 Minutes interview as well as reports that he had been in contact with other women who have alleged having had consensual affairs with President Trump in the past. Toward the end of the interview, though, Avenatti dropped a bombshell in response to a question from Mika Brezinski, alleging that she had been physically threatened to not reveal the details of her affair with the President:

Adult film star Stormy Daniels — who has said in a lawsuit that she had an “intimate” relationship with Donald Trump a decade before he became president — was physically threatened in relation to her attempts go public with her story, her attorney said Friday.

In an interview with MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Michael Avenatti, an attorney for Daniels, repeatedly said that his client had been threatened, but wouldn’t say by who. He also declined to give details on the nature of the threats.

There’s the act and then there’s the cover-up, and the American people are going to learn about both,” Avenatti said, referring to a secrecy agreement facilitated by Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, that Clifford signed in exchange for $130,000 before the 2016 election.

“Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski then asked whether Clifford was “threatened in any way.”

Avenatti responded, “Yes.”

“Was she threatened with physical harm,” Brzezinski then asked.

“Yes,” Avenatti said.

“Was her life threatened?” Brzezinski inquired.

“I’m not going to answer that. People will have to tune in,” he said, referring to an interview Clifford did with CBS’s “60 Minutes” that is scheduled to air March 25.

A moment later, Brzezinski and co-host Joe Scarborough asked again about the threats, but Avenatti said, “I can’t tell you anything beyond what I’ve already said.”

“Can you tell us whether it came from the president directly,” Scarborough asked.

“I’m not going to answer that,” Avenatti said.

When asked if he would “deny that the President of the United States threatened your client,” Avenatti said he “will not confirm or deny.”

Brzezinski took one last stab, asking Avenatti if the threat was “verbal,” or “did anyone point a gun at her?”

“I’m not at liberty to discuss that,” Avenatti said.

More from Politico:

The attorney for an adult film actress who claimed to have had an affair with President Donald Trump said Friday that his client has been threatened with physical harm and suggested that she had only signed a nondisclosure agreement related to the relationship because of threats against her.

Asked on Friday by MSNBC “Morning Joe” host Mika Brzezinski if his client, Stormy Daniels, had been on the receiving end of threats, attorney Michael Avenatti replied that she had. Asked if she had been threatened with physical harm, Avenatti said yes. He did not say when Daniels received the threats.

The attorney offered no other details about the threats against Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. He declined to say who leveled the threat against Daniels and would not say whether or not the threat had come from the president himself. Avenatti also declined to say if the threats had come from someone party to or otherwise related to the nondisclosure agreement that Daniels has filed suit to break.

Avenatti did say that an upcoming interview with Daniels on CBS’ “60 Minutes” would include further revelations about Daniels’ alleged affair with Trump.The interview is scheduled to air March 25. Avenatti said he was not aware of specific efforts to block CBS from airing the interview but “we’ve certainly heard through the grapevine and through others that it’s been contemplated.”

“I think that when people tune in to this interview, they’re going to learn the details, the circumstances under which she signed the original agreement as well as what happened thereafter relating to the threats and coercive tactics that were used to shut my client up,” Avenatti said in a separate interview later Friday morning on CNN’s “New Day” that followed his MSNBC appearance.

Avenatti also suggested in his interview with CNN anchor Chris Cuomo that Daniels had signed the nondisclosure agreement under threat, although he once again did not elaborate further.

“That’s one thing, [she] says, ‘I want to — I’m going to speak unless we can figure out a deal.’ Fine, legal, as long as it wasn’t being coercive,” Cuomo posed to Avenatti. “If it was, ‘well, I have to do this because I’m afraid if I don’t do it, something will happen to me because that has been articulated,’ that’s something else. Which was it?”

“Something else,” Avenatti replied, suggesting that Cuomo’s second scenario was the correct one.

Trump’s longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen, did not immediately respond to an email asking for comment.

Here’s the full interview with Avenatti, the relevant portion begins at the 9:20 mark:

To say the very least, this allegation left the panelists on Morning Joe stunned in the aftermath of the interview, and it’s likely to be a story that continues to reverberate as we get closer to the air date of the 60 Minutes interview. For what it’s worth George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley, who happened to be scheduled to appear in studio for other reasons immediately after Avenatti appeared on the show, vouched for Avenatti, saying that he had been a student of Turley’s when he was in law school and had worked as a research assistant at the time. Turley, who has been somewhat skeptical of much of the speculation surrounding the Russia investigation and the Trump Administration in the past, said that Avenatti’s reputation as an attorney is stellar and that he would not have answered Brezenski’s question the way that he did if he didn’t have a basis for believing that it was true.

In any case, based on the manner in which Avenatti did answer the questions, as well as the questions he didn’t answer, there are a few things that we can probably conclude regarding this allegation.

First of all, while Avenatti would not say when this alleged threat was made, it seems as though we can assume that it was not made prior to the time that she entered into the agreement under which she was paid $130,000 to remain quiet about her affair with Trump. This is the same agreement that Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, is seeking to have nullified in the lawsuit that was filed in state court in California earlier this month. Generally speaking, an agreement that is signed under duress would be null and void on its face. One would presume, then, that if the threat were made to induce her to enter the agreement that this would have been alleged in some way in the Complaint that was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. Since it wasn’t that leads to the probability that this alleged threat was made at some point after the agreement was entered into, most likely sometime recently in the time since Daniels has entered the news cycle.

The biggest question, of course, is who may have made this alleged threat. Notwithstanding Avenatti declining to say so directly, it strikes me that we can rule out the possibility that the President himself made any kind of threat like this. While Donald Trump has proven during the time he’s been President to be unpredictable and irrational at times, it would be utterly suicidal for him to actually physically threaten someone during the course of his Presidency. I’m not saying it’s impossible, of course, because if this Administration has proven anything it’s that “impossible” is a word that simply isn’t uttered inside the walls of the White House and the West Wing, but it does seem highly, highly unlikely. That leaves the possibility that it was someone else, potentially someone close to Trump who may or may not have been acting with his knowledge or tacit approval. Given his involvement in the transaction and his long-standing reputation as a “fixer” for Trump who has often engage in hardball tactics, the most likely suspect in that regard would be Michael Cohen. However, we don’t know that for sure, and it’s necessary to repeat the oft-stated caveat that this is simply an allegation at this point. It may turn out to be true, and and it may even be further true that Daniels has some evidence of this threat. All of that will have to await further revelations, though, some of which may come in the upcoming 60 Minutes interview. Even taking all those caveats into account, though, these allegations and the other issues surrounding the Daniels affair and the pre-election payoff that was made for her silence are serious and likely to be part of the news cycle going forward.

 

FILED UNDER: Donald Trump, Law and the Courts, Politicians, US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. CSK says:

    It sounds like Cohen. He’s threatened people before this.




    8



    1
  2. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @CSK:

    An election year shitshow for Trump and the GOP …

    Thank you, powers that be. These people really are the gift that just keeps on giving 🙂




    6



    1
  3. Daryl’s other brother Darryl says:

    I’m wondering what kind of proof of this there could be?
    Certainly no one is stupid enough to put it in writing?
    I believe the suit to vacate the NDA, or the side letter, mentioned something about Trump causing harm to her.




    2



    1
  4. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Daryl’s other brother Darryl:

    The party line, I’m beginning to see, from the other side is becoming that Trump was extorted. Which is curious, since up to now they’ve been buzzing about “this was Cohen’s doing and Trump knew nothing about it”. Nice 180. Whatever she has on him that motivate that is a bombshell …

    This guy really is covering all of his bases. The NDA is void because it was signed under duress. The NDA is void because the other parties have already breached it.

    Trump wanted another reality show. Looks like he got one – just not the one he wanted 🙂




    15



    1
  5. Barry says:

    @HarvardLaw92: “The party line, I’m beginning to see, from the other side is becoming that Trump was extorted. ”

    Considering the ‘100% Freudian projection’ syndrome on the right, this is a guarantee that she was threatened.




    6



    1
  6. James Pearce says:

    I’d counsel caution on this Stormy Daniels stuff. For instance, this….this is a red flag:

    “I’m not going to answer that. People will have to tune in.”

    The more this starts to resemble a product roll out, I’m starting to wonder what product is being rolled out.




    6



    5
  7. Daryl's other brother Darryl says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    The party line, I’m beginning to see, from the other side is becoming that Trump was extorted.

    To me that has been the biggest part of this story…that Trump is wide open to extortion on many fronts. Certainly if a porn actress can blackmail him, then Putin can.




    5



    1
  8. CSK says:

    @James Pearce:

    That’s a common strategy. Once when I was being interviewed about a non-fiction book I was writing, my editor, publisher, and the company p.r. person told me to say “I’m saving it for the book,” if I were asked a such a question.

    You don’t blow the whole wad before publication…or broadcast.




    9



    1
  9. Daryl's other brother Darryl says:

    @CSK:

    don’t blow the whole wad

    Nice choice of words.




    5



    2
  10. de stijl says:

    Trump has employed “fixers” for four decades.

    Fixers make problems go away. That is the bold print job description.

    Do fixers use the threats? Yes.

    Do fixers sometimes threaten violence? Yes.

    Did Trump pay fixers to make problematic disclosures disappear? Yes.

    This is a man who lived and died by Page Six.

    Did Trump employ goons who threatened Ms. Clifford? Yes.

    We will discover the nature and substance of those interactions shortly.




    6



    0
  11. CSK says:

    @Daryl’s other brother Darryl:

    Given the circumstances, it seemed appropriate




    4



    0
  12. de stijl says:

    In any other administration this would be the death knell. In the Trump era this is just background noise.

    It’s the new “Presidential.”




    8



    1
  13. michael reynolds says:

    Don’t know why,
    There’s no sun up in the sky,
    Stormy Daniels. . .

    Cohen is one dumb damn lawyer if he made a threat. Roger Stone could have done it, it’s about his level. But my money is on Trump himself.

    David Dennison: “I wouldn’t want you to get hurt.”
    Stormy: “Wait, is that a threat?”
    David Dennison: “Not from me, but there are some crazy people out there. . .”




    7



    1
  14. CSK says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Well, Cohen did say that it was impossible to rape one’s wife, and he did, as I said, threaten to do something “f*cking disgusting” to a Daily Beast reporter, so…how bright is he?

    The other possibility is some seriously unhinged Trumpkin. Yeah, yeah, I know I’m being redundant.




    7



    0
  15. de stijl says:

    To sharpen the point, Obama would have been impeached had he said or done 1/10 of what Trump has said and done in his one year in office.

    Hopefully, Trump will be a historic aberration, but a constant burden to future Rs. As in a, “You allowed this to happen to us, you aided and abetted his rise to power. You intentionally diminished our country. You should be ashamed to show your face in public.” level of civic shame and admonishment.




    8



    1
  16. Kylopod says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Cohen is one dumb damn lawyer if he made a threat.

    This is the same guy who responded to the Ivana rape accusations by saying spousal rape doesn’t exist. You were saying something about being dumb?




    4



    1
  17. James Pearce says:

    @CSK:

    You don’t blow the whole wad before publication…or broadcast.

    If you have a book to sell, yes, you use the sales pitch. But what is Stormy Daniels selling?

    I mean, consider the depths of depravity here. She allegedly slept with the guy, not because she was attracted to him or because she even particularly liked him but because he was rich and famous and she’s, well, gross. Then she takes the hush money and now, just in time for her Trump-branded stripper tour, she’s marketing her tell-all appearance on 60 Minutes –set your DVRs! Michael Avenatti has been going from studio to studio in full junket mode.

    Maybe it will all work out in the end, but lie down with dogs and you may get fleas.




    4



    5
  18. de stijl says:

    In August 2015 I correctly predicted that Trump would win the R nomination here on OTB.

    For which, I got trashed by a few commenters, but notably by Dr. Taylor who dragged and dismissed me like I was an history ignorant maladapt. (@michael reynolds clapped back so he is always gonna be a mensch in my book.)

    Also, I incorrectly predicted that the eventual R Trump nominee would get squashed in the general election 60/40 in 2016. Wow! That was really wrong. I underestimated the willingness of partisans to vote for an obviously unfit narcissist to be President.




    7



    1
  19. Modulo Myself says:

    It might not only be a physical threat. There are also might be the suggestion that the government in on the President’s side, so she better really watch out.




    2



    0
  20. de stijl says:

    To be accurate, I may not have said that Trump would lose 60 /40, but I did say that he would suffer a Goldwater style beat-down in the 2016 general election.




    2



    0
  21. wr says:

    @James Pearce: Let me see if I’ve got this right:

    Democrats are complete losers because they’re too nice and afraid to play dirty and always put their “values” instead of winning.

    Meanwhile, the Stormy Daniels thing is icky so we should all ignore it.

    Gotcha.




    16



    2
  22. Daryl's other brother Darryl says:

    @James Pearce:

    But what is Stormy Daniels selling?

    Are you for reals?
    This is going to make that woman rich.




    5



    0
  23. Kathy says:

    @James Pearce:

    The more this starts to resemble a product roll out, I’m starting to wonder what product is being rolled out.

    Something that gets sold in 15 minute increments, or maybe a book deal and a tabloid series.

    But I wonder, too. I don’t expect much, mind, but I wonder. Given that Mango Mussolini had been exposed on tape bragging about assaulting women, and that several women had come forward with stories of harassment and abuse, and that Trump’s affairs are common knowledge, what does Stormy Daniels know that was worth paying to keep secret?

    I still din’t expect much beyond salacious stories (yawn). If 60 Minutes had the equivalent of the Nixon Tapes, they’d have aired that story days ago.




    3



    0
  24. James Pearce says:

    @wr:

    Gotcha

    No, as usual, you don’t “get me.”

    Stormy Daniels reminds me of that Kanye West song. You know the one. I’m too, um, “privileged” to cite the lyrics.

    Trump’s not smart enough to keep himself out of those situations, but that doesn’t mean he can’t get himself out.




    0



    9
  25. de stijl says:

    @Daryl’s other brother Darryl:

    Not only will Ms. Clifford become rich, she will also share, via court proceedings, the true nature of her relationship with Trump with documentation.




    2



    0
  26. de stijl says:

    @James Pearce:

    No, as usual, you don’t “get me.”

    Thought experiment. Is it possible for a true-born dick to not flaunt his dickishness? / is he capable of quashing his nature for one 24 hour period?

    n=1 in this experiment, so any conclusions cast upon a larger population will be suspect at best.




    1



    0
  27. James Pearce says:

    @Daryl’s other brother Darryl:

    This is going to make that woman rich.

    Oh, she’s going to try to find some profit in this, but not sure there’s much money in her chosen profession these days….or 60 Minutes interviews, for that matter. The only route to any kind of real money I see for her is crowd-funding.

    @Kathy:

    If 60 Minutes had the equivalent of the Nixon Tapes, they’d have aired that story days ago.

    Seriously…. Be wary about the idea that a media property –whether it’s a newspaper, a TV show, or even an entire channel– is an anti-Trump ally. As a content generator, Trump is their ally, not ours.




    0



    0
  28. Scott F. says:

    @James Pearce:

    Um, Stormy Daniels is a porn star. Sex for personal profit is sort of in her job description.

    That her alleged affair with Trump wasn’t for love, but for proximity to riches and fame, and that now she is seeking to sell the prurient details shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. And to my mind, that all these actions are completely in character for her increases rather than decreases her credibility.




    4



    0
  29. de stijl says:

    @James Pearce:

    You know the one. I’m too, um, “privileged” to cite the lyrics.

    So you kinda wish that you had a pass to say that bad word out loud and proud? Guess what, you will never, ever earn that pass.




    3



    0
  30. Cory says:

    @de stijl: If I were to hazard a guess, “Stormy Daniels” probably has rocketed to the top of any searches on any porn sites on the interwebz. Informal poll…how many of us had ever heard of her before this all came out? Even if we’re not consumers of porn, a lot of people are. She’s never been more marketable in her life.




    5



    0
  31. de stijl says:

    @James Pearce:

    Oh, she’s going to try to find some profit in this, but not sure there’s much money in her chosen profession these days….or 60 Minutes interviews, for that matter. The only route to any kind of real money I see for her is crowd-funding.

    @de stijl:

    Thought experiment. Is it possible for a true-born dick to not flaunt his dickishness? / is he capable of quashing his nature for one 24 hour period?

    We have our data set. The answer is “no.” Hypothesis confirmed! A flat-out dick cannot restrain his inner dickishness for 24 hours.




    1



    0
  32. de stijl says:

    @Cory:

    It is entirely possible to be a decent citizen and a pr0rn (you have to be careful with that word for filters and such) actress simultaneously.

    Ms. Clifford seems capable.




    1



    0
  33. Monala says:

    @de stijl: I wish, but it’s more likely that they’ll blame Democrats. “If you hadn’t nominated someone we hate [Hillary Clinton], we wouldn’t have had to vote for him!”

    I hope we can remind them often that before he ran against Clinton, they selected him above a dozen other Republicans.




    1



    0
  34. James Pearce says:

    @de stijl:

    Is it possible for a true-born dick to not flaunt his dickishness?

    God, or whoever created the world, didn’t see fit to populate it only with nice people, and when it was my turn, he said, “I’m gonna make this one tough, but fair.”




    1



    2
  35. de stijl says:

    @James Pearce:

    God, or whoever created the world, didn’t see fit to populate it only with nice people, and when it was my turn, he said, “I’m gonna make this one tough, but fair.”

    You are self-aware (when I remind you to be).

    And sometimes funny and insightful.

    But you will never be a mensch in my book. You’re not even mensch adjacent. But you are bright enough to be adjacent to the folks who are mensch adjacent.




    1



    0
  36. James Pearce says:

    @de stijl:

    So you kinda wish that you had a pass to say that bad word out loud and proud?

    No. I hate that word and will not repeat it, even if I’m quoting song lyrics for Grammy-winning songs. Sorry.




    0



    0
  37. wr says:

    @James Pearce: Actually, I don’t know a single Kanye West song — or at least one that I know of as a Kanye West song. You may choose to enlighten me or not. Whatevs.




    1



    0
  38. de stijl says:

    @wr:

    He wants a ghetto pass. He wants to say the n word unapologetically.




    2



    0
  39. James Pearce says:

    @de stijl:

    a ghetto pass.

    Ghetto pass to sing along to a Grammy-winning #1 hit that’s gone 5 time platinum?

    Yeah….I’m the racist one.




    1



    6
  40. Kathy says:

    @James Pearce:

    Do you seriously think a news magazine show in a declining business would sit for weeks on something that could bring down a president (or Trump), and risk getting scooped by a blog when an intern leaks the story?




    3



    0
  41. Daryl's other brother Darryl says:

    Stormy’s attorney has been all over today…did a TPM podcast, and went on CNN a second time this afternoon with Jake Tapper.
    President Dennison must be going absolutely fvcking insane….




    0



    0
  42. de stijl says:

    @wr:

    Actually, I don’t know a single Kanye West song — or at least one that I know of as a Kanye West song.

    Go to YouTube and search for POWER (Explicit). (You will likely know the chorus Hey-ay o,oh!) You should go for the “Explicit” version because you owe it to yourself to hear the unabridged take.

    Plus POWER is a really great song with outstanding lyrics. Even if you’re in the camp of “I don’t like hip-hop!” just relax for 5 minutes and let Yeezy pour his take on modern American capitalism all over your bad self.

    It is worth it. Listen to it. Don’t be a schmuck. All the cool kids are doing it. Just do it already!




    1



    0
  43. de stijl says:

    Ghetto pass to sing along to a Grammy-winning #1 hit that’s gone 5 time platinum?

    Yeah….I’m the racist one.

    Dude, I’m being kind to you.




    3



    0
  44. becca says:

    @James Pearce: I just threw up a little in my mouth with that one, James.




    1



    0
  45. de stijl says:

    @James Pearce:

    No. I hate that word and will not repeat it, even if I’m quoting song lyrics for Grammy-winning songs. Sorry

    Then why did you bring it to our attention purposefully?

    Seriously, rewind and look at this thing you just said as if someone else said it with a neutral eye:

    You know the one. I’m too, um, “privileged” to cite the lyrics.

    Divorce yourself from it. Examine it as if you discovered this quote in an ancient text discovered beneath the ruins of Alexandria Lara Croft – style. Can you see any way that that this is not a super passive / aggressive provocative stab?

    @James Pearce: And the follow that up with:

    No. I hate that word and will not repeat it, even if I’m quoting song lyrics for Grammy-winning songs. Sorry.

    You are studiously bringing up the n word whilst refusing to acknowledge that you are broaching this taboo subject to further your argument.

    You are beyond sketchy at this point. You clearly are mightily pissed that you are not allowed to say that word you want to say.




    4



    0
  46. michael reynolds says:

    @wr:
    Yeah, I noticed that, too.

    It’s fun and easy to criticize if you don’t need to take an actual position, or remain consistent.




    1



    1
  47. James Pearce says:

    @Kathy:

    Do you seriously think a news magazine show in a declining business would sit for weeks on something that could bring down a president (or Trump), and risk getting scooped by a blog when an intern leaks the story?

    How is 60 Minutes going to get scooped on an interview? Of course they’re sitting on it. That gives them another week to hype the interview for ratings purposes. CBS isn’t going to bring down a president, this one or any other. They just want to sell you soap and new cars and prescription drugs you don’t need.

    @de stijl:

    You should go for the “Explicit” version because you owe it to yourself to hear the unabridged take.

    You should, wr. Don’t worry, though, you don’t actually need a ghetto pass. Kanye’s a very popular mainstream artist.

    @becca: Everyone always tells me that… I’m sorry. I guess I have that effect on people.




    0



    3
  48. EddieInCA says:

    @James Pearce:

    Oh, she’s going to try to find some profit in this, but not sure there’s much money in her chosen profession these days….or 60 Minutes interviews, for that matter. The only route to any kind of real money I see for her is crowd-funding.

    She’s going to make a fortune just visiting high end strip clubs across the country. She’ll pull in $5K per show, minimum. and she’ll do two shows per night in alot of big cities. An average stripper, in a top end club, will make $1K per night. Ms. Clifford will do $5K-$10K per NIGHT she chooses to work over the next six months. Maybe longer.

    I know way too much about this world, due to a few work projects and living/working in Vegas for 8 months.




    1



    0
  49. James Pearce says:

    @de stijl:

    Can you see any way that that this is not a super passive / aggressive provocative stab?

    At wr? That’s what we do. We snipe at each other. Scroll up to wr’s first oh-so-useful appearance in this thread. It’s not even responding to my point about this Stormy Daniels business; it’s just sniping. At me.

    The stuff about the song is that Stormy Daniels is a gold-digger. If I wanted to use the word, I’d just use it because I’m a, how’d you put it, dick. But I’m also a principled non-racist, which is why I take a dim view of “white privilege” arguments and also refuse to use the N word. Broaching a taboo subject?

    I quoted a song, and hell, I didn’t even quote it. I referred to it.

    So yeah, I’m a little mad. Now. Thanks.




    0



    2
  50. CSK says:

    @James Pearce:

    You’re still not getting it. Avenatti is teasing the show. He wants you to watch it, so he’s not going to give away the good stuff beforehand.




    4



    0
  51. michael reynolds says:

    @EddieInCA:

    I know way too much about this world, due to a few work projects and living/working in Vegas for 8 months.

    Uh huh.

    I have to write a book set in Amsterdam (really) and I’ll be going there to research that book. I’ll be living/working there. And you know the old saying, “What happens in a place where you live/work stays in that place you live/work.”




    0



    0
  52. Laurence Bachmann says:

    Of all the things our Dear Leader is guilty of, this is low on my list of outrage. Everyone agrees the sex was consensual. The stupid part was paying hush money via any conduit. Once she realized she’d settled for chump change she “wanted out of her contract.” He’s a pig and a moron; she’s a blackmailer and a whore.

    Both will thrive in 21st century America.




    1



    0
  53. PJ says:

    Bloomberg is reporting that Trump is threating Daniels $20 million in damages if she doesn’t keep quiet.

    I doubt that Daniels has a lot of money, so not really sure what the difference is between threating her with $10 million or $20 million in damages… In either case she’d be broke until she dies…

    Unless Trump is hoping that someone else is going pick up the tab and this is one of his other schemes to get rich. (Not richer, rich)




    0



    0
  54. CSK says:

    @PJ:

    He really doesn’t get it, does he? He truly does not understand that all this does is convince yet more people that she has some major dirt on him.




    4



    0
  55. CSK says:

    By the way, the latest New Yorker cover, featuring a nude, fat, sagging, flabby, orange Trump with teeny hands is priceless.




    2



    0
  56. Guarneri says:

    How that Trump collusion thingy workin’ out for you, guys and gals?

    Can you say McCabe?




    0



    6
  57. An Interested Party says:

    How that Trump collusion thingy workin’ out for you, guys and gals?
    Can you say McCabe?

    So you’re that sure of your hero even before Mueller shows all of his cards? Good luck with that bravado in the future…




    0



    0
  58. Guarneri says:

    Heh. You keep chasing that white whale.




    1



    2
  59. de stijl says:

    @michael reynolds: @EddieInCA:

    This will be a major confession on my part.

    I hate strip clubs and I am a heterosexual male. The reason I hate strip clubs is that I cannot truly enjoy in the sensual pleasure of just viewing unless I am her friend and romantic partner. Looking at a woman on stage is fine. Looking at a naked woman that I don’t know on a personal level on stage provokes a really strong anxiety thing.

    I don’t know her as a person and I have not earned the privilege of looking at her body parts. Looking feels creepy and wrong.

    And I know and she knows that she is a willing participant and a businesswoman whose business plan basically requires that random folks give her dolla dolla bills after she flashes her naughty bits. And still I cannot look and enjoy the looking because I have not earned the privilege of looking because we are not intimate partners. Even though she explicitly depersonalized the looking aspect into a commercial enterprise.

    I cannot enjoy the looking because it fells wrong and unethical and creepy. So I lock eyes and don’t look down even though my id wants me to look down. I cannot look down because I have not earned that privilege because we are not intimate, romantic partners.

    It is not morals or ethics. I have zero problems with concept of strip clubs (well, actually, strip clubs are fairly problematic ethically for a civic-minded person, but I digress.)

    Last time I was at a strip club was for some buddy’s bachelor party. I hung with the gay guys in the back which worked out fine. Shooting the sh!t with your mates is way more fun than looking at some random woman’s naughty bits in my book.

    I am a straight guy who gets uncomfortably anxious to the point of bailing Irish-exit style at the the strip club. It’s not the nakedness. I am very pro naked. I like naked. But a commodified, commercialized and public nakedness makes me feel creepy and I do not enjoy anything about it. It just feels “wrong” on about 17 levels.




    2



    1
  60. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Guarneri:

    We’ve moved on, long ago, to money laundering. Do try to keep up with the rest of the class.




    0



    0
  61. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @PJ:

    Believe me when I tell you that her legal fees will somehow magically be covered …

    That said, we’ll see the moon turn blue first. The last place Trump wants to be in this mess is in discovery …




    0



    0
  62. Mister Bluster says:

    This will be a major confession on my part.

    One of the reasons shrinks and their clients have private sessions is because not just anyone or everyone wants to hear other folks confessions!
    Should I assume it is the provocative photos of Ms. Clifford adorning this and other OTB pages that has given rise to your urge to spill the beans?
    While I have visited the truly infamous Mitchell Brothers O’Farrell Theatre in San Francisco and some Fleshpot in Houston 30 years ago that’s really the extent of my trips to clip joints. Never been to a bachelor party at a burlesque house.
    Her body parts that I see include her eyes, ears, nose, hair, mouth. The college girls in sleepytown wear haltertops up and down the main drag all summer long that reveal at least as much if not more skin than Ms. Clifford’s lace-up number.
    I don’t think I’ve developed any trailing anxiety. Maybe I’ve been desensitized.

    Maybe OTB should establish some sort of trigger warning in advance of items that may not be suitable for the psyche of some readers.




    1



    1
  63. de stijl says:

    One of the reasons shrinks and their clients have private sessions is because not just anyone or everyone wants to hear other folks confessions!

    You just followed up slagging me for bothering y’all with an unsolicited confession with personal confessional anecdotes.

    “I hate when people bring their personal business into the mix, but since the ice has already been broken, here is my own personally revealing anecdote.”




    1



    0
  64. de stijl says:

    @Mister Bluster:

    This will be a major confession on my part.

    You poked at me. I’m going to poke back.

    Per your written contributions here you are utterly incapable of calling Trump by his given name. You always have a “clever” nickname for Trump. You reflexively regurgitate the trending DailyKos nickname for Trump. Writing “Orange Mangilino Bad Hair GuY” did a bad, bad thing seventy billion times on every thread is not clever.

    Plus, it is counterproductive. When you routinely and continually use a pejorative as a substitute for an argument, you have placed yourself into the area where I routinely ignore all of your comments.

    “The Bad Hair Orange Man Did A Bad Thing” thing that you do every day here is just noise I scroll past.

    See how that works? I poke back.




    0



    0
  65. rachel says:

    @Guarneri: Upvoted for using the term “white whale” in a thread that also has mention of the latest New Yorker cover with Donald Trump. I snickered.




    2



    0
  66. de stijl says:

    @Mister Bluster:

    At the end of the day, god dammit, I am killing this sh!t.

    You are incapable of killing sh!t because you conflate a “clever” nickname with an actual argument. How is that working out for you — being clever?

    My purse is Mongolian.

    The actual lyric is “My furs is Mongolian…” but I heard “furs” as “purse” and I was all like ‘Ye is sporting a man purse and he will rhetorically slay you if you even try to dog him about it.”

    It was hard-core gender non-conformity in a genre that routinely denigrates those notions. I was all “Yeah!” Judd Nelson fist pump.

    I was all like The Replacements Paul Westerberg Androgynous era (that was in 1984 – that guy was prescient) Grr! Empowerment! Judd Nelson fist pump.

    And then I read the text and it said “my furs is Mongolian”

    And I was deflated. “My purse is Mongolian” is a transformative statement within that world. “My furs is Mongolian” is bad ’90s retrograde braggadocio.

    I prefer to live in the world where Kanye said “My purse is Mongolian”




    0



    0
  67. de stijl says:

    I underplayed Androgynous by The Replacements in my last bit.

    Listen to that song. That was written in 1984. Paul Westerberg is a genius and should be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.




    0



    0
  68. Mister Bluster says:

    You poked at me. I’m going to poke back.

    Empathy is not my strong suit.
    Life’s a b!tch and then you die.




    0



    0
  69. wr says:

    @michael reynolds: “I have to write a book set in Amsterdam (really) and I’ll be going there to research that book”

    Now I’m jealous. Just about my favorite city in the world. I consult for a Dutch production company, and keep hoping they’ll decide they want to hire me full time and pay me enough to move there…




    0



    0
  70. wr says:

    @EddieInCA: “She’s going to make a fortune just visiting high end strip clubs across the country.”

    I think she’s aiming higher than that — she wants to reach the level of fame where she is a celebrity… that is, the kind of fame in which it doesn’t matter how you got it, you’re just one of the Elites, like the Kardashians or Pussy Cat Dolls. And then doors open everywhere in the mediasphere — reality TV shows, payments for showing up a parties, endorsement deals…




    2



    0