What happened to the 1st Amendment?
Yeah this is just nuts because it’s classic in the way it violates the First Amendment - the President is baldly trying to shut down free speech and the free press.
That’s about as clear cut a violation of the first amendment as you could ever get.
They told Trump it’s called a prior restraint, and he said:
“Right! And I already paid for that!”
What a repulsive creature Trump is. That rally last night! Who, who doesn’t consider him a hideous human being? How can he have even one supporter? Anyway, he sent SHS out to say he didn’t have an affair with her, so why should he care what she says if he believes she is lying? Doesn’t he get that this makes him look guilty? My brain hurts!
Alternatively, he said: “there weren’t any restraints used! I’ve told you and told you I don’t do the freaky shit! A spanking with a rolled up Forbes is as far as I’ll go.”
Can you imagine the shit show that Republicans would have thrown had Clinton’s lawyers ever tried to stop Lewinsky or Paula Jones from giving an interview? They’d probably still be investigating it in the House.
Got replaced by the Second.
Seriously, what could she possibly say that could be worse than:
“The funds were taken from my home-equity line and transferred internally to my LLC account in the same bank,”
Hey, isn’t this the same guy who brought four women who made accusations against former President Clinton to his debate against Secretary Clinton? Man up, asshole.
ETA: I guess it says something about me when my spellcheck actually recognizes the word “asshole” and just shrugs when I use it in a post.
Anybody seeking pain can watch 60 Minutes tonight and hear DeVos tell us arming teachers “should be considered.”
lol.
“I can’t tell you where he asked me to put my pinky finger until a court voids the NDA.”
“Cohen also paid for the abortion.”
I don’t want this woman, whom I had nothing to do with other than paying her $130,000 to stay quiet about something that never happened, speaking about something that didn’t happen.
Do these people listen to themselves?
Not only do the villagers think PuPPet is fantastic, they think SHS is too and that she’s only giving those annoying reporters asking pesky questions the disrespect and put downs they deserve.
This restraint would be a clear violation of the First Amendment. It’s a private agency acting on behalf of the head of the Executive Branch - not of a private citizen.
The crux of this appears to be that apparently a “private arbitrator” has ruled “for the president” and against her.
So what? What can this “private arbitrator” do if she spills the imagined teeny-tiny beans? There’s no such thing as “private arbitrator jail” to send Stormy.
Jeez. This issue was litigated in 1936 in Near v Minnesota by the US Supreme Court. The prior restraint there was shot down in a case where the journalist was publishing lies about members of the MN legislature on purpose for purposes of blackmailing the pols.
What a lowlife. His remedy is a libel suit when and if the interview runs. 60 Minutes just has to clear a low bar of freedom from “actual malice.”
When it comes to Donald Trump, many are not saintly enough to rid themselves of such feelings.
True enough, as far as it goes, but, as Josh noted:
Her further argument is that since Cohen publicly discussed the agreement that that voided the agreement. The agreement does make clear repeatedly that no one can discuss the existence of the agreement. Daniels says, in essence, that she doesn’t have to go to arbitration, notwithstanding the agreement’s stipulation to arbitration, because there’s actually no agreement.
It would be more accurate to include in the reporting on this story that Daniels argues there is no agreement, because Cohen repeatedly broke the agreement by publicly talking about it - rather than only mentioning the weaker argument that President Dennison never signed it.