RiceLad15
Hall of Famer
Posts: 16,679
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
|
RE: Trump Administration
(03-26-2018 10:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: (03-26-2018 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (03-26-2018 09:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: (03-26-2018 09:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: You must not have read my entire response.
I did touch on the fact that this story is juicy and people love gossip. I mean, just look at the fact that the National Enquirer is still in business.
What I then said was that, with Stormy Daniels, the real story revolves around the NDA and not her being a porn star. Notice the qualifier I tagged on? I can't help what people like to hear, and even provided my frustration about the fascination of the dirty details.
I like how you try to minimize the potential campaign finance violation due to the size of the violation. Committing a crime is still committing a crime. And that story is NO fabrication. Cohen has admitted that he paid the $130,000 (https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/13/politics/...dex.html).
And based on the type of language Cohen has used when making threats in the past, against people who may speak out against Trump, I wouldn't doubt the Daniels story.
I think you are stretching it here.
Quote:Especially since it was from 2011 and Trump was mulling a run for president in 2012. Here is Cohen apologizing for a threat he made to a reporter in 2015: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics...-1.2306290
Here is what he said:
Quote:“You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word ‘rape,’ and I’m going to mess your life up,” an enraged Cohen told The Daily Beast
followed by
Quote:“Tread very f---ing lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be f---ing disgusting,” he menaced.
You *do* realize he is an attorney, right? To be blunt, I have been in rooms where scores of attorneys have said this and it's equivalent.
You have an absolute right to read physical threat into it, but all I see here is blustering legal action.
But to stretch that into nothing but an unambiguous physical threat is really kind of a serious stretch here, Lad.
That is not the stretch I am making. The stretch I am making is that I would not put it past someone who would use that kind of language and tone to try and get a reporter from reporting on a story to hire someone to threaten another person.
I did not read explicit physical threat in that, but I read someone who is willing to play dirty and threaten someone using various methods. This is also something Cohen has said:
Quote: When asked why he made the payment, Cohen told CNN: "Just because something isn't true doesn't mean that it can't cause you harm or damage. I will always protect Mr. Trump."
Put these pieces together, and I don't find the Daniel's claim of someone threatening her in 2011 to be unbelievable. Do you think it's unbelievable?
First bolded: So a brash abrasive person who brawls in the legal arena, is a type of person who would 'hire someone to threaten another person'. Wow. Im actually speechless at how thin this is, to be blunt.
Second bolded: So in Lad-world, when in the midst of making a legal threat, you can only use 'please', or just 'pretty please with a cherry on top'? No offense Lad, but with that statement you are showing you are utterly and completely clueless about the world of hard-nosed litigation.
Using that analogy, I guess you will be saying I'm the type of person who would be liable to buy some Semtex and blow up some offices.
Lad, the world of litigation and the law is pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat. Hate to burst your bubble. You are showing an extraordinary amount of naivete in characterizing lawyers who say these things as 'capable of threatening physical violence' ipso facto. You are showing an incredible amount of ignorance of the actual, real world of litigators and how they do their job, *and* what is expected from them. Extreme apologies for the brashness, as calling you ignorant is not in any way, shape, or form a nice thing, but your comments are completely divorced from the reality of the litigation world.
As to whether the allegations of physical violence are believable or unbelievable I dont know. If the sole supporting proof are the comments you are bringing to the table, I would say that supporting proof is utterly useless in making that determination.
But I guess that is good enough smoke for you in this matter.....
So your argument is that the world of litigation is, and I quote, "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat."
But it is not so "fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" that someone would either threaten physical harm or hire someone to do the same? So that is the line in "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" environment that wouldn't be crossed?
So I'm naive to think that the type of language someone uses could be a proxy for the lengths they would go to protect a client, but you're not naive to think that someone's actions in a "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" job end with verbal threats of litigation?
|
|