60 Minutes and Stormy Daniels

Stormy Daniels is interviewed by CBS "60 Minutes" tonight.

Daniels talks to Anderson Cooper about the relationship she says she had with Mr. Trump in 2006 and 2007, revealing details that bring her story up to the present.

Trump has denied the affair. From the CBS description, it sounds like the line of questioning will concern the payment. Her lawyer seems as much her fanboy as her lawyer on his twitter feed. The accolades for her go on and on.

Here is a February, 2018 interview with Stormy in which she "tells all" and says she can describe "Trump's junk" perfectly. What more do we need to know? The sad truth is that Trump's supporters don't care about his alleged past infidelity. They didn't care about the Billy Bush tape and they won't care about this.

< Pro Gun Control Rallies Across America Today | Di Genova (and Toensing) Not Joining Trump's Legal Team >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    DailyBeast (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 07:03:26 PM EST
    Stormy Daniels' Legal Strategy Strongly Suggests She Has Photos of Donald Trump

    But far more ink is spilled discussing what Daniels is supposed to do with those texts and images: give copies to Cohen and destroy the originals.

    Now the strategy starts to make sense. This dispute isn't about the affair: it's about those pictures or texts. As viewers of Daniels' 60 Minutes interview surely noticed, the only question Daniels refused to answer was about whether she's got more evidence of the affair. Avenatti suggested the answer is yes: he tweeted a photo of a DVD inside a safe.

    If Daniels has retained copies of pictures or texts, then she is in clear violation of the central parts of the confidentiality agreement. Not only does the agreement explicitly forbid her from keeping copies of images or texts, it actually defines them as Trump's - oh, sorry, David Dennison's - personal, copyrighted property.

    Incidentally, that, too, is quite unusual. Normally, that kind of provision appears in a consultancy or employment agreement. Here, however, it's been grafted into a confidentiality agreement. If that DVD has pictures of Trump, it is literally Trump's copyrighted property.

    Unless, of course, the agreement is null and void.

    Now the pieces come together. Avenatti wants to void the agreement because that way, Daniels can keep that DVD, or, if you want to be cynical about it, auction it off to the highest bidder.

    If she took the photos, how is he entitled to (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 27, 2018 at 03:51:29 PM EST
    copyright them?  If he took them but doesn't possess them, can he apply for a copyright?

    You're the lawyer (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 27, 2018 at 04:12:25 PM EST
    I jus report

    And , David, Dennison's (none / 0) (#86)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 27, 2018 at 09:44:02 AM EST
    $20 million law suit against Peggy Peterson. aka PP.

    I think (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 04:44:36 PM EST
    It depends on what she says.  If it's as you say, just about noodling and payoffs, probably not.  I've  been reading a lot about this today.  Most of it speculation.  
    The speculation in Twitter world is full of "parental" theorizing.  If he tried to force her to have an abortion, or even better if she did not have an abortion, I think it could get very interesting.  

    The fundies will have some serious pretzelizing if they want to mulligan that.

    The thing is people who know this lawyer, and this has nothing to do with the Twitter theories, say he would not be doing what he is doing if there was not some pretty big news that probably go beyond noodling and payoffs or even threats.

    2 Qs
    Why does it have to be Anderson Cooper and why does ALL good tv happen on Sunday night.

    Switching back and forth (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 05:36:45 PM EST
    On this basketball game saying




    I don't care who wins just don't go into freakin overtime.


    PHUCK (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 05:48:19 PM EST
    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 06:44:56 PM EST
    We were in sync. I was saying the exact same thing

    I shouldn't have jinxed it (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 05:51:52 PM EST
    They've been known to (none / 0) (#6)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 05:59:05 PM EST
    go into double overtime.

    Listening to an old college friend on a local (none / 0) (#3)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 05:45:58 PM EST
    community radio station -- tuning in on Internet radio, WRDV (www.wrdv.org) if anyone's interested -- doing a classic rock of the '60s-'70s show, from 7 - 10 pm EST. He's very knowledgeable and tasteful about that music. I can read about what Ms. Clifford had to say later.

    I will need it (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 05:59:07 PM EST
    If we get another GD freakin overtime

    2 minutes to go and we are tied again.  

    Never have so many people who don't care a fig about basketball just wanted something to be OVER


    the transcript underwhelms. (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 01:25:48 PM EST
    What exactly were you expecting? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 02:28:30 PM EST
    Well, somehow I expected "an affair" (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 03:18:58 PM EST
    consisted of more than a one-off. And SD initiating the spanking isn't as interesting as DJT requesting it.

    Not that (none / 0) (#60)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 06:09:15 PM EST
    I have any experience in this realm, but I would think that anybody who gets off on being spanked or otherwise "disciplined" would be more, shall we say, "excited" by the other person initiating this, as opposed to asking for it themselves.  It would mean that the other person is the dominant, and you are the submissive, in your mind, at least.
    And I kind of thought that the dom-sub thing was all about the submissive person being, well, dominated by the other person.
    Maybe I'm wrong here.

    It is not unheard of (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 06:19:18 PM EST
    That a man surrounded by sycophants and yes persons desire this when the bedroom door is closed.

    While it's been (none / 0) (#62)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 06:23:52 PM EST
    quite a number of years since I took psychology, this seems very possible to me.

    I don't recall Tr*mp's actual statement (none / 0) (#66)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 07:07:12 PM EST
    and haven't gone looking, but if he denied ever having "an affair" with Ms. Clifford, I would rate that statement as entirely true, based on her interview last night.

    The "affair" was with McDougal, (none / 0) (#69)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 07:49:08 PM EST
    at least according to her description of their relationship.

    Trump and Stormy appear to have had a one-night stand - even if it is true that Trump wanted more, Stormy appears to have decided otherwise.

    As for Trump's statements, how long will it be before he is in "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" territory?


    In the tech age (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 27, 2018 at 04:56:58 AM EST
    If selfies for self spanking are shared, is that an affair?

    So far really boring (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 06:23:28 PM EST
    Although it is genuinely creepy that Trump tells all his girlfriend's they remind hmm of his daughter.

    Well, I have to say (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 06:55:20 PM EST
    I watched most of it and there really wasn't anything new other than when she came out of the bathroom he was "perched" on the bed. That one had me laughing out loud as I can imagine Trump perched naked on a bed.

    Ya (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 07:06:51 PM EST
    Pretty anticlimactic, pun intended.

    That was a lot of hype for something (none / 0) (#12)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 07:09:31 PM EST
    that was more of a "meh," but for the opportunity for people to see and hear Daniels for themselves.

    More interesting to me was the potential for campaign finance violations; thought it was interesting that Potter, the expert, thought the Trump case might be stronger than the one against John Edwards.

    But he also said (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 07:10:55 PM EST
    They are toothless

    I didn't see it. Did Potter say that (none / 0) (#14)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 07:30:09 PM EST
    the FEC's administrative enforcement of federal election law is toothless? That's true. But if the violation is potentially criminal that's another kettle of fish entirely.

    I had pretty much lost interest by then (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 07:37:12 PM EST
    But yeah he said their investigation took years and then only resulted in financial penalties

    As far as I could tell most of the legal peril was for Coen.


    Under federal criminal law, any person (none / 0) (#18)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 07:51:25 PM EST
    who arranges for, urges or causes another person to commit a crime (and the crime is then committed) -- such as making an illegal campaign contribution with his "own funds" expecting to be reimbursed or otherwise compensated for it -- is equally guilty with the one whose fingers are directly on it. Just sayin'.

    It sounded bad (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 07:55:59 PM EST
    For Coen if Trump knew or not or repaid him or not.

    yes, of course. But if there is evidence (none / 0) (#20)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 08:07:27 PM EST
    (either a paper trail, or as a result of Cohen flipping) of who put him up to it, then that person (not suggesting who that might be) could be in deep doo-doo as well.

    This is silly (none / 0) (#21)
    by linea on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 08:24:32 PM EST
    No, neither Michael Cohen or Donald Trump will face criminal prosecution under `18 U.S. Code § 2' because an attorney funded a NDA with a woman who had an affair with Trump ten years ago. It's nonsense. My opinion.

    I'm sure no one here (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 08:43:15 PM EST
    Would ever consider trusting Peters legal opinion over yours

    Tell that to John Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 09:23:56 PM EST
    who was indicted for using funds from a wealthy supporter to hide an affair, to protect his presidential campaign, on the theory that the payments amounted to illegal campaign contributions. He wasn't convicted, but he was charged and had to stand trial.

    Found it (1.50 / 2) (#30)
    by linea on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 10:13:50 PM EST
    USA v. Johnny Edwards

    This indictment seems a little more solid with multiple secretive cash transfers compared to a case where an attorney funds an NDA. Yet, the government lost the Edwards case. No idea why anyone would think repeating the Edwards fiasco would be reasonable. If anything, the utter failure of the US Government to convince a jury that 18 U.S. Code § 2 was applicable should make it less likely that it would be used again in these sorts of cases.

    I suppose if you ACTUALLY think Donald Trump will be charged under 18 U.S. Code § 2 and that's your actual legal opinion, than that's great. I honestly thought you were wildly speculating for the applause of the audience.


    Girl (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 04:07:55 AM EST
    the case against Trump and Cohen is stronger than the case against Edwards because Trump did it 11 days before an election. You apparently missed the  interview or you would have known that.

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#25)
    by linea on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 09:34:23 PM EST
    To me, your speculation seems more like when Republicans were wildly predicting the imminent arrest and prosecution of Debbie Wasserman Schultz because the DNC routed money through a law firm to fund OpoResearch and then reported it as `legal services' with the Federal Election Commission... based on all sorts of Federal statutes they dug up. Just my perception.

    Show me where I ever predicted an (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 09:54:28 PM EST
    arrest or prosecution, imminent or otherwise. I don't speculate. I did accurately describe the legal basis that would be available for such a prosecution. And where you got the idea that I drink whiskey (which I don't care for at all), I will never know. In fact, while listening to music tonight (and following the blog) I also wrote a legal memorandum for a pro bono client. Not that that's any of your business. I will grant that you are entitled to your opinion on what constitutes "classic rock" or whether you like any given form of popular music. Chacun à son goût.

    Actually Peter (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 09:43:52 PM EST
    The elections guy on 60 did say this was a much stronger case than Edwards because Edwards was a year before the election.  This was literally in the home stretch.

    Here (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 10:36:05 PM EST
    Trevor Potter: As it happens, there is. There's sort of a pretty spectacular one.

    Former Senator John Edwards was prosecuted, but never convicted, for payments a supporter and his campaign finance chairman made a year before the 2008 election to a woman who'd had Edwards' child.

    Trevor Potter: I think the Edwards case is not as strong as the facts we have so far in the Trump case.

    Anderson Cooper: Why do you think the potential case against Cohen or Trump is a stronger case than the Edwards case?

    Trevor Potter: The timing of it. It wasn't the year before the election. It's right in the middle of the run-up to Election Day. When-- Trump's conduct with women was a prime campaign issue. In fact, it was what everyone was focused



    What you fail to grok (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 10:07:28 PM EST
    Is that the payment was made 6 days before the election. Not 10 years ago. And at that time bone spurs was a candidate for potus. That part is important. It was an illegal campaign contribution. You cam give money to whomevwr you dam well please at any amount, except if that person is running for office.

    Fine! (none / 0) (#31)
    by linea on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 10:23:01 PM EST
    I don't know anything!


    I predict neither Michael Cohen nor Donald Trump will be charged under `18 U.S. Code § 2' and the Great Stormy Daniels Takedown will never happen. My opinion.


    Jesus (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 10:23:56 PM EST
    Just shut up

    it's the Twisted Mango talking (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 11:29:23 PM EST
    pay no mind.

    Had to Google (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 27, 2018 at 11:58:33 AM EST
    "Twisted Mango."  

    Yes, "meh". (none / 0) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 10:12:36 AM EST
    Owing to so many being inured by and inoculated against Trump's character.  Even, those that recognize what Trump is, such as the Evangelicals, overlook these tawdry matters and give a mulligan. So long, of course, as Trump remains committed to his racist, xenophbic, anti-abortion, tax cuts for the wealthy, and right wing judicial policies and actions.

    However, here we have i: a prime time, popular national network television show, with Anderson Cooper interviewing a pornography film star about her details of a hotel room tryst and follow-up contacts with a cad who becomes president of the USA, and which is alleged to have occurred while married to his third wife who had just had a baby, his fifth child with three wives.

     And, then there is the sketchy hush money paid days before a close race between Trump and Clinton. Charges of intimidation and bodily harm to the porn star.  And, discussions of the potential unlawful actions by the Trump cast of characters to cover-up, including legal actions.

    Yes, a ho hum day with Trump.


    I didn't think it was "meh" because of (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 11:19:01 AM EST
    the tawdry and tasteless and character-deficient particulars of the situation, I felt it was "meh" because, based on Michael Avenatti's previews, he over-promised and under-delivered.

    Unless, the hour or more that ended up on the cutting-room floor was where all that stuff was...

    And those evangelicals...I'm pretty sure I don't remember a whole lot - or any - forgiveness and grace for John Edwards, but perhaps it's a situational kind of thing, and what Edwards was promoting was so adverse to the evangelical culture that they didn't dare forgive him his trespasses.  Trump, on the other hand, hates the gays and the brown people, so they're happy to close their eyes and ears to his lack of family values in exchange for the kind of "Christian" policies they can get behind.

    What a world, huh?


    I did not expect to like Stormy (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 11:31:26 AM EST
    But I did

    And I respect her right to say she wasn't a victim in sleeping with Trump. She didn't want to sleep with him, but chose to. It was disturbing hearing her say that she made poor choices and got herself into this, she shouldn't have agreed to meet in his room. But why couldn't you just say no and leave Stormy?


    Stormy, (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 12:03:46 PM EST
    came across, to me, as believable. Would make a good witness, for sure.  And, she needs to be believed in the context that she is a business woman, albeit her boutique brand of commercial enterprise.

    The line between business (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 12:34:54 PM EST
    And her somehow feeling threatened by Trump based on what she told herself why she must now have sex with him seems blurry to me.

    I'm trying to see it through the lens of "bad things happen" when make bad business choices, but it keeps square pegging on me. I think it's because other actresses were blacklisted for not sleeping with Hollywood jerks, and Trump was a TV Hollywood jerk then. So the line between her on other actresses in the #metoo movement is paperthin for me.


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 01:39:54 PM EST
    Stormy said so plaintively, "well, you put yourself in a bad situation and bad things happen, so you deserve this."  No, Stormy did not deserve this just because of her line of work.  Her entrepreneurial instincts may have outweighed her judgment, but she did not deserve Trump.  No one does.

    Yes, agreed!!! (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 01:49:51 PM EST
    Thank you for helping me navigate that.

    I got the impression that she (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 12:10:32 PM EST
    viewed the sex part of the evening the way you or I might view a business dinner with people we don't really want to share a meal with, but realize the end result might be something advantageous to our business.  So, you stick around, feeling there's no graceful way to leave after cocktails, and just hope you can get through dinner.

    And it was by virtue of the fact that adult films are her business that she was better able to follow through even if there wasn't any attraction on her part.

    She's smart - that came through.  Especially when, at their second meeting, once she realized he was playing her for more sex, she scooped up her purse, said "call me when you know something," and left.

    That must have thrown him for a loop a little.

    And having been a horse show mom for years, I couldn't help but think that her being an equestrian means that she has focus, drive and a competitive spirit.  And she probably loves horses, which is an excellent quality in my book!

    Finally, it just so skeeves me out that he seems to like to compare his lovers to his daughter.

    Ick, ick and more ick.


    Anne, sorry, (none / 0) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 11:58:24 AM EST
    didn't word that well...agree that it may come across as "meh" because it was, essentially, "meh." in that we expected something more.  As if, what we did get or already knew was nothing.  Because, of what Trump has done to the country, we are inured to what should be outrage at even the basics of the story.

    Someone's getting fired tomorrow morning. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 07:33:08 PM EST
    Got to get this off the front page.

    Carson (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 07:37:57 PM EST
    And/or Shulkin

    If Mika is right, yes (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 12:04:04 AM EST
    Stormy told the world she didn't want to have sexual relations with Trump the 1st time and walked out the door the second time he set up an encounter.

    The silence is deafening (none / 0) (#89)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Mar 27, 2018 at 12:57:08 PM EST
    since Sunday night.

    And then somehow, you found yourself (none / 0) (#29)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 10:11:35 PM EST
    with a big ol' stick in your hand and decided to drop in and try to stir up some sh!t.

    Your game is getting old.

    the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 11:13:34 PM EST
    was deleted as trolling

    Interesting point (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 07:41:59 AM EST
    Just made on MJ.

    That of all people living or dead the only ones Trump seems unwilling to trash and attack are Clifford and her lawyer.

    This is a great point.  Why is that?  It doesn't seem possible that silence is purchased only with what we know so far.

    Maybe Gen. Kelly heeded Axelrod's advice. (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by vml68 on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 11:05:44 AM EST
    I have (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 07:57:23 AM EST
    noticed that same thing. Stormy has something and everybody is left guessing exactly what that is.

    And there is this (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 08:06:59 AM EST
    Vanity Fair

    There is a lot of great stuff in there but relevant to this thread-

    The interview may not have delivered on the incessant, Super Bowlesque hype, but it may have charted the course for a new phase in the Mueller investigation. According to a person directly familiar with the inquiry, Mueller's team has posed questions about potential payments made to women

    What the Stormy Daniels and (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 08:51:47 AM EST
    Karen McDougal stories have in common is that both payments were made during the campaign.

    Were there others?  Michael Avenatti says that at least 6 other women have come forward, but I don't believe he has indicated the timing of their association with Trump, and/or whether there was money involved.

    I had the feeling as first, the accusations of unwanted and inappropriate sexual advances were made, and then, the consensual affairs were revealed, that this was all part of a pattern: Trump hitting on women all the time, prepared to offer them money or other consideration (possible job offers), if they would let him have his way with them.

    The ones who didn't take the bait perhaps weren't as important to pay off and shut up as those who refused his advances - the question is, were there other women who got some kind of financial benefit in exchange for their silence?

    I'd be willing to bet there are, and that may be what has gotten Mueller interested: the nexus between the payoffs and the election.


    Let's (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 09:03:51 AM EST
    not forget this quote from "Fire and Fury"
    Steve Bannon, President Donald Trump's former top strategist, alleged in journalist Michael Wolff's tell-all book about the Trump White House that the president's longtime attorney, Marc Kasowitz, "took care" of 100 women during the presidential campaign.

    "Look, Kasowitz has known [Trump] for twenty-five years. Kasowitz has gotten him out of all kinds of jams," Bannon reportedly said. "Kasowitz on the campaign -- what did we have, a hundred women? Kasowitz took care of all of them."

    Also (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 08:57:12 AM EST
    They both had the same lawyer who is now said to have been working with Coen.

    When Obama was president in 2011, ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 02:14:01 PM EST
    ... only 30% of Christian evangelicals told pollsters that they'd forgive a president's immoral behavior and flouting of his marriage vows. With Trump now in office, that number has since more than doubled to 72%.

    Oh, well. I believe it was Jesus who once preached to his disciples, "He who has not horndogged and shagged a p0rn star just after the birth of his fifth child by his third wife and who is therefore without sin, let him cast the first stone." At least, that's per the Gospel According to Perkins.


    Well, it is getting (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 03:19:31 PM EST
    near Easter and this is Holy Week. I'm not surprised that Stormy hasn't been changed into Mary Magdalene for the consumption of evangelicals.

    Just reported (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 03:54:55 PM EST
    Stormy is suing Cohen for defamation.

    I just heard Stormy has (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 06:34:07 PM EST
    A "dress"

    How wonderfully karmic would that be?

    I love it (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 06:36:45 PM EST
    Alana Evans, a fellow adult film star and longtime friend of Stormy Daniels, told CNN's Jim Sciutto on Monday that although she could not account for other evidence Daniels gathered, she knows her friend still has the dress that she wore on the night she claims to have had sex with Trump in 2006.

    "I am unaware about text messages or pictures or any type of evidence she might have that would fit on a disk," Evans said. "All I know is that Stormy still has the dress that she wore from that night."

    Evans said she may have kept the garment for a number of reasons, including as a "keepsake" or possibly as "actual proof."

    "I can only speculate the things that may be on that dress, especially if it's never been washed," Evans told Sciutto.

    Okay then (none / 0) (#67)
    by linea on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 07:41:07 PM EST
    Stormy Daniels keeps the semen, for over ten years, of elderly married men that she has sex with?

    As an aside (random thoughts in no particular order):

    • Obviously she's telling the truth. I don't think anyone (reasonable) disputes that she had a one-night-stand or that some creep threatened her.

    • I'm wondering why she made that shirt choice for the interview. It was too tight across the chest and the buttons were pulled. I know it can be difficult to find a top that fits everywhere but if it's too snug there it's a bad look. For the most part, I have stopped wearing shirts with buttons.

    • I didn't know this but as of 2009 she was already well know internationally and it was reported that she was interested in a political career: Stormy is something of a political star in the US and may be in the running in next year's US Senate race.

    • From all studies, women involved in sex films have suffered sexual abuse at a young age, often from male family members or trusted adults. Glad to read she enjoys equestrian sports. Many women involved in the sex films industry commit suicide at an early age. Personal opinion of course, but sex films should be illegal to produce. The boys can wank to anime.

    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 08:03:12 PM EST
    if any one here does not know about Stormy vs David "Diaper Dave" Vitter (I doubt there are many)

    you really should


    You love to stereotype ... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 08:29:29 PM EST
    From all studies, women involved in sex films have suffered sexual abuse at a young age, often from male family members or trusted adults. Glad to read she enjoys equestrian sports. Many women involved in the sex films industry commit suicide at an early age. Personal opinion of course, but sex films should be illegal to produce. The boys can wank to anime.

    ... and draw conclusions about specific people from broad generalities/stereotypes, usually based on negative stereotypes about men and victimization stereotypes about women.  No idea why that is - and frankly, couldn't care less - but here's the very first result I came across when googling your latest.

    P0rn Stars Molested About as Often as Accountants, New Study Finds

    According to the study, published this month in the Journal of $ex Research, a significant percentage of women in p0rn do report to have been molested as children--but nearly as many women outside the p0rn industry report the same thing.  

    ...  Female p0rn performers aren't significantly more likely to have a history of $exual abuse; it's just that we tend not to ask insurance agents and mainstream actresses about molestation on live radio.

    So much psychology to unpack (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 08:40:05 PM EST
    It would seriously be a life work.

    Every woman I have met in this work is a smart and independent as they come.  And I have known a few.  Andy who I am still in touch with is not my only connection to this industry.

    Long ago when I was trying to make a living as an illustrator I worked a lot for adult publications.

    The shade being thrown at these women from that commenter is really to laughable.  


    The thought (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 09:39:03 PM EST
    occurred to me in reading this that as a young man my reaction to your post would have been that it is good for hetero guys to be friends with gay guys--because of the crumbs that will fall off the table....

    In fact (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 08:48:13 PM EST
    The thing that surprised me even back in the 80s was how much of the industry is run and managed by women.

    I can almost hear you saying (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 27, 2018 at 05:25:54 PM EST
    Toto, I don't think we're in Arkansas anymore.

    I'm not debating this garbage (none / 0) (#74)
    by linea on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 08:46:05 PM EST
    Legitimate research has shown that childhood sexual and/or physical abuse significantly predicts engagement in sex work. This is the agreed consensus of actual psychiatrists and psychological professionals. Period.



    So what? Why does that matter? (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 09:13:18 PM EST
    How should we factor it into Stormy's interview?  Why should it be a factor?

    You could sit down with any one of us and if you dig deep enough, you'd find some darkness in all of our souls, some family secret, some personal shame, some this or that that affects who we are.

    But I get the feeling that, once again, you're just in the mood to argue, or you don't want anyone thinking too positively about Stormy because, what? Sex workers aren't entitled to have people think well of them?

    And now you're ticked off because no one's buying what you're trying to sell.

    Jesus, this is exhausting.


    This is stupid (none / 0) (#80)
    by linea on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 09:47:15 PM EST
    You think I point out that sex workers and sex film workers are sexually and/or physically abused as children because I `don't want anyone thinking too positively about Stormy' is the dumbest thing I have ever read.

    READ: Abused as children.

    I can't believe anyone is seriously arguing against the reality of the documented association between childhood maltreatment and sex work.


    But how is that relevant to Daniels' (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 27, 2018 at 06:39:31 AM EST
    interview?  To what she said, to the questions she answered?

    She wasn't discussing how and why she got into the adult film business, wasn't discussing her childhood, she was answering questions and providing information about her relationship with Donald Trump and the background on the hush agreement.

    So you come barging in with all your opinions and your wikipedia facts about the association between childhood abuse and sex work, and then have your usual linea-fit when the discussion doesn't take a left turn and head where you want it to go.

    And for the record, I didn't write one word "against" the associations and connections you're trying to make - it's not that it isn't a valid subject for discussion, it's just that it has nothing, zero, nada, zip, to do with the content of Stormy Daniels' interview with Anderson Cooper.  


    But instead of being even minimally aware of that, you've once again cluttered up the thread with your rhetorical foot-stomping and your labeling of others' comments as "stupid" and "garbage" and continue to act as if you have the definitive word on pretty much everything.

    You don't.  

    News flash: none of us do - we're all in that boat.

    But your child abuse = future sex worker thing was a total non sequitur to the discussion.  Just admit it and move on.


    Rhetorical foot stomping (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 27, 2018 at 07:21:57 AM EST
    Thank you, Anne. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 27, 2018 at 01:51:34 PM EST
    Not to single anyone out here but honestly, why do some people always feel compelled to imply their own self-perceived moral superiority whenever they talk about Stormy Daniels or others who work in the adult entertainment industry? (See Robin Abcarian's most recent column in today's Los Angeles Times.)

    Further, why do we act so incredulous at the notion that p0rn stars can also be highly intelligent, emotionally balanced, quite articulate and even likeable in a non-sexual setting? It's as though our initial instinct is to immediately deny them their humanity by sole virtue of their choice in professions, even though they likely harbor hopes and dreams which are remarkably similar to our own.



    Of course you're not ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 09:04:20 PM EST
    ... because you can't.  Because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions about stereotypes of men as bad and women as victims.

    This is the agreed consensus of actual psychiatrists and psychological professionals. Period.

    Is it?  Before, you said it was "all studies" - now it's (supposedly) a "consensus".  Which, of course, ignores the published, peer-reviewed study I referenced and the 5 actual psychologists who wrote it.

    The "Period." at the end was amusing.  Lots of people try that when they make some embarrassingly silly pronouncement they can't back up.  I suppose it makes them feel more convincing.  Do you suppose anyone is actually stupid enough to believe them?


    It's garbage (none / 0) (#81)
    by linea on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 09:48:33 PM EST
    If you actually studied the issue at University you would know that.

    Yes (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 10:22:44 PM EST
    No doubt whatever undergrad course you took make your silly stereotypes and unsupported claims more convincing than the actual psychologists who published the actual study.  But I'll remember that standard next time you opine on legal issues.



    I dated a guy (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 07:46:45 PM EST
    Who was an adult film star for a while.  In that time I met several other adult film stars. Male and female.  Every single one of them impressed me as being smarter, more stable and well adjusted than you.

    How may have you met?


    Duh (none / 0) (#72)
    by linea on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 08:29:49 PM EST
    Of course I've never met a sex film worker. But it's a ridiculous argument.

    Serious studies have documented both the high incident of childhood sexual abuse and the high incident of death by suicide and drug overdose (i.e. suicide) as well as drug addiction (i.e. despair) of female sex workers and women in the sex film industry. That doesn't mean these women aren't intelligent or are that they must exhibit histrionic behavior to be suffering.


    While there are those studies (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 27, 2018 at 11:46:18 AM EST
    I don't think we can place everyone doing that work in that category.

    #2 Culturally men get to have no strings guilt free sex if they want and that's okay. I can't grant women the same rights.

    #3 How is it relevant in this discussion of Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump?


    I have to say (none / 0) (#99)
    by CST on Wed Mar 28, 2018 at 08:05:52 AM EST
    This "Of course I've never met a sex film worker."

    Comes off odd.  Why is it "of course"?  FWIW I have met and am friends with someone who chose to appear in some films.  Today she is working in healthcare outreach for at risk adults.  We met when we were both working in a restaurant together.  

    I wouldn't be surprised frankly if you had met someone who was a sex film worker.  That's not always going to be the first thing they bring up in conversation.  You might not have noticed, for the simple fact that they can otherwise be completely normal people and have moved on with their lives, and don't actually wear a scarlet letter or anything.


    One of my favorite jazz and R&B artists ... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 26, 2018 at 09:22:04 PM EST
    ... was the late Candye Kane, a once very popular adult film star from the early 1980s who kept her nom de p0rn as she transitioned into a critically acclaimed music career. Relentlessly on tour, she was a wonderful singer / songwriter who had amassed quite a devoted following over the years, particularly in Southern California. Her club dates and music festival dates in SoCal and Las Vegas were almost always sellouts, and we used to try to see her whenever we were there.

    Some of Candye's best work was inspired by her seven-year struggle with pancreatic cancer, a battle she ultimately lost. And when she died in May 2016 at age 54, her passing was the lead story in the San Diego Union-Tribune and local TV newscasts. Her New Orleans-style funeral procession in Oceanside was an event entirely befitting the way she lived her life.

    It's always best to never stereotype people, particularly adult film stars.



    Did you see her aurobiographical (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 27, 2018 at 03:48:47 PM EST

    auto (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 27, 2018 at 03:53:42 PM EST
    No, sorry to say, I did not see it. (none / 0) (#102)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 28, 2018 at 04:19:43 PM EST
    Candye Kane's life and career are certainly worthy of a show, and perhaps a biographical film. She really was a remarkable woman, with a heart as big as her talent. She was a highly regarded and even beloved figure in the greater San Diego community, and was always happy to lend her time and talents on behalf of various causes, particularly for LGBT issues, cancer research and music education in public schools.

    I think people first came to her cabaret shows 30 years ago out of curiosity, considering the novelty of a p0rn star who had the audacity to think that she was a jazz-blues singer. They came back and brought their friends because she was real and genuine, and her shows were always entertaining and a lot of fun.

    At the sunset of her career in adult films, Candye actually received an offer for a recording contract with CBS Records, which was quickly rescinded once they learned that she was a p0rn star. That was their loss. Her songwriting talent and work product in jazz / blues / root-rock speak for themselves.



    2007 Trump was a Democrat (none / 0) (#96)
    by thomas rogan on Tue Mar 27, 2018 at 09:20:59 PM EST
    Everyone knows that the 2007 Trump was a billionaire playboy Democrat donor.  

    You keep repeating that ... (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 27, 2018 at 09:42:37 PM EST
    ... as if it makes a difference.  You realize that when he had most of his affairs and during the periods when most of the women said he assaulted them, he was a Republican.


      Might want to rethink that.


    Bahahaha (5.00 / 6) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 28, 2018 at 12:27:52 AM EST
    Changed political parties 5 times? Good Lord, whoever he thought he might take best advantage of :)

    The guy has been forever on the make.


    Yes, and the (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 28, 2018 at 01:22:27 PM EST
    GOP brainwashed masses keep bringing that up, as if it matters more than a rosy rat's @ss.
    Trump is a grifter and a con man, always has been.  
    But now, he belongs to the Republican Party.  They nominated him, they have gone along with his idiocies without trying to place any restrictions on him, they continue to enable him.
    Hey, Republicans!  You own him, it's all on you.

    The link bears (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 28, 2018 at 11:25:02 AM EST
    being set forth, to...well, underscore Trump.

    (1) registered for the first time in NY as R in July 1987; (2) registered Independence Party, Oct 1999; (3) registered as D in August 2001; (4) registered as R in 2009; (5) marked "I do not wish to enroll in a party," in 2011; (6) registered as R, in April 2012.  

    Now he seems to have "registered" as the "CCCP" party....Corruption, Collusion, Classless Party."  The Republicans have joined him and assimilated into this Trumpian party.


    Then why did your party nominate him? (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 28, 2018 at 04:36:06 PM EST
    And further, why do Republicans now embrace him?

    And FYI, the name of our party is the Democratic Party, not the "Democrat Party." Insisting otherwise by calling us the latter is inherently disrespectful. But then, you already knew that and did it anyway.

    So, revel in your p*ssy-grabbin' p0rn dog. Because two years from now, you're likely going to be dearly regretting his Kremlin-loving presence every bit as much as the rest of us do.



    Setback for Ms. Clifford's (none / 0) (#104)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 29, 2018 at 04:12:15 PM EST
    aggressive litigation strategy. No immediate depositions of either Tr*mp of Cohen, nor an expedited trial.

    Overreaching. (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 29, 2018 at 04:50:53 PM EST