Friday, January 12, 2018

The Wall Street Journal reported that a Trump lawyer arranged a $130,000 payment for an adult-film star’s silence

The Wall Street Journal reported that a Trump lawyer arranged a $130,000 payment for an adult-film star’s silence

"A lawyer for President Donald Trump arranged a $130,000 payment to a former adult-film star a month before the 2016 election as part of an agreement that precluded her from publicly discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the matter."

The event happened way back in 2006, and would be significant only because Trump and Melania had only been married for 18 months at the time of the alleged incident, but it would not be the only time Trump was accused of a 2006 infidelity. Another Wall Street Journal article alleged that Trump had a 2006 affair with Karen McDougal, the 1998 Playmate of the Year. The National Enquirer supposedly offered McDougal $150,000 to tell her story, but the article was never published.

Look, I know that the WSJ is generally competent and is anything but an arm of liberal America, so this report should be reliable, but the entire story is riddled with holes.

Only four people could know for sure about this agreement: Trump, Stormy and their lawyers.

Stormy denies that she had a “sexual and/or romantic affair” with Mr. Trump.

Stormy also categorically denies receiving hush money: "Rumors that I have received hush money from Donald Trump are completely false."

Trump and his lawyer say the story is bogus. “President Trump once again vehemently denies any such occurrence as has Ms. Daniels.”

Stormy's lawyer says he can't speak about the case because of privilege.

UPDATE: it seems that at least one source of the story is another woman in the adult entertainment business, Alana Evans, in whom Stormy confided.

3 comments:

  1. Right on the first three prongs, but not the forth. Stormy's lawyer CAN speak about the case without violating any law, privilege, or ethics rule. Because Stormy herself, his client, has already waived the privilege by stating publicly that the agreement never happened. There's nothing confidential about that fact any more. So her lawyer is entirely free to confirm or deny her factual assertion without facing any confidentiality issue. So actually, in light of that, his failure to say anything about the case speaks volumes. Why doesn't he? We're entitled to draw the natural inference from his failure to back up Stormy when he is entirely free to do so if he chooses.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe he can, but that isn't my opinion being cited there. I'm just reporting what he said.

    ReplyDelete
  3. How come no one asks the bigger question: is Stormy Daniels worth the money, if it actually happened? Or did the master deal-maker overpay?

    ReplyDelete