Ponderable

espola said:
If it was ok, why was he punished?
Click to expand...
He wasn't removed from office for lying about sex.
But the court doesn't take shit from the likes of Bill Clinton or Joe Arpaio.
When you ignore what the court orders, you are found in contempt. Along with contempt, he was fined $90,000 & under a plea bargain with the Independent Counsel, his Arkansas law license was suspended for five years....
 
xav10 said:
Impeached and it became a huge deal which continues to this day. Not compounded by hush payments.
Click to expand...
Compounded by lying to federal investigators.
What you call hush money was part of a business agreement. The Non Disclosure Agreement.
Certainly a practicing attorney can appreciate contract law.....:cool:
 
Lion Eyes said:
Compounded by lying to federal investigators.
What you call hush money was part of a business agreement. The Non Disclosure Agreement.
Certainly a practicing attorney can appreciate contract law.....:cool:
Click to expand...
Completely wrong. Have you ever negotiated an NDA? First of all, this wasn’t an NDA, it was a confidentiality agreement. Secondly, it was made after-the-fact for a lot of money, which isn’t how confidentiality agreements typically work. Usually a confidentiality provision is attached to a services agreement or a settlement agreement, it doesn’t exist on its own...so it was hush money.
FYI, I negotiate agreements for a living.
 
Lion Eyes said:
He wasn't removed from office for lying about sex.
But the court doesn't take shit from the likes of Bill Clinton or Joe Arpaio.
When you ignore what the court orders, you are found in contempt. Along with contempt, he was fined $90,000 & under a plea bargain with the Independent Counsel, his Arkansas law license was suspended for five years....
Click to expand...

And that makes it "ok"?
 
True colors,

Geraldo Rivera outs himself: wishes he had supported second intifada
APRIL 2, 2018
Peddling a new book, the Fox News correspondent wishes he had supported a terror campaign

205292_5_.png
I regret in 2002 backing down from backing the Palestinians in their conflict with Israel. The Second Intifada. Because I saw with my own eyes how. And I know how this is going to resonate very poorly with the people watching right now. But still, I have to tell you how I feel. I saw at firsthand how those people were. And now you said 14, 15 people killed in Gaza. Palestinians killed by the IDF forces. I saw what an awful life they live under constant occupation and oppression.

And people keep saying, “Oh, they are terrorists. Or they are this or they are that.” They are an occupied people and I regret chickening out after 2002 and not staying on that story and adding my voice as a Jew, adding my voice to those counseling a two-state solution. It is so easy to put them out of sight, out of mind. And let them rot. And be killed. And keep this thing festering. And I think a lot of our current problems stem from – that’s almost our original sin. Palestine and Israel. I want a two-state solution. I want President Trump to re-energize the peace process.



Readers may remember that the second intifada was a terror campaign launched by Yasser Arafat after he rejected a state in the West Bank and Gaza, a capital in East Jerusalem, and control of the mosques on the Temple Mount -- basically 99% of what Palestinians wanted. More than thousand Israelis were murdered, often brutally, in the second intifada.

Rivera’s gushing over the poor Palestinians ignores the fact that their standard of living is higher than that of Arabs in neighboring Egypt and Jordan, and that no Arab country wants to host them. And the reason why they are fenced off from Israel is the unrelenting campaign of terror launched from the West Bank and Gaza.

As Michael Curtis points out today elsewhere on these pages, the goal of Hamas, which controls Gaza, is the elimination of the state of Israel and its Jews.


https://www.americanthinker.com/blo..._wishes_he_had_supported_second_intifada.html
 
xav10 said:
Completely wrong. Have you ever negotiated an NDA? First of all, this wasn’t an NDA, it was a confidentiality agreement. Secondly, it was made after-the-fact for a lot of money, which isn’t how confidentiality agreements typically work. Usually a confidentiality provision is attached to a services agreement or a settlement agreement, it doesn’t exist on its own...so it was hush money.
FYI, I negotiate agreements for a living.
Click to expand...

I have to admit I find all the legal maneuvering by the Trump team to quash any talk of his infidelities to be fascinating. Although is paying hush money to keep a story quiet illegal? I guess setting the ethics aside, I'm a bit surprised that two grown adults can't enter into an agreement where one agrees not to publicly relate a negative story in exchange for cash...
Likewise with the Playboy Bunny, sounds like National Enquirer bought the rights to her story telling her they were going to print an article about the affair... and then buried the scandal as a favor to Trump once they owned the rights. Totally unethical... but at the same time I'm not sure what's illegal (or maybe unenforceable) about the arrangement or how the women can "take back" ownership of a story they seemingly have sold to Trump and allies for cash. Playing devils advocate here, but wouldn't that be stealing intellectual property...
 
Last edited:
tenacious said:
I have to admit I find all the legal maneuvering by the Trump team to quash any talk of his infidelities to be fascinating. Although is paying hush money to keep a story quiet illegal? I guess setting the ethics aside, I'm a bit surprised that two grown adults can't enter into an agreement where one agrees not to publicly relate a negative story in exchange for cash...
Likewise with the Playboy Bunny, sounds like National Enquirer bought the rights to her story telling her they were going to print an article about the affair... and then buried the scandal as a favor to Trump once they owned the rights. Totally unethical... but at the same time I'm not sure what's illegal (or maybe unenforceable) about the arrangement or why the women won't have to pay the millions they agreed they would owe if they breached the contract?
Click to expand...
You sound like a fake attorney too.
 
tenacious said:
I have to admit I find all the legal maneuvering by the Trump team to quash any talk of his infidelities to be fascinating. Although is paying hush money to keep a story quiet illegal? I guess setting the ethics aside, I'm a bit surprised that two grown adults can't enter into an agreement where one agrees not to publicly relate a negative story in exchange for cash...
Likewise with the Playboy Bunny, sounds like National Enquirer bought the rights to her story telling her they were going to print an article about the affair... and then buried the scandal as a favor to Trump once they owned the rights. Totally unethical... but at the same time I'm not sure what's illegal (or maybe unenforceable) about the arrangement or how the women can "take back" ownership of a story they seemingly have sold to Trump and allies for cash. Playing devils advocate here, but wouldn't that be stealing intellectual property...
Click to expand...
I think the agreements were legal.If Enquirer promised to publish and then buried it, that may have been a breach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top