Stormy Daniels's Boring Interview Was Actually Brilliant

[DonViejo]

Once again, she proves she’s a worthy adversary for Trump.

By Rhonda Garelick

MARCH 26, 2018
10:42 AM

Last night’s 60 Minutes interview with Stormy Daniels set off so few fireworks, with so little new information, that it would be tempting to dismiss its importance. As Slate put it, “If you were hoping for a TV event that would do serious damage to the Trump presidency … [it] was a let down.” Let’s not be hasty here, though. Buried within the interview’s vanilla blandness lay some lessons worth pondering — if we want to save our republic. But the important parts were easy to miss.

To be fair, little could have lived up to the hype that preceded the broadcast, created mostly by Daniels’s bulldog of an attorney, Michael Avenatti. Lured by his hints of big revelations, some viewers approached this interview as they might the Super Bowl, gathering in watch parties, even serving themed drinks — Dark and Stormy cocktails, of course.

But in her conversation with Anderson Cooper, Stormy mainly rehashed details she’d offered before: How she met Trump; how he compared her to Ivanka (still not that shocking, folks); and how he’d strung her along by “dangling” (the very word she’s used before — evoking atrophied flesh) the hope of an appearance on The Apprentice.

She did elaborate, though, on the most profoundly disturbing element in all this: the alleged personal threat made to her (to keep silent and “leave Trump alone”) just before the presidential election. The story she told of being menaced by a thug in a parking lot while with her infant daughter was chilling but also, sadly — given what we already know about the world of Trump — not that shocking, and entirely credible.

In fact, Stormy was entirely credible in every way. Calm, clear-eyed, and direct, she telegraphed competence and clarity of purpose. She answered questions quickly and without hesitation, never averting her gaze, lowering her eyes, or even pausing. Her words were simple and devoid of rhetorical flourishes. When asked, for example, whether she understood the $130,000 she’d accepted was “hush money,” Daniels’s firm “yes” flew from her mouth nearly before Cooper could finish his question. She offered this kind of swift, emphatic, and monosyllabic response several times.

more
https://www.thecut.com/2018/03/stormy-danielss-60-minutes-interview-was-actually-brilliant.html

[jberryhill]

1. This article was written by someone who apparently did not watch the interview

She did elaborate, though, on the most profoundly disturbing element in all this: the alleged personal threat made to her (to keep silent and “leave Trump alone”) just before the presidential election. The story she told of being menaced by a thug in a parking lot while with her infant daughter was chilling but also, sadly — given what we already know about the world of Trump — not that shocking, and entirely credible.

She said that threat was in 2011, after she gave the InTouch interview.

It's pretty disrespectful for someone to pretend they were listening to something, when they clearly weren't.

Narration: According to Daniels, Mr. Trump called her the following month to say he’d not been able to get her a spot on Celebrity Apprentice. She says they never met again and only had sex in that first meeting in 2006. In may 2011, Daniels agreed to tell her story to a sister publication of In Touch magazine for $15,000. Two former employees of the magazine told us the story never ran because after the magazine called Mr. Trump seeking comment, his attorney Michael Cohen threatened to sue. Daniels says she was never paid, and says a few weeks later, she was threatened by a man who approached her in Las Vegas.

Stephanie Clifford: I was in a parking lot, going to a fitness class with my infant daughter. T-- taking, you know, the seats facing backwards in the backseat, diaper bag, you know, gettin' all the stuff out. And a guy walked up on me and said to me, "Leave Trump alone. Forget the story." And then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, "That’s a beautiful little girl. It'd be a shame if something happened to her mom." And then he was gone.

How much do people get paid to watch TV and not even pay attention to what is being said?

[onenote]

2. Looks like a case of someone hearing what they wanted to hear, not what was said

You'd think they'd double check before going public with their write-up.

[onenote]

3. As someone whose legal acumen I respect, here's a thought/question to ponder

Intentionally or not, has Daniels' lawyer set a trap that Michael Cohen was certain to (and indeed has) stepped in. Namely, by threatening legal action against Daniels and/or her attorney regarding the threats allegedly made in 2011, has he opened the door a crack for Daniels/her attorney to describe in greater detail the relationship between her and Trump whether or not the NDA is deemed invalid?

[jberryhill]

4. No, I can't see why

The SOL for assault claims in both CA and NV is two years.

Cohen is making a defamation threat on the premise that there was some sort of inference that the alleged threat in the parking lot of a fitness studio had originated with him. Does he have a reasonable basis for making that threat? Sure, why not. I guess lawyer threat letters aren't part of most people's daily existence, but they are not unusual (and as I've posted before, I have experience in smacking down Trump Organization threat letters). Would Cohen prevail on that claim? Probably not. But it's not like they've filed one either, so it's just normal attorney bluster.

Avenatti is not pursuing any civil claims against Trump or Cohen on the basis of any alleged threats, and the interview pretty much made clear that the claimed January 2018 threats were threats to enforce the contract.

The only thing that has happened in the litigation is that Daniels has filed a complaint for recission of the contract in order to avoid enforcement of an arbitration order, and Cohen has moved to remove it to federal court. There's literally nothing going on in the litigation at this point, and I would pretty much expect a motion to seal followed by a motion to dismiss. The motion to seal should be granted since the subject matter is itself a claimed confidentiality contract, and then we won't see much beyond that.

The reason this article and the blatant error in it jumped out at me is that I am fascinated by how people see or hear what they want to see or hear.

What people here and elsewhere seem to have come away with is the notion that she was coerced into signing the NDA in the first place.

Again, her lawsuit doesn't even claim that, and what she said on 60 minutes is:

When a gossip website reported a few months later that she'd had an affair with Mr. Trump, Stormy Daniels publically denied it. Five years later, Donald Trump won the Republican nomination for president.

Stormy Daniels: Suddenly people are reaching out to me again, offering me money. Large amounts of money. Was I tempted? Yes-- I struggle with it. And then I get the call. "I think I have the best deal for you."

Anderson Cooper: From your lawyer?

Stormy Daniels: Yeah.

Now, Karen Mcdougal's suit claims that Davidson (the attorney who was working for Daniels) had a conflicting relationship with Cohen. She doesn't allege any facts to back that up, but merely quotes the sort of professional courteous communications between them which is normal for lawyers, even if they can't stand each other.

Avenatti's strategy appears to be mainly centered around TV appearances, tweets, etc., as a PR campaign to try to do one of two things: (a) get Cohen or Trump to say something actionable, which has been a dud so far, or (b) get them to make a decision to drop the matter because the ongoing bleeding is doing more harm than enforcing the contract. One can make all sorts of conjectures as to why what Avenatti is doing has zip to do with "winning a case in court", but he's already got $300k of donations to bill against, so he'd best keep busy.

[Vinca]

5. I've come to a conclusion about why the interview was such a bust.

The entire interview they had with her was 2 hours long, but they obviously made a deliberate edit of anything that hadn't already been divulged by Stormy or her attorney, most likely to avoid lawsuits. It was stupid of CBS to do that. Unlikely I'll ever bother watching "60 Minutes" again. Someday we'll probably get the whole story from the attorney.