Whitehouse Tries To Blackmail Joe And Mika

[ZiprHead]

‘It’s Blackmail’: Joe and Mika Reveal How White House Threatened Them With National Enquirer

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is there any way we can subtly convince Trump to admit he is the Zodiac killer? He seems vain enough to fall for it. Spicer's response is tempered in that article, which seems to imply it is likely true. Why in the heck would they go to such lengths to get in to needless trouble?

 

[Malintent]

unfortunately, there needs to be a material gain for it to be blackmail. Is this "Extortion", though?

 

[Opoponax]

It'd be great if they sued him. The question is whether the alleged blackmail could be considered an "official act." If not, then it appears they'd have grounds to sue and collect damages for malice and oppression.

In Clinton v. Jones it was held that a POTUS could not be civilly sued for official acts. That obviously leaves open unofficial acts. If that could be done, it would cripple Trump even more than he is now. And it would just add another sack of rotting garbage to the dumpster fire of his presidency .

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

unfortunately, there needs to be a material gain for it to be blackmail. Is this "Extortion", though?

I thought that was the other way around, but my criminal law experience is limited to watching Law and Order.

Though based on one episode, I think you may be right.

- - - Updated - - -

It'd be great if they sued him.

White House officials allegedly did this, not Trump.

In Clinton v. Jones it was held that a POTUS could not be civilly sued for official acts. That obviously leaves open unofficial acts. If that could be done, it would cripple Trump even more than he is now. And it would just add another sack of rotting garbage to the dumpster fire of his presidency .

Clearly this would be an official act, as it dealt with coverage of him as President.

 

[fromderinside]

To number one with a bullet, Trumps "I shot myself, but, I did not tell the truthee" cribbing the music from "I shot the Sheriff".

 

[Opoponax]

I thought that was the other way around, but my criminal law experience is limited to watching Law and Order.

Though based on one episode, I think you may be right.

- - - Updated - - -

It'd be great if they sued him.

White House officials allegedly did this, not Trump.

In Clinton v. Jones it was held that a POTUS could not be civilly sued for official acts. That obviously leaves open unofficial acts. If that could be done, it would cripple Trump even more than he is now. And it would just add another sack of rotting garbage to the dumpster fire of his presidency .

Clearly this would be an official act, as it dealt with coverage of him as President.

Okay. I couldn't read the Washington Post article. And in a few brief minutes of research it appears they almost certainly won't have any legal case against Trump. Well, they might, but I don't feel like going down that road right now. So I retract what my mouth began to run off with earlier.

 

[Bronzeage]

It'd be great if they sued him. The question is whether the alleged blackmail could be considered an "official act." If not, then it appears they'd have grounds to sue and collect damages for malice and oppression.

In Clinton v. Jones it was held that a POTUS could not be civilly sued for official acts. That obviously leaves open unofficial acts. If that could be done, it would cripple Trump even more than he is now. And it would just add another sack of rotting garbage to the dumpster fire of his presidency .

I can see a sealed settlement agreement with confidentiality agreements on all sides. If such a suit went to trial, it would start with depositions and then move to a hearing on whether the act was official, or not. There's not a political being in Washington DC who who would let that scenario go forward.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I thought that was the other way around, but my criminal law experience is limited to watching Law and Order.

Though based on one episode, I think you may be right.

- - - Updated - - -

White House officials allegedly did this, not Trump.

In Clinton v. Jones it was held that a POTUS could not be civilly sued for official acts. That obviously leaves open unofficial acts. If that could be done, it would cripple Trump even more than he is now. And it would just add another sack of rotting garbage to the dumpster fire of his presidency .

Clearly this would be an official act, as it dealt with coverage of him as President.

Okay. I couldn't read the Washington Post article. And in a few brief minutes of research it appears they almost certainly won't have any legal case against Trump. Well, they might, but I don't feel like going down that road right now. So I retract what my mouth began to run off with earlier.

There is only a case if it is in writing or a taped conversation.

 

[Elixir]

I thought that was the other way around, but my criminal law experience is limited to watching Law and Order.

Though based on one episode, I think you may be right.

- - - Updated - - -

White House officials allegedly did this, not Trump.

In Clinton v. Jones it was held that a POTUS could not be civilly sued for official acts. That obviously leaves open unofficial acts. If that could be done, it would cripple Trump even more than he is now. And it would just add another sack of rotting garbage to the dumpster fire of his presidency .

Clearly this would be an official act, as it dealt with coverage of him as President.

Okay. I couldn't read the Washington Post article. And in a few brief minutes of research it appears they almost certainly won't have any legal case against Trump. Well, they might, but I don't feel like going down that road right now. So I retract what my mouth began to run off with earlier.

Saw it on Morning Joe... they're not in the kind of litigious mood (that seems to be perpetual for the tangerine twit). They're just SAD! that the dignity of the office has been reduced to a global joke.

 

[Opoponax]

I thought that was the other way around, but my criminal law experience is limited to watching Law and Order.

Though based on one episode, I think you may be right.

- - - Updated - - -

White House officials allegedly did this, not Trump.

In Clinton v. Jones it was held that a POTUS could not be civilly sued for official acts. That obviously leaves open unofficial acts. If that could be done, it would cripple Trump even more than he is now. And it would just add another sack of rotting garbage to the dumpster fire of his presidency .

Clearly this would be an official act, as it dealt with coverage of him as President.

Okay. I couldn't read the Washington Post article. And in a few brief minutes of research it appears they almost certainly won't have any legal case against Trump. Well, they might, but I don't feel like going down that road right now. So I retract what my mouth began to run off with earlier.

There is only a case if it is in writing or a taped conversation.

And after a few more minutes of shoddy research... isn't Scarborough saying he has texts and phone calls from White House staff about this?

The texts are certainly "a writing" and the phone calls would be admissible as firsthand knowledge and voice identification. The contents of the conversation could be barred although it could be admissible as circumstantial evidence of state of mind. Etc.

Yet we find ourselves swirling the now all-too familiar toilet bowl of "Yeah, but the Republicans own Congress."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I thought that was the other way around, but my criminal law experience is limited to watching Law and Order.

Though based on one episode, I think you may be right.

- - - Updated - - -

White House officials allegedly did this, not Trump.

In Clinton v. Jones it was held that a POTUS could not be civilly sued for official acts. That obviously leaves open unofficial acts. If that could be done, it would cripple Trump even more than he is now. And it would just add another sack of rotting garbage to the dumpster fire of his presidency .

Clearly this would be an official act, as it dealt with coverage of him as President.

Okay. I couldn't read the Washington Post article. And in a few brief minutes of research it appears they almost certainly won't have any legal case against Trump. Well, they might, but I don't feel like going down that road right now. So I retract what my mouth began to run off with earlier.

There is only a case if it is in writing or a taped conversation.

And after a few more minutes of shoddy research... isn't Scarborough saying he has texts and phone calls from White House staff about this?

The texts are certainly "a writing" and the phone calls would be admissible as firsthand knowledge and voice identification. The contents of the conversation could be barred although it could be admissible as circumstantial evidence of state of mind. Etc.

Yet we find ourselves swirling the now all-too familiar toilet bowl of "Yeah, but the Republicans own Congress."

Jebus! This story is brewing.

On Twitter on Friday, Trump blasted the pair again.

Watched low rated @Morning_Joe for first time in long time. FAKE NEWS. He called me to stop a National Enquirer article. I said no! Bad show

Scarborough called Trump's tweet a "lie."

Yet another lie. I have texts from your top aides and phone records. Also, those records show I haven't spoken with you in many months. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/880771685460344832 …

Now here is a huge thing, Trump just claimed Joe called him to stop the National Enquirer from publishing a story. Trump claims he said "No!". I'm wondering if the White House legal counsel just scheduled an appointment with their doctor because of acid reflux issues. Trump stated in an official Presidential statement that Joe Scarborough called him... directly... about an article with the National Enquirer that hadn't been published yet. This is disturbing on several levels.

 

[Bronzeage]

I thought that was the other way around, but my criminal law experience is limited to watching Law and Order.

Though based on one episode, I think you may be right.

- - - Updated - - -

White House officials allegedly did this, not Trump.

In Clinton v. Jones it was held that a POTUS could not be civilly sued for official acts. That obviously leaves open unofficial acts. If that could be done, it would cripple Trump even more than he is now. And it would just add another sack of rotting garbage to the dumpster fire of his presidency .

Clearly this would be an official act, as it dealt with coverage of him as President.

Okay. I couldn't read the Washington Post article. And in a few brief minutes of research it appears they almost certainly won't have any legal case against Trump. Well, they might, but I don't feel like going down that road right now. So I retract what my mouth began to run off with earlier.

There is only a case if it is in writing or a taped conversation.

And after a few more minutes of shoddy research... isn't Scarborough saying he has texts and phone calls from White House staff about this?

The texts are certainly "a writing" and the phone calls would be admissible as firsthand knowledge and voice identification. The contents of the conversation could be barred although it could be admissible as circumstantial evidence of state of mind. Etc.

Yet we find ourselves swirling the now all-too familiar toilet bowl of "Yeah, but the Republicans own Congress."

There is not a lot of case work on what an "official act" is, mainly because it's never been a question in the past.

The deciding factor would probably be whether or not the President used the power of his office to accomplish something. In this case, if any government employee followed the President's instructions, it is an official act.

If this is just a bit of skulduggery among friends, it loses the official label.

Not that it makes a big difference. If it is not an unofficial act, it could be an act of extortion, which could lead to an award of damages. That depends on proving damage.

If it is an official act, then it's a case of malfeasance in office, a much more serious problem for the President.

 

[Elixir]

I thought that was the other way around, but my criminal law experience is limited to watching Law and Order.

Though based on one episode, I think you may be right.

- - - Updated - - -

White House officials allegedly did this, not Trump.

In Clinton v. Jones it was held that a POTUS could not be civilly sued for official acts. That obviously leaves open unofficial acts. If that could be done, it would cripple Trump even more than he is now. And it would just add another sack of rotting garbage to the dumpster fire of his presidency .

Clearly this would be an official act, as it dealt with coverage of him as President.

Okay. I couldn't read the Washington Post article. And in a few brief minutes of research it appears they almost certainly won't have any legal case against Trump. Well, they might, but I don't feel like going down that road right now. So I retract what my mouth began to run off with earlier.

There is only a case if it is in writing or a taped conversation.

And after a few more minutes of shoddy research... isn't Scarborough saying he has texts and phone calls from White House staff about this?

The texts are certainly "a writing" and the phone calls would be admissible as firsthand knowledge and voice identification. The contents of the conversation could be barred although it could be admissible as circumstantial evidence of state of mind. Etc.

Yet we find ourselves swirling the now all-too familiar toilet bowl of "Yeah, but the Republicans own Congress."

There is not a lot of case work on what an "official act" is, mainly because it's never been a question in the past.

The deciding factor would probably be whether or not the President used the power of his office to accomplish something. In this case, if any government employee followed the President's instructions, it is an official act.

If this is just a bit of skulduggery among friends, it loses the official label.

Not that it makes a big difference. If it is not an unofficial act, it could be an act of extortion, which could lead to an award of damages. That depends on proving damage.

If it is an official act, then it's a case of malfeasance in office, a much more serious problem for the President.

Joe and Mika are not about to lower themselves into any kind of pissing match against the Champion of All Pissing Matches. Unlike Cheato, they have JOBS.

 

[whichphilosophy]

‘It’s Blackmail’: Joe and Mika Reveal How White House Threatened Them With National Enquirer

What does it mean, Threatened them with the National Enquirer, as the New Yorker isn't clear on any specifics.

In fact the New Yorker drivelled off into mental illness of a president etc leaving very little substance to the title.

 

[blastula]

Maybe they're finally going to blow open the dead intern story.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I don't think this goes beyond coercion. I don't see where it meets the mark for blackmail or extortion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't think this goes beyond coercion. I don't see where it meets the mark for blackmail or extortion.

I'd have thought 'coercion' would be 'stop being mean to the President!' spoken from a position of authority. Or pomposity.

Surely when they add, '...or else we'll (fill in the threat)!' it moves to extortion?.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think this goes beyond coercion. I don't see where it meets the mark for blackmail or extortion.

I'd have thought 'coercion' would be 'stop being mean to the President!' spoken from a position of authority. Or pomposity.

Surely when they add, '...or else we'll (fill in the threat)!' it moves to extortion?.

Yup. It doesn't surprise me that His Flatulence did this, only that he was stupid enough to do it when he didn't have enough pressure to ensure his victim remained silent.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Can someone on Scrotus' staff teach him to reach for his dick at 6a.m.????? It's morning, boss. Time to masturbate!