Discussion: Fox News Host Asks Stormy Daniels' Lawyer If He's Politically Motivated

TPM Article Topics
#42

Oh dear, I had 2 years of Latin in 7th and 8th grade - and although it has helped me many times watching jeopardy and translating the odd quote in 19th century biographies, I still get things mixed up.

2 Likes
#43

His high cheekbones were enough to intimidate her. (And make her jealous). Surprised she was able to sputter out that “question”.

#44

Those two things are not necessarily connected but here’s the difference:

i. e. comes from id est and means (not literally) “in other words.”
e. g. comes from exempli gratia and means (not literally) “for example.”

So if a lawyer says he worked for numerous Democratic campaigns and then says “i. e., Joe Biden’s,” he chose the wrong abbreviation.

4 Likes
#45

Sure helped with vocabulary.

1 Like
#46

Here’s the easy rules of thumb:

“i.e.” (“id est”) is Latin for “that is” (or “in other words”). It means you are clarifying (re-wording) your assertion. If you can substitute the English translation in and it makes sense, you’re okay.

“e.g.” (“exempli gratia”) means “for example” — you are providing one or more examples of what you are talking about. Again, if you can put in the English translation and it makes sense, you’re okay.

I found a nice explanation with examples at this link for you: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/e.g…

ETA: I see @cervantes beat me to the draw again…

6 Likes
#47

Obviously. Because being “conservative” is a default, neutral position, see? Only being “left wing” is political.

That’s why it’s perfectly ok for a team of Republicans to investigate the Clintons, but an outrage if somebody who once donated to a Democrat to somehow sneak onto Mueller’s team.

/s (just in case…)

5 Likes
#48

If you want to show off and confuse the opposition, use Français - par exemple - or Deutsch - zum Beispiel.

2 Likes
#49

The mentality of Fox viewers is such that they want to know “who’s behind” so and so.

I recall people who did not like Ralph Nader’s consumerism asking “who’s behind” him.
One of our mgrs. called him a commie.

1 Like
#50

Yeah, the German “zum Beispiel” is generally abbreviated to “z.B.” , so they never use “i.e.” in the German but when they do use it in English texts, they always do it correctly…

1 Like
#51

I look at Fox out of prurient curiosity, but I stay for the nescience.

1 Like
#52

To help folks remember, I explain them as “is equivalent” and “example given”.

2 Likes
#53

No it’s a dumb question. It can be seen from miles that whole Stormy Daniels affaire is is simply greed motivated. Stormy realized that she sold herself cheap and wants a new deal, and got herself a better lawyer. Not unlike late round NFL draft picks that turn out to be a star, gets a new agent and hold out the next season for a better deal.

The only reason we are enjoying this spectacle of raw greed is because it’s happening to Trump.

#54

[quote=“dmp142, post:29, topic:69870”]
he’s making the most of the confounding nature of the term but “and/or” is generally taken to mean “x or y or both”.[/quote]

“Generally”? Even in the law? And even in California law?

[quote="centralasiaexpat, post:28, topic:69870, full:true"] Can someone explain the "and/or" usage to a non-lawyer? [/quote]

Here’s what one court has said about it:

Nevertheless the phrase is still frequently, though perhaps not advisedly, used in the preparation of contracts, negotiable instruments, and similar documents. Where so used, the commonly accepted meaning is that "and/or" means either "and" or "or," or both. Poucher v. State, 46 Ala. Cr. App. 272, 240 So. 2d 694, 695 (1970); Longacre v. Knowles, 333 SW 2d 67 (Mo. 1960); Oman Constr. Co., Inc. v. Tennessee Cent. Ry. Co., 212 Tenn. 556, 370 SW 2d 563 (1963); Thomas v. Penn Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 244 SC 581, 137 SE 2d 856 (1964). Applying this generally accepted interpretation […] it is clear that the items listed […] may be considered either conjunctively or disjunctively.

That’s from Klecan v. Schmal, 241 NW 2d 529 (Neb. 1976) and it makes clear that Cohen’s “and/or” is ambiguous. It can be interpreted in his favor but it can also be interpreted against him — plus there are other elements in the agreement that also suggest it’s not binding without Trump’s signature.

But here's a slightly different, and I suspect also relevant, point:

**It is manifest that we are confronted with the task of first construing “and/or,”** that befuddling, nameless thing, that Janus-faced verbal monstrosity, neither word nor phrase, the child of a brain of some one too lazy or too dull to express his precise meaning, or too dull to know what he did mean, now commonly used by lawyers in drafting legal documents, through carelessness or ignorance or as a cunning device to conceal rather than express meaning […]

This is from Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Tollefsen, 263 NW 376 (1935).

1 Like
#55

This is likely true. We can hope that Drumph’s people continue to be as cheap and stupid as they have been regarding this. I don’t think ‘Shut up and pay’ has occurred to them as an option. Perhaps it really isn’t. Who pays? How could it be hidden?

3 Likes
#56

I’m disappointed that Stormy and her lawyer don’t seem to be ripping open the seedy underbelly of Hollywood sex workers’ lawyers and their celebrity counterparts, who interact more like Realtors steering people towards quick and easy settlements instead of aggressively representing their respective clients.

Stormy, for her part, seems more interested in parlaying her experiences into one last go-round on the nudie bar circuit. I’m still surprised that the Rump Syndicate hasn’t made more of this.

2 Likes
#57

No comment. Just a big smile…

5 Likes
#58

Barring compelling evidence to the contrary, I think it’s embarrassing to assume that your ‘opponent’s‘ party affiliation is the determinant of their behavior, and so is consequently a disqualifying criteria. It’s the same allegation Drumpf has made against Mueller’s lawyers and McCabe: it’s just guilt by association.
It’s the ratfuckers seeing ratfucking in everyone else.
I suppose the next step is for the good people at Fox to start asking Republicans who don’t toe the Drumpfist line if they’re “Wilsonites,’ while the rest of the party sharpens their ice picks.

2 Likes
#59

“Absolutely not,” Avenatti replied. “That was 20-25 years ago and is laughable that people are pointing to that as the reason behind this.”

It’s Fox “News”; one should never expect anything less than “laughable.” Just ask Ralph Peters.

1 Like
#60

Don’t be fooled. Trump’s minions love this type of distraction. It’s their version of “SQUIRREL!!”

#61

I wasn’t sure where to drop this into this thread. It’s about Avenatti and Cohen’s lawyer going at it on CNN for almost a half hour.

Loved the caption on video feed,

“We watched this 26-minute interview, so you don’t have to.”

1 Like
Comments are now Members-Only
Join the discussion Free options available