So Rudy G is being sued and - it's much worse than what you might have imagined

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Somehow one of the least f**ked up allegations in this thing is that Rudy and Trump were selling pardons for $2 million a pop:

"132. [Giuliani] also asked Ms. Dunphy if she knew anyone in need of a pardon, telling her that he was selling pardons for $2 million, which he and President Trump would split. He told Ms. Dunphy that she could refer individuals seeking pardons to him, so long as they did not go through “the normal channels” of the Office of the Pardon Attorney, because correspondence going to that office would be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act."

Okay, combining the information in this post and the one before it helps me understand. If Rudy had talked about just Trump selling pardons, it might have been covered by attorney-client privilege.

However, if Rudy was advancing a joint criminal enterprise (them selling pardons together), the privilege does not apply.

And it just floats on by. No one cares, somehow, that the former guy was selling pardons? No one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope I don’t get flamed for this, but…the way I read the complaint, I have doubts that she was actually an employee. It seemed like she was more of a girlfriend who was willing to hold her nose and subjugate herself for money. She was his arm candy and also someone who he bounced ideas. (Stupid ones) off and she played that role. In looking at some of the texts where she mentions Neimens or the Valentines Day hotel, that is not work. Her picture of herself on a golf course, in a short dress, is not something that an executive would wear. From a legal perspective, I think she will have a very difficult time in proving she was an employee.

That being said, I do believe ALL the gross stuff he did and said and that he’s basically a sex-crazed raging sadistic alcoholic. But, misogynistic men who are in a power play with women and demean them are a dime a dozen, unfortunately.

What I’m actually horrified about is that this man had access to power, abused that power, was willing to sell that access and treated our country ‘s security so recklessly and carelessly. That someone so corrupt and idiotic was in a such a position of power and influence and had access to classified information in our country blows my mind.

If you read the complaint then you know he logged her into his work email so they she could screen it for him, including privileged information. You also know he introduced her as an employee to third parties. You know he’s been recorded talking about her interview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope I don’t get flamed for this, but…the way I read the complaint, I have doubts that she was actually an employee. It seemed like she was more of a girlfriend who was willing to hold her nose and subjugate herself for money. She was his arm candy and also someone who he bounced ideas. (Stupid ones) off and she played that role. In looking at some of the texts where she mentions Neimens or the Valentines Day hotel, that is not work. Her picture of herself on a golf course, in a short dress, is not something that an executive would wear. From a legal perspective, I think she will have a very difficult time in proving she was an employee.

That being said, I do believe ALL the gross stuff he did and said and that he’s basically a sex-crazed raging sadistic alcoholic. But, misogynistic men who are in a power play with women and demean them are a dime a dozen, unfortunately.

What I’m actually horrified about is that this man had access to power, abused that power, was willing to sell that access and treated our country ‘s security so recklessly and carelessly. That someone so corrupt and idiotic was in a such a position of power and influence and had access to classified information in our country blows my mind.

If you read the complaint then you know he logged her into his work email so they she could screen it for him, including privileged information. You also know he introduced her as an employee to third parties. You know he’s been recorded talking about her interview.

If someone is legally employed, it's easy to prove. There will be tax forms signed and filed. Not sure why there is a discussion, nothing to discuss about something easy to verify.

[Anonymous]

Emails? Did someone say emails?? Isn’t that a big NO NO in these parts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somehow one of the least f**ked up allegations in this thing is that Rudy and Trump were selling pardons for $2 million a pop:

"132. [Giuliani] also asked Ms. Dunphy if she knew anyone in need of a pardon, telling her that he was selling pardons for $2 million, which he and President Trump would split. He told Ms. Dunphy that she could refer individuals seeking pardons to him, so long as they did not go through “the normal channels” of the Office of the Pardon Attorney, because correspondence going to that office would be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act."

Okay, combining the information in this post and the one before it helps me understand. If Rudy had talked about just Trump selling pardons, it might have been covered by attorney-client privilege.

However, if Rudy was advancing a joint criminal enterprise (them selling pardons together), the privilege does not apply.

And it just floats on by. No one cares, somehow, that the former guy was selling pardons? No one?

People care but I think no one is surprised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somehow one of the least f**ked up allegations in this thing is that Rudy and Trump were selling pardons for $2 million a pop:

"132. [Giuliani] also asked Ms. Dunphy if she knew anyone in need of a pardon, telling her that he was selling pardons for $2 million, which he and President Trump would split. He told Ms. Dunphy that she could refer individuals seeking pardons to him, so long as they did not go through “the normal channels” of the Office of the Pardon Attorney, because correspondence going to that office would be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act."

Okay, combining the information in this post and the one before it helps me understand. If Rudy had talked about just Trump selling pardons, it might have been covered by attorney-client privilege.

However, if Rudy was advancing a joint criminal enterprise (them selling pardons together), the privilege does not apply.

And it just floats on by. No one cares, somehow, that the former guy was selling pardons? No one?

People care but I think no one is surprised.

I don’t think people care anymore, sadly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somehow one of the least f**ked up allegations in this thing is that Rudy and Trump were selling pardons for $2 million a pop:

"132. [Giuliani] also asked Ms. Dunphy if she knew anyone in need of a pardon, telling her that he was selling pardons for $2 million, which he and President Trump would split. He told Ms. Dunphy that she could refer individuals seeking pardons to him, so long as they did not go through “the normal channels” of the Office of the Pardon Attorney, because correspondence going to that office would be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act."

Okay, combining the information in this post and the one before it helps me understand. If Rudy had talked about just Trump selling pardons, it might have been covered by attorney-client privilege.

However, if Rudy was advancing a joint criminal enterprise (them selling pardons together), the privilege does not apply.

And it just floats on by. No one cares, somehow, that the former guy was selling pardons? No one?

People care but I think no one is surprised.

I don’t think people care anymore, sadly.

The Special Counsel cares. This is one of those things that Trump thinks he has every right to do, judging from his pardon of the Illinois governor who sold Obama’s Senate seat. He doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I hope I don’t get flamed for this, but…the way I read the complaint, I have doubts that she was actually an employee. It seemed like she was more of a girlfriend who was willing to hold her nose and subjugate herself for money. She was his arm candy and also someone who he bounced ideas. (Stupid ones) off and she played that role. In looking at some of the texts where she mentions Neimens or the Valentines Day hotel, that is not work. Her picture of herself on a golf course, in a short dress, is not something that an executive would wear. From a legal perspective, I think she will have a very difficult time in proving she was an employee.

That being said, I do believe ALL the gross stuff he did and said and that he’s basically a sex-crazed raging sadistic alcoholic. But, misogynistic men who are in a power play with women and demean them are a dime a dozen, unfortunately.

What I’m actually horrified about is that this man had access to power, abused that power, was willing to sell that access and treated our country ‘s security so recklessly and carelessly. That someone so corrupt and idiotic was in a such a position of power and influence and had access to classified information in our country blows my mind

Wut.

If he was paying her, she was his employee.

PP’s post is gross but there might be some legitimate issues raised - he wasn’t paying her. That’s one of the reasons for the lawsuit.

An employee doesn't lose their rights as an employee simply because an employer chooses to stiff them. That would create the worst sort of employment incentives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope I don’t get flamed for this, but…the way I read the complaint, I have doubts that she was actually an employee. It seemed like she was more of a girlfriend who was willing to hold her nose and subjugate herself for money. She was his arm candy and also someone who he bounced ideas. (Stupid ones) off and she played that role. In looking at some of the texts where she mentions Neimens or the Valentines Day hotel, that is not work. Her picture of herself on a golf course, in a short dress, is not something that an executive would wear. From a legal perspective, I think she will have a very difficult time in proving she was an employee.

That being said, I do believe ALL the gross stuff he did and said and that he’s basically a sex-crazed raging sadistic alcoholic. But, misogynistic men who are in a power play with women and demean them are a dime a dozen, unfortunately.

What I’m actually horrified about is that this man had access to power, abused that power, was willing to sell that access and treated our country ‘s security so recklessly and carelessly. That someone so corrupt and idiotic was in a such a position of power and influence and had access to classified information in our country blows my mind.

If you read the complaint then you know he logged her into his work email so they she could screen it for him, including privileged information. You also know he introduced her as an employee to third parties. You know he’s been recorded talking about her interview.

If someone is legally employed, it's easy to prove. There will be tax forms signed and filed. Not sure why there is a discussion, nothing to discuss about something easy to verify.

Not if the employer is breaking the law by not filling out or filing the proper forms.

[Anonymous]

From the Complaint:

117. To tide Ms. Dunphy over and keep her obedient to him, Giuliani sometimes paid Ms. Dunphy in increments of no more than $5,000 in cash, at random times. For example, Giuliani paid Ms. Dunphy $4,000 in cash on February 1, 2019, before she traveled from New York to
Florida, as part of her “deferred pay.”

If you read it, the Complaint discusses other times Rudy G paid Ms. Dunphy. Whatever he paid her, it was not enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somehow one of the least f**ked up allegations in this thing is that Rudy and Trump were selling pardons for $2 million a pop:

"132. [Giuliani] also asked Ms. Dunphy if she knew anyone in need of a pardon, telling her that he was selling pardons for $2 million, which he and President Trump would split. He told Ms. Dunphy that she could refer individuals seeking pardons to him, so long as they did not go through “the normal channels” of the Office of the Pardon Attorney, because correspondence going to that office would be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act."

Okay, combining the information in this post and the one before it helps me understand. If Rudy had talked about just Trump selling pardons, it might have been covered by attorney-client privilege.

However, if Rudy was advancing a joint criminal enterprise (them selling pardons together), the privilege does not apply.

And it just floats on by. No one cares, somehow, that the former guy was selling pardons? No one?

People care but I think no one is surprised.

Rudy overpriced his pardon offer and didn’t get any takers. Anyone who paid for a pardon would know to go straight to Trump or a family member. Remember Jared was too busy working on pardons to know anything about Jan. 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somehow one of the least f**ked up allegations in this thing is that Rudy and Trump were selling pardons for $2 million a pop:

"132. [Giuliani] also asked Ms. Dunphy if she knew anyone in need of a pardon, telling her that he was selling pardons for $2 million, which he and President Trump would split. He told Ms. Dunphy that she could refer individuals seeking pardons to him, so long as they did not go through “the normal channels” of the Office of the Pardon Attorney, because correspondence going to that office would be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act."

Okay, combining the information in this post and the one before it helps me understand. If Rudy had talked about just Trump selling pardons, it might have been covered by attorney-client privilege.

However, if Rudy was advancing a joint criminal enterprise (them selling pardons together), the privilege does not apply.

And it just floats on by. No one cares, somehow, that the former guy was selling pardons? No one?

People care but I think no one is surprised.

I don’t think people care anymore, sadly.

The Special Counsel cares. This is one of those things that Trump thinks he has every right to do, judging from his pardon of the Illinois governor who sold Obama’s Senate seat. He doesn’t.

I’m sure. But that’s in some nebulous future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope I don’t get flamed for this, but…the way I read the complaint, I have doubts that she was actually an employee. It seemed like she was more of a girlfriend who was willing to hold her nose and subjugate herself for money. She was his arm candy and also someone who he bounced ideas. (Stupid ones) off and she played that role. In looking at some of the texts where she mentions Neimens or the Valentines Day hotel, that is not work. Her picture of herself on a golf course, in a short dress, is not something that an executive would wear. From a legal perspective, I think she will have a very difficult time in proving she was an employee.

That being said, I do believe ALL the gross stuff he did and said and that he’s basically a sex-crazed raging sadistic alcoholic. But, misogynistic men who are in a power play with women and demean them are a dime a dozen, unfortunately.

What I’m actually horrified about is that this man had access to power, abused that power, was willing to sell that access and treated our country ‘s security so recklessly and carelessly. That someone so corrupt and idiotic was in a such a position of power and influence and had access to classified information in our country blows my mind.

If you read the complaint then you know he logged her into his work email so they she could screen it for him, including privileged information. You also know he introduced her as an employee to third parties. You know he’s been recorded talking about her interview.

If someone is legally employed, it's easy to prove. There will be tax forms signed and filed. Not sure why there is a discussion, nothing to discuss about something easy to verify.

Not if the employer is breaking the law by not filling out or filing the proper forms.

Employees also have to sign Tax forms, and can choose to not continue working if not paid or even not paid ontime. Happens all the time. If you got a "legal" job and didn't have to fill out any forms, should be a red flag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the Complaint:

117. To tide Ms. Dunphy over and keep her obedient to him, Giuliani sometimes paid Ms. Dunphy in increments of no more than $5,000 in cash, at random times. For example, Giuliani paid Ms. Dunphy $4,000 in cash on February 1, 2019, before she traveled from New York to
Florida, as part of her “deferred pay.”

If you read it, the Complaint discusses other times Rudy G paid Ms. Dunphy. Whatever he paid her, it was not enough.

He paid her cash... that doesn't mean it was a legal job. She could have been one of the personal assistant-friend with benefits type of person. These stories aren't uncommon. A vulnerable attractive woman in need of funds and an older wealthy man in need of special companionship = the oldest story in the book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the Complaint:

117. To tide Ms. Dunphy over and keep her obedient to him, Giuliani sometimes paid Ms. Dunphy in increments of no more than $5,000 in cash, at random times. For example, Giuliani paid Ms. Dunphy $4,000 in cash on February 1, 2019, before she traveled from New York to
Florida, as part of her “deferred pay.”

If you read it, the Complaint discusses other times Rudy G paid Ms. Dunphy. Whatever he paid her, it was not enough.

He paid her cash... that doesn't mean it was a legal job. She could have been one of the personal assistant-friend with benefits type of person. These stories aren't uncommon. A vulnerable attractive woman in need of funds and an older wealthy man in need of special companionship = the oldest story in the book.

That’s certainly an argument that Giuliani will make.