General Discussion

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)

23. Why is their side wanting this expedited? They have got something planned

Reply to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 09:37 AM

Oct 2012

Bet Staples is worried about blowback to their brand/sales?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

155 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Wrongney Testimony Unsealed & Gloria Says: Boston Globe Double Crossed Me [View all] Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 OP

What exactly is this supposed to show....? nt barnabas63 Oct 2012 #1

What do you mean by "this"? The video? The documents? WinkyDink Oct 2012 #4

the documents...yes barnabas63 Oct 2012 #43

Romney, to help his buddy Stemberg pay less to his ex-wife, PERJURED himself about the value of WinkyDink Oct 2012 #72

Judge will decide today to unseal the documents or not n/t riverwalker Oct 2012 #11

This isn't gonna come out less than 2 weeks before the election. It just won't. mucifer Oct 2012 #2

So what are Allred and Boston Globe up to if its a forgone conclusion that nothing will be released? DCBob Oct 2012 #3

I smell a fitzmas. mucifer Oct 2012 #5

I smell Republican Family Divorce Values Berlum Oct 2012 #9

So Allred and the Globe have been duped? DCBob Oct 2012 #21

Romney and his distain for women, covering up for his buddies, more of his war on women. crunch60 Oct 2012 #150

Oh, brother. It is NOT "a forgone conclusion...." Allred is NOT bringing the case; the B.Globe is. WinkyDink Oct 2012 #6

Globe says there are "juicy" details about Romney. What makes me pause though Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #10

They can try that line... jmowreader Oct 2012 #13

Romney is not fighting it but Stemberg is.. DCBob Oct 2012 #24

Ah....so that's the catch. Romney "Nothing to Hide", with Stemberg his firewall Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #26

That's because he's an arrogant SOB Thrill Oct 2012 #34

Maybe. Maybe Not. Jeff In Milwaukee Oct 2012 #41

Oh, yes it is. The Boston Globe is not under any gag order. nt LaydeeBug Oct 2012 #85

Hope we see more examples of how Romney lies. Lint Head Oct 2012 #7

If the Boston Globe has gone to court and a party to the proceedings is in favor ... Zen Democrat Oct 2012 #8

Geez...Not very prompt in Boston are they. :>) Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #12

if you Tweet or post on Facebook riverwalker Oct 2012 #14

#perjury......thanks rw Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #18

Done! ProudProgressiveNow Oct 2012 #93

rMoney has a lawyer in the courtroom krawhitham Oct 2012 #15

the audio is hard to hear n/t riverwalker Oct 2012 #16

WTF - Mid December? Did I hear that right? Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #17

Wow, is it normal to cover this type of proceeding live like this? nc4bo Oct 2012 #19

TMZ does so on most Gloria Allred cases krawhitham Oct 2012 #20

Thanks krawhitham. nm nc4bo Oct 2012 #22

How many involve A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT? WinkyDink Oct 2012 #30

True dat. I am grateful there are DUers watching and reporting, the language of the legal system nc4bo Oct 2012 #45

Why is their side wanting this expedited? They have got something planned Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #23

Romney attorney has no objection to release of testimony. n/t godai Oct 2012 #25

Sounds like the rMoney testimony will be released krawhitham Oct 2012 #27

Romney was not a party to the actual divorce. A gag order about HIM is RIDICULOUS AND POLITICAL. WinkyDink Oct 2012 #32

Questioning whether further confidentiality applies to the ex-wife. Alred objects Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #28

interesting stuff riverwalker Oct 2012 #29

Globe didn't ask for gag order release? Only for transcript released. Gloria objects - but Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #37

Gloria read the pertinent words, and the Globe lawyer AND the judge are denying the words exist! WinkyDink Oct 2012 #42

quit grandstanding Gloria krawhitham Oct 2012 #31

No, she is not. The judge is saying clearly that the Allred motion is not before her. Judge is WRONG WinkyDink Oct 2012 #36

The judge seems unsympathetic to Ms. Stemberg. WinkyDink Oct 2012 #33

I agree Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #38

Allred wants OK for ex-wife to talk about ROMNEY. godai Oct 2012 #35

wtf - Boston Globe - not seeking lift of confidentiality. Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #39

The judge is trying to get the Globe lawyer to agree with HER, as opposed to the GLOBE'S OWN REQUEST WinkyDink Oct 2012 #40

Judge is saying, "No time. Come back with a separate request. You're not relevant today." WinkyDink Oct 2012 #44

Wonder what would happen if the ex-wife just sad screw it, I'm talking - throw me in jail Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #46

Allred wants ex-wife to be able to speak about Romney and his interactions with the ex-wife. godai Oct 2012 #47

Exactly. Since when do divorce proceeding involve gag-orders about a THIRD party? POLITICAL GAG. WinkyDink Oct 2012 #48

exactly....they don't want the ex in campaign commercials. But, why isn't the Globe backing this? Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #54

The $64,000 Question. WinkyDink Oct 2012 #56

we lost on this one..she won't allow the confidentiality lifted on wife Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #49

Allred will probably quickly file a separate motion regarding lifting the gag order. godai Oct 2012 #52

yes...but won't they object? Only need one objection? Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #57

The judge would decide if gag order should be lifted. Seems could take a long time to decide. n/t godai Oct 2012 #61

Ha! Gloria just snarked on the judge's harping on "No time! No time!" WinkyDink Oct 2012 #50

the transcripts WILL be released to The Globe riverwalker Oct 2012 #51

She needs to write a roman a' clef. WinkyDink Oct 2012 #53

The judge is railroading Allred. EnviroBat Oct 2012 #55

Agreed. WinkyDink Oct 2012 #58

What is this contract that Allred and judge are referring to? nc4bo Oct 2012 #59

Yes. WinkyDink Oct 2012 #62

Gag order that ex-wife agreed to. n/t godai Oct 2012 #67

BECAUSE SHE WAS BAMBOOZLED because of Romney's LIES. WinkyDink Oct 2012 #73

Seems that something happened between Romney/ex-wife. I don't know what. n/t godai Oct 2012 #78

there were two things at issue riverwalker Oct 2012 #97

SEC rule 18 what was that? riverwalker Oct 2012 #64

Yup like I said earlier, this won't come out 2 weeks before the election. mucifer Oct 2012 #60

it will be out today, I bet. Wife can't speak to it, is all. Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #66

She can't speak but I am sure there will be 3rd parties who will be more than happy to pick nc4bo Oct 2012 #74

"Sucks to be him right now"---or at any time! :-) WinkyDink Oct 2012 #77

maybe it's worse for him - to have everyone hypothesizing on it - instead of the ex? Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #80

Excellent! DCBob Oct 2012 #96

I am starting to really dislike this judge. Sure she's not Ann coulter's sister? Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #63

Shallow Comment Warning: I hate the judge's teen-age hairstyle. WinkyDink Oct 2012 #65

LOL. Great minds think alike. (and so do we) :>) Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #68

Parties can disseminate to other press, besides Globe Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #69

Looks like it's released. nt ProudProgressiveNow Oct 2012 #70

Gloria is preparing some choice words about THIS hearing, which is why she specifically asked about WinkyDink Oct 2012 #71

I get the impression Gloria asking too much - by that I mean, some things. you just do and Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #75

"Act first; apologize later." ;-) WinkyDink Oct 2012 #79

Exactly. I learned this a long time ago Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #91

Probably major penalty for ex-wife if she violates gag order. godai Oct 2012 #87

Mrs. Stenberg may have a gag order riverwalker Oct 2012 #76

True, but only she knows what Romney might have said to her, or what her ex told her about Romney. WinkyDink Oct 2012 #81

what if I had a gag order riverwalker Oct 2012 #90

So the damaging stuff isn't in his testimony, it's here-say from someone with an axe to grind? hughee99 Oct 2012 #140

"with an axe to grind"? How about "with something about Romney that Americans should know"? WinkyDink Oct 2012 #148

If the bad stuff about Romney is actually IN the testimony, than that's one thing, hughee99 Oct 2012 #149

Yep...this is coming out today, and Mitt will look very bad by continuing to try to keep.... OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #82

Romney's lawyer didn't need to do this, when the judge did it for him. WinkyDink Oct 2012 #84

The original gag order came from Mitt's lawyer acting on Mitt's instructions... OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #92

That's why I don't get it. Romney chose to not release his taxes. Why not dodge this too? Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #98

Because he knows his taxes would hurt him much more than justiceischeap Oct 2012 #100

This maneuver allows Mitt to say he has no objection to the gag order being lifted.... OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #109

but...don't see a word yet on MSNBC. This better not be one of those subjects that only our MSNBC Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #116

Thats what I was thinking too kydo Oct 2012 #95

why isnt MSNBC covering this? no mention. Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #99

Get to the FAX machine Gloria ! Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #83

+1 ProudProgressiveNow Oct 2012 #86

Timetable? End of today, first thing tomorrow a.m.? nc4bo Oct 2012 #89

It appears to me GDoyle Oct 2012 #88

But....wouldn't the Globe profit greatly by having her side to supplement the transcript? They are Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #94

Would the Globe benefit from having the theatrics stretch out for the longest time possible? nc4bo Oct 2012 #101

The speculation in this case will be damaging to Mitt no matter how he tries to spin it. nt. OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #105

Bottom line, I hope, is that the Ex made $X on the Staples Stock, and Bain made $X times 1,000 - Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #115

Me too. Wish i understood more about gag orders. If it's specifically about speaking on the Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #107

Romney lawyer talking now !!! Happy ...thrilled - this is out. Romney had NOTHING to do Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #108

We all knew he would attempt to put a positive spin on this.... OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #112

the key is the amount of time between when he valued the stock and the time the case was closed Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #114

During the trial, though, Romney and Bain actually felt the value was GREAT, for they were taking WinkyDink Oct 2012 #127

I want to see more of the timing of events on this. Guess it's out there to find. Wonder Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #137

lot's of disparate dates Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #141

I don't think so GDoyle Oct 2012 #142

No, it didn't work, but the fact that the Globe and other media are now free to.... OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #102

Yes indeed.. the speculation will be rampant. DCBob Oct 2012 #103

What did Mitt know and when did he know it. LOL!! nt. OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #106

his lawyer saying his testimony just a primer on valuating stock. Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #111

Yeah, chuckle, chuckle. Except Mitt's actions belied his sworn words. WinkyDink Oct 2012 #123

Without seeing the text of the gag orders and the motion onenote Oct 2012 #113

Romney must've done something else besides lie. Like threaten ("Accept this, or you'll get WinkyDink Oct 2012 #104

do you still have feed on? Romney lawyer talked - see my upthread - Think Gloria coming on next Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #110

Gloria out now. Someone is yelling "Go Romney" !! Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #117

Gloria - transcribing for you Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #118

She's scooping the BG by FAXing to other newspapers. Hee! WinkyDink Oct 2012 #121

Probably the same jerk who goes to PGA tournies to yell, "IN THE HOLE!" :-) WinkyDink Oct 2012 #122

Gloria ia making it CLEAR that the BG BACKED DOWN from its prior TWO-PRONGED request which INCLUDED WinkyDink Oct 2012 #119

So, even if she does refile a motion to lift gag, representing her client, does Mr Stemberg still Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #125

Gloria: My indication was that Boston Globe was NOT going to backtrack on Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #120

Hell hath no fury like a barracuda attorney scorned. Sheepshank Oct 2012 #124

You just made me think of something. Maybe the Globe knew Stemberg would object on the gag Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #126

No need for redundancy. :-) WinkyDink Oct 2012 #131

What's her problem, it's been turned over to Boston Globe Hutzpa Oct 2012 #128

Could be better this way? Let the transcripts speak for themselves. Barack_America Oct 2012 #129

I agree--the testimony is what's potentially important, not for this TwilightGardener Oct 2012 #130

Bwahaha! AS IF you have any idea of what she might be able to reveal about Romney! She' s not WinkyDink Oct 2012 #132

Er..OK. I don't, and I assume you don't either. But I still think it's better TwilightGardener Oct 2012 #134

You saw the BG lawyer back down; there will be no "investigative journalism." WinkyDink Oct 2012 #135

I thought the Stemberg guy was also under the gag order? Anyway, TwilightGardener Oct 2012 #136

"but I'm not even sure this should be used as an election issue anyway" Hutzpa Oct 2012 #133

That's certainly what Team Romney would like us to believe. WinkyDink Oct 2012 #138

I think if the ex-wife went on a media blitz saying I got x per share and romney got x times a Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #143

In a way she cannot say a word about what went on Hutzpa Oct 2012 #144

The "juicy bits" are what Ms. Stemberg can SAY, not what is in the to-be-seen transcripts. WinkyDink Oct 2012 #146

Globe can print it Hutzpa Oct 2012 #152

She is properly and ethically repping HER CLIENT obamanut2012 Oct 2012 #139

You are confusing two distinct issues. WinkyDink Oct 2012 #147

I got half way through this post and my eyelids started drooping tavernier Oct 2012 #145

LOL.... ProudProgressiveNow Oct 2012 #151

yep...just for us hyper-analytical types. But frustrating as hell. It's not the lying here though Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #153

My understanding is that the gag order pertains only to the divorce proceedings SickOfTheOnePct Oct 2012 #154

Interesting. So disappointed that there is nothing at all about this on the news. Perhaps, Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #155