Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Wrongney Testimony Unsealed & Gloria Says: Boston Globe Double Crossed Me [View all]WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)36. No, she is not. The judge is saying clearly that the Allred motion is not before her. Judge is WRONG
Gloria just READ her the Globe's request, and the judge is denying the Globe's own words!
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:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Wrongney Testimony Unsealed & Gloria Says: Boston Globe Double Crossed Me [View all]
Laura PourMeADrink
Oct 2012
OP
Romney, to help his buddy Stemberg pay less to his ex-wife, PERJURED himself about the value of
WinkyDink
Oct 2012
#72
So what are Allred and Boston Globe up to if its a forgone conclusion that nothing will be released?
DCBob
Oct 2012
#3
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
Ah....so that's the catch. Romney "Nothing to Hide", with Stemberg his firewall
Laura PourMeADrink
Oct 2012
#26
If the Boston Globe has gone to court and a party to the proceedings is in favor ...
Zen Democrat
Oct 2012
#8
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 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
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
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 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
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
The judge would decide if gag order should be lifted. Seems could take a long time to decide. n/t
godai
Oct 2012
#61
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
maybe it's worse for him - to have everyone hypothesizing on it - instead of the ex?
Laura PourMeADrink
Oct 2012
#80
I am starting to really dislike this judge. Sure she's not Ann coulter's sister?
Laura PourMeADrink
Oct 2012
#63
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
True, but only she knows what Romney might have said to her, or what her ex told her about Romney.
WinkyDink
Oct 2012
#81
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
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
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
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
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
No, it didn't work, but the fact that the Globe and other media are now free to....
OldDem2012
Oct 2012
#102
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 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
You just made me think of something. Maybe the Globe knew Stemberg would object on the gag
Laura PourMeADrink
Oct 2012
#126
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 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
The "juicy bits" are what Ms. Stemberg can SAY, not what is in the to-be-seen transcripts.
WinkyDink
Oct 2012
#146
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