What can they be hiding?

[ryoder 1,412]

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kallend 1,683]

We have a nice summary by Eugene Robinson that is indisputable since Sarah Sanders accidentally spilled the beans on this:

The personal lawyer of Donald Trump, days before the election, paid $130,000 to apparently buy the silence of a porn star. Said porn star credibly describes an affair she had with the president and the ham-fisted attempts by his lawyer to keep her from talking about it. All of this unquestionably speaks volumes about the president’s character and morals.

Republicans who regarded Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky as the end of civilization as we know it are serenely untroubled. Evangelical Christians who rail against sin and cloak themselves in piety offer nothing but a worldly, almost Gallic shrug. Daniels has taught us much about their character and morals, too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

The notarized page for signatures is 24 of the lawsuit, (page 14 of the hush agreement).
That sure as hell doesn't look like a valid contract to me.

Likewise the notarized signature page of the "side letter" that gives the true identities is on page 28, and is also missing the signature of one party.

I also thought that would invalidate the contract. However there is a clip on CNN in which Mouth of Sauron II (Trump's former divorce attorney) explains that it doesn't matter, when Stormy Daniels took the $130,000 she accepted the contract as is. Apparently there is a large amount of case law that says you can't have it both ways, taking the money and claiming the contract isn't valid. Only thing I know for sure is the lawyers will make a ton of money off this, and if the objective was to sweep Mango Mussolini's indiscretions under the carpet they have failed spectacularly. I doubt it will make the slightest difference to his "true believers", but at least I have hope that Cohen will be convicted of a felony (illegal campaign donation) and lose his licence to use the law to beat up on non-rich people.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[billvon 2,476]

The plot thickens:
==================
Michael Cohen used Trump company email in Stormy Daniels arrangements
by SARAH FITZPATRICK and TRACY CONNOR
NBC News
March 9 2018

President Donald Trump's personal attorney used his Trump Organization email while arranging to transfer money into an account at a Manhattan bank before he wired $130,000 to adult film star Stormy Daniels to buy her silence.

The lawyer, Michael Cohen, also regularly used the same email account during 2016 negotiations with the actress — whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford — before she signed a nondisclosure agreement, a source familiar with the discussions told NBC News.

And Clifford's attorney at the time addressed correspondence to Cohen in his capacity at the Trump Organization and as "Special Counsel to Donald J. Trump," the source said.

Cohen has tried to put distance between the president and the payout, which has been the subject of campaign finance complaints.

In a statement last month, Cohen said he used his "personal funds to facilitate a payment" to Clifford, who says she had an intimate relationship with Trump a decade ago.

"Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly," Cohen said in that statement.

But an email uncovered in the last 24 hours and provided to NBC News by Clifford's current attorney, Michael Avenatti, shows First Republic Bank and Cohen communicated about the money using his Trump company email address, not his personal gmail account.
============================

[Phil1111 943]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

The notarized page for signatures is 24 of the lawsuit, (page 14 of the hush agreement).
That sure as hell doesn't look like a valid contract to me.

Likewise the notarized signature page of the "side letter" that gives the true identities is on page 28, and is also missing the signature of one party.

I also thought that would invalidate the contract. However there is a clip on CNN in which Mouth of Sauron II (Trump's former divorce attorney) explains that it doesn't matter, when Stormy Daniels took the $130,000 she accepted the contract as is. Apparently there is a large amount of case law that says you can't have it both ways, taking the money and claiming the contract isn't valid. Only thing I know for sure is the lawyers will make a ton of money off this, and if the objective was to sweep Mango Mussolini's indiscretions under the carpet they have failed spectacularly. I doubt it will make the slightest difference to his "true believers", but at least I have hope that Cohen will be convicted of a felony (illegal campaign donation) and lose his licence to use the law to beat up on non-rich people.

Don

I watched the same interview. BUT normally a contract is between two, or more parties. Each party is usually identified by name, address and contact numbers. Such that each party to a contract is easily identified.

Acceptance of consideration is one argument to fulfillment of a contract. Concealing the identity of contracting parties is a factor to deny that one even exists.

In addition the courts won't enforce either unlawful contracts, or ones specifically crafted to violate the law.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Phil1111

***

Quote

The notarized page for signatures is 24 of the lawsuit, (page 14 of the hush agreement).
That sure as hell doesn't look like a valid contract to me.

Likewise the notarized signature page of the "side letter" that gives the true identities is on page 28, and is also missing the signature of one party.

I also thought that would invalidate the contract. However there is a clip on CNN in which Mouth of Sauron II (Trump's former divorce attorney) explains that it doesn't matter, when Stormy Daniels took the $130,000 she accepted the contract as is. Apparently there is a large amount of case law that says you can't have it both ways, taking the money and claiming the contract isn't valid. Only thing I know for sure is the lawyers will make a ton of money off this, and if the objective was to sweep Mango Mussolini's indiscretions under the carpet they have failed spectacularly. I doubt it will make the slightest difference to his "true believers", but at least I have hope that Cohen will be convicted of a felony (illegal campaign donation) and lose his licence to use the law to beat up on non-rich people.

Don

I watched the same interview. BUT normally a contract is between two, or more parties. Each party is usually identified by name, address and contact numbers. Such that each party to a contract is easily identified.

Acceptance of consideration is one argument to fulfillment of a contract. Concealing the identity of contracting parties is a factor to deny that one even exists.

In addition the courts won't enforce either unlawful contracts, or ones specifically crafted to violate the law.Sure. My point was just that this is something that will be litigated in court, and the outcome is not as much of a foregone conclusion as I would have thought.

If Stormy Daniels loses it'll get ugly for her. The contract stipulates that she'll have to return the $130,000, pay a $1,000,000 penalty for each disclosure, and Trump gets every dime of anything she earns from book sales, TV appearances, etc. Typical Trump, he's been using his lawyers to bully people his whole life.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[gowlerk 1,956]

Quote

Typical Trump, he's been using his lawyers to bully people his whole life.

Maybe so. But in this case he used his lawyers to take advance of her basic human greed, not to bully her. She did not have to take his money. And I'm sure she was handsomely rewarded for her original services as well. There is no reason at all to feel sorry for Stormy.

Just as there is no reason to feel sorry for Melania. They both knew what they were getting into. That said, I hope they both find a way to screw him over!

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Phil1111 943]

Its looking to be litigated because Stormy now realized that book and movie rights could be worth some real cash. Her lawyer is likely on contingency. He knows that this is a game to play.

IMO Stormy and his lawyer are trying to shake trump down for more cash. The story below illustrates how shakedowns operate. In trump's case a reverse shakedown.

"If you've been to California, you've almost certainly seen the Proposition 65 warning. The signs ominously warn, "This area contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm," and they can be found just about everywhere, including airports and Disneyland.

According to Bloomberg, "the Council for Education and Research on Toxics needed only to allege that coffee contains trace amounts of one of almost 1,000 Proposition 65 chemicals to pursue its lawsuit." Then, as is so often the case, unscrupulous lawyers use well-intentioned but overly broad laws to shake down innocent companies. Last year alone, Wall Street Journal reports that $25.6 million in cash and prizes were handed out in 681 settlements. Lawyers took home 75% of it.

7-Eleven has already surrendered and forked over $900,000. Starbucks has placed Proposition 65 signs in its store, but they might be required to place the warning directly on cups. If they don't comply, "[f]ines can run up to $2,500 for each cup sold without a proper warning," says Bloomberg."
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/01/29/california-coffee-causes-cancer-and-lawyers-collect-fee-12494

[kallend 1,683]

However it turns out in court for Stormy, it is bad news for Trump. This is essentially an admission of infidelity with a porn star combined with a cover-up. Even if he prevails in court in keeping the details hidden, it is still a cover-up.

One can only guess what additional dirt is being covered up, and I doubt my imagination can possibly grasp it.

"It is almost always the cover-up rather than the event that causes trouble." Howard Baker

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ryoder 1,412]

So prior case law could say that Stormy really does have a contract with a lawyer and his shell corporation. So if she talks about Trump (who is not a party to the contract), how does that harm the shell corporation or the lawyer? IOW how would they have “standing” in court?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[jakee 1,280]

ryoder

So prior case law could say that Stormy really does have a contract with a lawyer and his shell corporation. So if she talks about Trump (who is not a party to the contract), how does that harm the shell corporation or the lawyer? IOW how would they have “standing” in court?

Seems only right and proper that since both the shell corporation* and the White House have both breached the agreement by publically acknowledging its existence before she did that she could give back the money and have it voided. Of course, 'right' doesn't always have any connection to 'legal', but still.

* Mickey Cohen. It does amuse me that Trump's fixer shares a name with the biggest LA Confidential era mob boss

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wolfriverjoe 1,371]

ryoder

So prior case law could say that Stormy really does have a contract with a lawyer and his shell corporation. So if she talks about Trump (who is not a party to the contract), how does that harm the shell corporation or the lawyer? IOW how would they have “standing” in court?

Interesting question.

The whole 'concealment' thing makes the contract fishy.

But she both signed it and has abided by it up to now.

Her lawyer obviously thinks he can get it tossed.

Trumps lawyers...

Well, they might think they can get it upheld.

Or they might think they can frighten Daniels into believing they can get it upheld.

Or they think they can 'improperly influence' the court into finding for them.

Or they are following the directives of the Mango Mussolini, who seems to have the amazing ability to convince himself that anything he wants to be true is true.
His followers have that skill too.

Then there's the whole "NDA" thing. Both Cohen and Sanders opened their mouths about it. I don't know enough about them to say whether or not that does anything to Daniels, but it might.

I gotta admit it makes a hell of a distraction for the Russia investigation.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[gowlerk 1,956]

Quote

I gotta admit it makes a hell of a distraction for the Russia investigation.

I think that actually works against Trump. The constant low level noise about Russia just causes people to build up an immunity to it. If it goes away for a while it will make a bigger slash when it returns into focus.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,476]

ryoder

So prior case law could say that Stormy really does have a contract with a lawyer and his shell corporation. So if she talks about Trump (who is not a party to the contract), how does that harm the shell corporation or the lawyer? IOW how would they have “standing” in court?

Her contract with the shell corporation specifies she not talk about "David Dennison" - so it can certainly have standing in court. Fake names are used all the time in contracts.

Companies do this all the time. There are nondisclosure agreements, for example, that a company signs (and that employees agree to as well) that prohibit any of them from talking about a third or fourth party.

The trick is here, of course, that Trump's lawyer has to go after her only if she talks about Trump, thus identifying him as David Dennison. But Sarah Huckabee has already done that, so that ship has sailed.

[jakee 1,280]

billvon

Her contract with the shell corporation specifies she not talk about "David Dennison" - so it can certainly have standing in court. Fake names are used all the time in contracts.

Companies do this all the time. There are nondisclosure agreements, for example, that a company signs (and that employees agree to as well) that prohibit any of them from talking about a third or fourth party.

Seems like the better point is that the NDA makes requirements of DD/Trump as well as PP - and since DD didn't sign the agreement and Cohen has publically implied that Trump wasn't involved in the payment or the NDA process, then the protection that PP thought she was being guaranteed from DD may not actually exist.

Even if all it takes is for Trump or Cohen to confirm that Trump did know all about it and paid her off well, then he'll have confirmed it

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DJL 232]

gowlerk

Quote

Typical Trump, he's been using his lawyers to bully people his whole life.

Maybe so. But in this case he used his lawyers to take advance of her basic human greed, not to bully her. She did not have to take his money. And I'm sure she was handsomely rewarded for her original services as well. There is no reason at all to feel sorry for Stormy.

Just as there is no reason to feel sorry for Melania. They both knew what they were getting into. That said, I hope they both find a way to screw him over!

100%

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,476]

Quote

since DD didn't sign the agreement and Cohen has publically implied that Trump wasn't involved in the payment or the NDA process, then the protection that PP thought she was being guaranteed from DD may not actually exist.

Doesn't really matter. Daniels signed the agreement, took the money and deposited it. She agreed to the deal both in word and in fact. If she violates it, then she's liable for the penalties. Finding mistakes in the agreement doesn't really change that.

If Trump violates it, of course, then she is free to pursue legal remedies against him. But there's not really any of that in the agreement. She agreed to not talk about their affair or any of his other affairs that she knows about, and agreed to turn over "certain still images and/or text messages which were authored by or related to DD." In return the shell corporation agreed to pay her $130,000. There are not (to my knowledge) any other requirements laid on the shell corporation. So if they paid, they fulfilled their part of the bargain.

[jakee 1,280]

billvon

In return the shell corporation agreed to pay her $130,000. There are not (to my knowledge) any other requirements laid on the shell corporation. So if they paid, they fulfilled their part of the bargain.

The NDA was posted in full by Ryoder. If you read it, then you will have knowledge

She gets protection from Trump both legally and in other matters. For instance the restriction from contacting the other party or their family is reciprocal. If it turns out that EC LLC had no legal standing to impose those conditions on Trump (as Cohen has attempted to imply by saying he did it all by himself) then she doesn't have what she thought she had - even though Trump hasn't breached those conditions, he could if he wanted to.

Although Cohen has anyway, by confirming that it exists.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,476]

OK thanks. Took a quick read.

Nothing I saw changes the above. She agreed to do certain things for $130,000. She was paid and is now required to do them. If she fails to do so, then binding arbitration decides penalties, which are also called out in the document.

>If it turns out that EC LLC had no legal standing to impose those conditions on Trump (as
>Cohen has attempted to imply by saying he did it all by himself) then she doesn't have
> what she thought she had - even though Trump hasn't breached those conditions, he
>could if he wanted to.

Again, doesn't matter. She is still held to what she agreed to (and what she was paid to do.)

[Phil1111 943]

DJL

***

Quote

Typical Trump, he's been using his lawyers to bully people his whole life.

Maybe so. But in this case he used his lawyers to take advance of her basic human greed, not to bully her. She did not have to take his money. And I'm sure she was handsomely rewarded for her original services as well. There is no reason at all to feel sorry for Stormy.

Just as there is no reason to feel sorry for Melania. They both knew what they were getting into. That said, I hope they both find a way to screw him over!

100%

Oh come on! There is just a dirty, 65 year old(now 70), pussy grabbing man, who likes blonds with big boobs. He had a contract with Melania, another with Stormy. They both got "considerations!!!".

Now more porn stars are coming out and they are pissed because they got kissed, chased by trump in his "tighty whities" and never got any contract, any considerations.

Imagine trump under oath, Cohen under oath having to swear to the representations he used his own money. The horror of the presiding judge having to keep a straight face. Stormy's lawyer brings in all the other porn stars to testify about what they heard and saw trump do.

The knees of the evangelicals will develop calluses from all the praying on the hard oak pews. Praying for trump! Heck the evangelicals knees will begin to look like the knees of the porn stars...er... those are the lines from the movie. Coming soon.

[jakee 1,280]

billvon

Again, doesn't matter. She is still held to what she agreed to (and what she was paid to do.)

Of course it matters. It's part of the deal (and note that I'm working on the assumption that she gives the money back as part of the voiding of the contract), and if the deal involves binding someone you actually have no authority to bind, then it's not a deal.

Take an example - you own a furniture shop. I come in and say "hey if you sell me that $1000 sofa for $500 my mate who owns a radio station will play your ad for free for a week". You write a bill of sale, I give you $500 and go and get my van. By the time I come back to load it you've checked with my friend and he says I have no authority to make airplay deals on his behalf. Now the whole deal is not valid.

The contract we've made and the money that's changed hands for the furniture is intrinsically linked to the radio station airplay. Sure, you can't keep my $500 for nothing, but I can't make you give me the sofa either - even though you took the money for it, and even though you said you'd sell it to me for that money.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[gowlerk 1,956]

Rich older men paying attractive young women for a good time. Since when was that wrong? His marriage? Well, that's between she and he and his lawyer. Adultery? Come on, we're all adults in the room here. Other hookers who didn't get as much money? Winners and losers baby, not all women are worth that kind of money.

Evangelicals? Bought them off too. Just used a different kind of currency. The currency of power.

But always in the background lurks that pesky investigation. That one with the power to subpoena records and look into the money trail. Dark days are coming for the dotard.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,476]

>Take an example - you own a furniture shop. I come in and say "hey if you sell me that $1000
>sofa for $500 my mate who owns a radio station will play your ad for free for a week". You write
>a bill of sale, I give you $500 and go and get my van. By the time I come back to load it you've
>checked with my friend and he says I have no authority to make airplay deals on his behalf. Now
>the whole deal is not valid.

That's quite convoluted, and not really relevant to what we're talking about here. There are no "side deals" that have to occur, nor has anyone claimed they didn't have the authority to make such deals.

Let's simplify the example. You (let's call you Jake) own a furniture shop. Someone comes in and buys a couch, gives you $1000. You give him a receipt. He leaves with the couch.

A week later he puts a stop payment on the check. "I'm not paying. The receipt says 'JayEss Furniture Shop' not 'Jake Smith' like you said your name was. It's not a binding transaction if you didn't reveal that you were really JayEss, not Jake."

A court would find immediately in your favor. The deal, as both understood it, was $1000 for the couch. He paid you. He took the couch. End of story. Anything else is just legal BS.

She agreed to not talk about it and hand over all the materials. The shell company paid her to do it. She took the money. End of story; anything else is just legal BS.

Might she have made a mistake doing that? Probably; it's a million dollar story at least. Too bad, so sad; she was the one who willingly made that mistake.

I am sure that lawyers will gnaw at it anyway; there's a lot of money to be made in lawyer fees. Which is why skydiving waivers are so long - and why even when they are signed, DZ's face legal risks.

[jakee 1,280]

billvon

>Take an example - you own a furniture shop. I come in and say "hey if you sell me that $1000
>sofa for $500 my mate who owns a radio station will play your ad for free for a week". You write
>a bill of sale, I give you $500 and go and get my van. By the time I come back to load it you've
>checked with my friend and he says I have no authority to make airplay deals on his behalf. Now
>the whole deal is not valid.

That's quite convoluted, and not really relevant to what we're talking about here. There are no "side deals" that have to occur, nor has anyone claimed they didn't have the authority to make such deals.

It's not convoluted, it's the exact same thing. Stop being obtuse.

You're Daniels, I'm Cohen and my friend is Trump. The NDA does make certain restrictions on what Trump can or cannot do. If Cohen was acting without Trump's knowledge or authority then whole contract can nullified, as that side of the deal that Daniels thought she was agreeing to doesn't actually exist.

Quote

Let's simplify the example. You (let's call you Jake) own a furniture shop. Someone comes in and buys a couch, gives you $1000. You give him a receipt. He leaves with the couch.

A week later he puts a stop payment on the check. "I'm not paying. The receipt says 'JayEss Furniture Shop' not 'Jake Smith' like you said your name was. It's not a binding transaction if you didn't reveal that you were really JayEss, not Jake."

That's simpler... but it's also simply wrong. You have presumably read the complaint by now, yes? So perhaps you can tell me which part of it states they are attempting to nullify the contract because fake names were used? Oh wait, you can't because it isn't there.

However, I can tell you that paragraph 21 alleges (exactly as I said) that the NDA imposed conditions on Trump as well as Clifford, and because he hasn't signed it he isn't bound by his side of the agreement as she expected him to be, therefore the contract was never executed.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wolfriverjoe 1,371]

Well, it's an interesting situation.

To a certain extent, you are both right. And Billvon has a tendency to be obtuse like that. I often wonder if he's doing that because that's how he really feels, or if he's just doing it to fuel the debate.

If it was as clear as either of you are representing, then it wouldn't have gone this far.

I tend to go along with the idea that one side of the contract failed to fulfill it's obligations, so the entire contract is null and void. Daniels needs to repay the $130k and they need to start all over.
If it were a simple situation, it's entirely possible that's what would happen.

But it's not a simple situation, nor are the participants 'ordinary citizens.'

PLUS...

According to Sanders (who is far from a 'reliable source'), the arbitrators already ruled in Trump's favor.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo