Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[ponderingturtle]

I read the agreement that Stormy signed in October 2016 pursuant to which she got the original 130k, obviously.

So it is who ever this DD person is. But who is that?

 

[The Big Dog]

So it is who ever this DD person is. But who is that?

the individual in the side letter agreement, which is redacted but is widely believed to the 45th President of the United States Donald J. Trump.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

To whom does she owe this cool 1 mil ??

How did you determine that ?

I read the agreement that Stormy signed in October 2016 pursuant to which she got the original 130k, obviously.

Swing and a miss !

Nice dodge.

 

[The Big Dog]

Swing and a miss !

Nice dodge.

Dodge? What are you talking about? I specifically referred to the agreement.

Tha heck?

 

[ponderingturtle]

the individual in the side letter agreement, which is redacted but is widely believed to the 45th President of the United States Donald J. Trump.

But he would clearly need to come forward and say it is him to get the money. As he still holds it is not him that is quite impossible.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

To whom does she owe this cool 1 mil ??
How did you determine that ?

Dodge? What are you talking about? I specifically referred to the agreement.

Tha heck?

Care to try again ?

You determined that someone violated an agreement ... by reading the agreement ?

Tha heck ?

 

[The Big Dog]

But he would clearly need to come forward and say it is him to get the money. As he still holds it is not him that is quite impossible.

I am quite confident that the money will be sought in the confines of the private arbitration as stipulated in the contract she signed.

 

[The Big Dog]

Care to try again ?

You determined that someone violated an agreement ... by reading the agreement ?

Tha heck ?

Am I being punked? How else are you going to tell if someone breached the agreement other than by reading its terms?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I am quite confident that the money will be sought in the confines of the private arbitration as stipulated in the contract she signed.

But who gets it? It is supposed to go to DD and no one knows who that is. Some people think it is Trump, but he says it isn't. Are calling the President a liar?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

To whom does she owe this cool 1 mil ??

How did you determine that ?

Am I being punked? How else are you going to tell if someone breached the agreement other than by reading its terms?

Let me try to make it more simple for you ...


1) To whom does she (Daniels aka Clifford) owe this cool 1 mil ??

2) What violation occurred, specifically ??

3) Why is it that you, TBD, not a party to the agreement, claims a violation occurred, yet AFAIK, non of the parties of the agreement claim a violation occurred ? Are they unable to read ?

 

[The Big Dog]

the individual in the side letter agreement, which is redacted but is widely believed to the 45th President of the United States Donald J. Trump.

But who gets it? It is supposed to go to DD and no one knows who that is. Some people think it is Trump, but he says it isn't. Are calling the President a liar?

The claim that "no one knows who that is" is a lie.

the parties to the side letter know.

C'mon... smdh...

 

[The Big Dog]

Let me try to make it more simple for you ...


1) To whom does she (Daniels aka Clifford) owe this cool 1 mil ??

2) What violation occurred, specifically ??

3) Why is it that you, TBD, not a party to the agreement, claims a violation occurred, yet AFAIK, non of the parties of the agreement claim a violation occurred ? Are they unable to read ?

1. DD

2. breach of section 4 and paragraph 4.3.3. in particular.

3. A party did in fact claim a violation and obtained a TRO pursuant to paragraph 5.1.3.

These facts are not really in dispute at all....

 

[TheL8Elvis]

1. DD

2. breach of section 4 and paragraph 4.3.3. in particular.

3. A party did in fact claim a violation and obtained a TRO pursuant to paragraph 5.1.3.

These facts are not really in dispute at all....

1. DD didn't sign the contract, so it's not clear at all that DD is owed anything.

2. You keep dodging. What was the breach ? What is your evidence it occurred ?

3. No. wrong. Incorrect. ********. Please provide evidence that Cohen claimed Daniels violated the agreement.

 

[The Big Dog]

1. DD didn't sign the contract, so it's not clear at all that DD is owed anything.

2. You keep dodging. What was the breach ? What is your evidence it occurred ?

3. No. wrong. Incorrect. ********. Please provide evidence that Cohen claimed Daniels violated the agreement.

Oh, I get it, I am being punked.

1. dodge, goal post move.
2. dodge goal post move again.
3. ludicrous. For Pete's sake that is why she filed the declaratory judgment action in the first place. have you read it, have you read literally anything at all about this???

here is the TRO order

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/arbitration TRO.pdf

Or you can continue Just Askin' Questions!

oh man.....

 

[TheL8Elvis]

1. DD didn't sign the contract, so it's not clear at all that DD is owed anything.

2. You keep dodging. What was the breach ? What is your evidence it occurred ?

3. No. wrong. Incorrect. ********. Please provide evidence that Cohen claimed Daniels violated the agreement.

Oh, I get it, I am being punked.

1. dodge, goal post move.
2. dodge goal post move again.
3. ludicrous. For Pete's sake that is why she filed the declaratory judgment action in the first place. have you read it, have you read literally anything at all about this???

here is the TRO order

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/arbitration TRO.pdf

Or you can continue Just Askin' Questions!

oh man.....

I moved no goal posts.

1) I asked you who is owed the money. You claim "DD". If it's a valid contract, I agree. It's not a dodge to point that out.

2) Please answer the question I have asked from the beginning:
What was the breach ? What is your evidence it occurred ?
3. You claim the agreement was breached. You linked to a TRO "precluding" PP from disclosing any information as evidence that the information was already disclosed, thus breaching the contract ?

A TRO put in place to preclude something from happening means that something didn't yet happen.

k thx

 

[ddt]

1. DD didn't sign the contract, so it's not clear at all that DD is owed anything.

As I understand it, for Cohen this is kinda Schrödinger's lawsuit. He'll have to admit whether he signed the agreement as Trump's lawyer (without communicating with his client), or signed it as the legal owner of Essential Consultants. And either way, he loses and gets an ethics charge thrown his way.

And for Trump, likewise, he'll have the choice between fighting in court and thus admitting to marital infidelity (or worse), or not fighting and letting Stormy tell all the lurid details.

What happened with the fact that Cohen blabbered first about the agreement earlier this year? Wasn't that the first breach of the confidentiality agreement?

As to the "verdict" in arbitration, how is that enforceable in the American justice system?

 

[The Big Dog]

As to the "verdict" in arbitration, how is that enforceable in the American justice system?

https://www.americanbar.org/content...land_Arbitration_Enforcement.authcheckdam.pdf

 

[ponderingturtle]

As I understand it, for Cohen this is kinda Schrödinger's lawsuit. He'll have to admit whether he signed the agreement as Trump's lawyer (without communicating with his client), or signed it as the legal owner of Essential Consultants. And either way, he loses and gets an ethics charge thrown his way.

And for Trump, likewise, he'll have the choice between fighting in court and thus admitting to marital infidelity (or worse), or not fighting and letting Stormy tell all the lurid details.

What happened with the fact that Cohen blabbered first about the agreement earlier this year? Wasn't that the first breach of the confidentiality agreement?

As to the "verdict" in arbitration, how is that enforceable in the American justice system?

Well first the court will have to rule if the whole agreement is enforceable or not.

 

[Crossbow]

As I understand it, for Cohen this is kinda Schrödinger's lawsuit. He'll have to admit whether he signed the agreement as Trump's lawyer (without communicating with his client), or signed it as the legal owner of Essential Consultants. And either way, he loses and gets an ethics charge thrown his way.

And for Trump, likewise, he'll have the choice between fighting in court and thus admitting to marital infidelity (or worse), or not fighting and letting Stormy tell all the lurid details.

What happened with the fact that Cohen blabbered first about the agreement earlier this year? Wasn't that the first breach of the confidentiality agreement?

As to the "verdict" in arbitration, how is that enforceable in the American justice system?

Thanks much. This is about what I was thinking as well.

While in many ways, this story about Story Daniels is quite boring, in some very important ways it could result in the first real dent that the Trump lovers may sustain.

After all, if it turns out that Trump actually did pay a porn star to keep quite about the affair that he had with her after his third wife just give birth to his son, then does sure does not reflect well on Trump. Also, there may well be several rather lurid messages between Daniels and Trump that will soon wind up on as cover stories for just about every news organization in the country.

Similarly, if it turns out that Cohen actually did pay off Stormy Daniels, then one has to wonder what other Trump dirt that Cohen may know about. Furthermore, Cohen may well have to disbarment proceedings for doing something so unethical and/or embarrassing to the rest of the legal profession.

 

[pgwenthold]

Apologies for the slight derail, but I'm not going to let 'Sam Seder' whiff past without noting that the character was called 'Sam Seaborn'.

Good one

Somewhat more on-topic, Sam was criticised - yes, for sleeping with her, but more generally just for 'associating' with her. It is fiction however, and Sorkin-fiction, which has an overwhelmingly high moral tone (depending on your moral leanings)

The Vice President (in the West Wing - not Pence) did resign over rumours of an affair though.

That was the guy who played Otter in Animal House?