• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Stormy Daniels Sues the President

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Big Dog said:
Well you see the contract explicitly requires that he release his claims and further DD not contact Stormy or her family. So it is really what Trump has refrained from doing, you see?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying he breached the contract. I'm following up on LL's point that your course of performance argument actually requires that he does something as performance. Courts require actions that show that the party, by his actions, agrees to the terms of the agreement. Not doing things may be completely within the terms of the agreement, but will not carry the weight of your argument.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I'm not saying he breached the contract. I'm following up on LL's point that your course of performance argument actually requires that he does something as performance. Courts require actions that show that the party, by his actions, agrees to the terms of the agreement. Not doing things may be completely within the terms of the agreement, but will not carry the weight of your argument.
Click to expand...

what we are looking for is whether all parties assented to its terms. Stormy got the cash and the releases and the other parties acted in conformance with the agreement through payment, etc.

It takes a pretty thick rug to convince us that Stormy didn't believe that there was an agreement when she got and kept the long green, you dig?
 
The Big Dog said:
what we are looking for is whether all parties assented to its terms. Stormy got the cash and the releases and the other parties acted in conformance with the agreement through payment, etc.

It takes a pretty thick rug to convince us that Stormy didn't believe that there was an agreement when she got and kept the long green, you dig?
Click to expand...

You might be looking at that. Others are looking at whether the NDA is enforceable in law.
 
The Big Dog said:
perhaps...
Click to expand...

completely . . .


You want to make an argument that the contract is enforceable due to the course of performance, but one party had no duty to actually perform any actions under the contract and there is not evidence of actual performance under the terms of the contract by that party, so that party will have a very hard time making that argument.

This is not complex. Point to the actual actions that are performance or find another argument.
 
The Big Dog said:
what we are looking for is whether all parties assented to its terms. Stormy got the cash and the releases and the other parties acted in conformance with the agreement through payment, etc.
....
Click to expand...

There are multiple issues. Did she feel coerced or threatened when she accepted the deal? In the "60 Minutes" interview, she says she was. Did she have a competent attorney representing her interests exclusively? Did the contract accurately describe all rights and obligations of all parties? What was Trump agreeing to, and does his failure to sign on the lines where he was expected to affect his role? If the agreement was between Daniels and Cohen's LLC, what claim does Trump have for any purported violations? If Trump insists that he never met Daniels, how can he sue her for revealing their affair (as opposed, say, to suing for defamation for lying)? What damages has Trump actually incurred as a result of her alleged breach? As the experts have made clear, "liquidated damages" must bear a relationship to the actual loss; you can't just pull a number out of the air and say "Pay up!" That would be a penalty, and it's not allowed. Etc., etc.

And the broader question, of course, is whether a confidentiality contract that may have been valid between two private parties is still enforceable when one becomes the President, and all of his activities are a matter of public interest and concern.
 
Dr. Keith said:
completely . . .


You want to make an argument that the contract is enforceable due to the course of performance, but one party had no duty to actually perform any actions under the contract and there is not evidence of actual performance under the terms of the contract by that party, so that party will have a very hard time making that argument.

This is not complex. Point to the actual actions that are performance or find another argument.
Click to expand...

Oh man, I get it, you are completely missing the point.

Trump is going to say, of course the contract was enforceable, EC is going to agree, and then Stormy is going to say, what exactly? There was no contract because he didn't sign it, even though she got paid, and he never acted inconsistently with the agreement? That is silly.

Further, the contract says he will release the claims. Did he act inconsistently with that by, say, suing her (before she breached the contract) Of course not.

Did he contact her family after promising he would not? Of course not.

Are you really trying to convince people that where a contract says that he will refrain from doing something that performance in compliance with that undertaking is not course of performance?

Spectacularly absurd. Please study the various cases I have cited (particularly the one from Ohio).

Any questions, i am sure you will let me know...
 
Maybe, I'm wrong.

While I do think that in some cases NDAs can serve not only a private good, but a public good. However, it seems that paying off a porn star two weeks before an election is a clear attempt to subvert a public election. That enforcing any agreement between parties designed to prevent the public from understanding the full character of the individuals running does not serve the country and that our courts should have no interest in enforcing this kind of contract.
 
acbytesla said:
Maybe, I'm wrong.

While I do think that in some cases NDAs can serve not only a private good, but a public good. However, it seems that paying off a porn star two weeks before an election is a clear attempt to subvert a public election. That enforcing any agreement between parties designed to prevent the public from understanding the full character of the individuals running does not serve the country and that our courts should have no interest in enforcing this kind of contract.
Click to expand...

I am under what amounts to a NDA (though not called that) from my time in the US Army not to reveal certain details about my branch of the Army. (Artillery). That is long way from the crap papers the Donnie makes people sign.
 
And the same old story repeats itself; it's not the original deed, but the cover up, that get's you in hot water.
 
The Big Dog said:
The defamation claim is spectacularly frivolous.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. As is Tump-turd's attempt to squeeze 20 million dollars out of Miss Clifford. How could anyone say it damaged Trump's character when he does that to himself almost on a daily basis?
 
dudalb said:
I am under what amounts to a NDA (though not called that) from my time in the US Army not to reveal certain details about my branch of the Army. (Artillery). That is long way from the crap papers the Donnie makes people sign.
Click to expand...

Indeed, NDAs have their place - Intellectual Property deals being an obvious one, however "gagging clauses" as used both sides of the Atlantic to cover up wrongdoing should be nullified.
 
The Big Dog said:
The defamation claim is spectacularly frivolous.

the statement he is suing about was a comment about the FEC complaint filed by Common cause.
....
Click to expand...

Who says so? Cohen says no "affair" ever occurred. That's the same as accusing her of lying for claiming it did. That's the bottom line of the suit. Maybe not so frivolous.

And the real reason for a suit like this is not necessarily to win damages, but to collect evidence, depose witnesses, etc. I'll bet Avenatti would love to question Cohen and his associates -- including Trump, Schiller etc. -- under oath.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom