Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[The Big Dog]

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.

The press release which concerned the common cause filing and where Attorney Hyperbole got his alleged defamatory comment "about" his porn star client

 

[Dr. Keith]

Oh good, you had a chance to read the cases then?

Refer back to LL's post. I was just trying to help. Sorry I wasted my time.

 

[The Big Dog]

Refer back to LL's post. I was just trying to help. Sorry I wasted my time.

Learning things is never a waste of time! You learned something today, so that is fantastic.

as far ass LL's post? lets take a deep dive, shall we:

"In any case, both parties performed acts under the unsigned contract. Jones didn't pursue arbitration and the Plumbers went back to work. In the Trump case, he hasn't taken any affirmative act."

Look again, Jones didn't pursue arbitration, Trump didn't contact Stormy's family or sue her...

we agree!

The art of performance of the deal!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Learning things is never a waste of time! You learned something today, so that is fantastic.

Perhaps he learned that your legal commentary is worth what he paid for it.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Learning things is never a waste of time! You learned something today, so that is fantastic.

Danth the **** out of that one, my friend.

You've taught me nothing about the law, but lots about my fellow Americans. And it never ceases to sadden me.

 

[Bob001]

The press release which concerned the common cause filing and where Attorney Hyperbole got his alleged defamatory comment "about" his porn star client

Did Cohen in any public venue say that there was no relationship between Trump and Daniels? If so, that's the same as claiming she is lying. Let a jury sort it out.

 

[The Big Dog]

Danth the **** out of that one, my friend.

You've taught me nothing about the law, but lots about my fellow Americans. And it never ceases to sadden me.

Go back and look at my edit, hopefully it will reaffirm your faith in humanity...

 

[acbytesla]

Not a lot there, but I liked this article: https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/25/opinions/trump-unreasonable-damages-daniels-opinion-litman/

Very good article. Thanks for the link. Trump can only sue for damages regardless of the penalties spelled out in the contract. And that is why it's highly unlikely that Ms. Clifford will have to pay much more than the 130K if that.

'It is far from clear that Trump would suffer significant actual damages from Daniels' un-muzzling. He already stands accused by dozens of women of being a serial adulterer and sexual offender (allegations he denies), so how much more damaging is one more claim?'

 

[dudalb]

Dear Leader Can Do No Wrong!
Get with the program, people!

 

[Dr. Keith]

Go back and look at my edit, hopefully it will reaffirm your faith in humanity...

Thanks, that does help to reaffirm my opinion of your legal analysis, so there's that.

 

[Loss Leader]

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?

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.

What claims did he release her from, exactly?

Not suing something for nothing and not talking to a woman who doesn't want to talk to you - these aren't very strong examples of performance. A stranger is likely to do them by accident. I haven't sued Stormy Daniels or called her family, either.

The words you're saying could possibly be a defense that Trump uses. The law just doesn't favor it being a winning defense. Had the money at least come from Trump, that would have been something. He didn't even do that.

In any case, I think the penalty clause is going to be the most important. It just does not even attempt to tie itself to some actual harm in any way.

But, by all means, keep disagreeing with two lawyers. It's really working out for you.

 

[The Big Dog]

Thanks, that does help to reaffirm my opinion of your legal analysis, so there's that.

Oh dear, now you are making me blush!

Did you see how LL said that not pursuing arbitration was an affirmative act that constituted performance? Just like how the Donald has not pursued claims that were inconsistent with the contract!

Good stuff, huh?

The Donald fully performed each and everyone of the requirements under the contract, and as such the arbitration agreement is enforceable despite the fact that the copy we have seen thus far is not signed! JATSEK CONSTR., CO., INC. v. BURTON SCOT CONTRS., LLC,

 

[jimbob]

Very good article. Thanks for the link. Trump can only sue for damages regardless of the penalties spelled out in the contract. And that is why it's highly unlikely that Ms. Clifford will have to pay much more than the 130K if that.

I liked

Moreover, when Daniels' accusation surfaced in January 2018, Cohen*poo-pooed it*as "an old and debunked story" that had already been published in 2011. So cast, the revelation looks to have caused only modest independent damage.

 

[The Big Dog]

What claims did he release her from, exactly?

Not suing something for nothing and not talking to a woman who doesn't want to talk to you - these aren't very strong examples of performance. A stranger is likely to do them by accident. I haven't sued Stormy Daniels or called her family, either.

The words you're saying could possibly be a defense that Trump uses. The law just doesn't favor it being a winning defense. Had the money at least come from Trump, that would have been something. He didn't even do that.

In any case, I think the penalty clause is going to be the most important. It just does not even attempt to tie itself to some actual harm in any way.

But, by all means, keep disagreeing with two lawyers. It's really working out for you.

The ones set forth in 2.2b obviously, which you have inexplicably declared to be "nothing."

Stormy's defense (not Trump's, that is silly) to the the enforceability of the contract is that it wasn't signed, and I can tell you that given that she accepted the money and the other two parties acted in conformity with the agreement you are quite correct that "The law just doesn't favor it being a winning defense."

The penalty clause ain't the most important, the confidential arbitration clause is for reasons that should be obvious.

By the way? This? "But, by all means, keep disagreeing with two lawyers. It's really working out for you." That is what I hear tell is called Danth's law, right there. And as such, perhaps it isn't going as bad for me as you think?

 

[Meadmaker]

My take on the Stormy Daniels 60 Minutes interview. She was quite credible, and really showed Trump to be a loathsome, slimy, lying, individual. In other words, nothing we didn't already know, so no big deal there.

She talked about the threat, but with no evidence to back that up, it's nothing. No big deal there.

So, a nothingburger? Possibly. It's all about votes, for Trump and the Republicans. His constituents have already shown a great deal of willingness to forgive any and all personal transgressions, despite their piety and the outrage these same people felt 20 years ago. I guess times have changed. It didn't seem very damaging, except possibly one line. "You remind me of my daughter. Let's screw." (Not an exact quote)

Being promiscuous despite marriage, or being a cad, or even paying for sex is something that people can look away from and say.....well......it isn't so bad. Throwing that line into the mix really turns it into "Ewwwww....." It won't make his supporters desert him en masse, but each new disgusting revelation makes a few more people unwilling to pull the lever for him next time.

 

[acbytesla]

I liked

Moreover, when Daniels' accusation surfaced in January 2018, Cohen*poo-pooed it*as "an old and debunked story" that had already been published in 2011. So cast, the revelation looks to have caused only modest independent damage.

If that. The problem is Trump is a sleazebag. This is not even disputed by Republicans that support him, not even the Vice President's wife or the President's attorney. So how does one more woman confirming It cause actual damage. It might even be arguable, the the NDAs true purpose was to prevent the information coming out so that it would affect the election. And given, the election has passed no real damages may be claimed.

 

[The Big Dog]

Now that everyone has (finally??) got a chance to read paragraph 2.2b, that paragraph right there looks like a bit like simple blackmail, now don't it

And as far as the good professor telling us that he didn't suffer much in the way of damages, let me remind you all of a little case called Hulk Hogan v. Gawker.

Hulk came out pretty well....

 

[Bob001]

My take on the Stormy Daniels 60 Minutes interview. She was quite credible, and really showed Trump to be a loathsome, slimy, lying, individual. In other words, nothing we didn't already know, so no big deal there.

She talked about the threat, but with no evidence to back that up, it's nothing. No big deal there.

So, a nothingburger? Possibly. It's all about votes, for Trump and the Republicans. His constituents have already shown a great deal of willingness to forgive any and all personal transgressions, despite their piety and the outrage these same people felt 20 years ago. I guess times have changed. It didn't seem very damaging, except possibly one line. "You remind me of my daughter. Let's screw." (Not an exact quote)

Being promiscuous despite marriage, or being a cad, or even paying for sex is something that people can look away from and say.....well......it isn't so bad. Throwing that line into the mix really turns it into "Ewwwww....." It won't make his supporters desert him en masse, but each new disgusting revelation makes a few more people unwilling to pull the lever for him next time.

I'm not so sure the Trumpers forgave personal transgressions as much as overlooked them in exchange for expected benefits: "I hate the sleazy stuff, but this is a brilliant businessman who will bring our jobs back." As people come to realize that they're not getting back the steel mills and coal mines and car factories that closed decades ago, and as they understand that punitive tariffs will increase the prices they pay at Walmart and reduce the jobs associated with U.S. exports, and as they lose their health insurance and see the social safety net cut back, they are more likely to say "This is a guy who can't be trusted about anything." Let's hope he takes all the Repubs down with him.

 

[acbytesla]

Now that everyone has (finally??) got a chance to read paragraph 2.2b, that paragraph right there looks like a bit like simple blackmail, now don't it

And as far as the good professor telling us that he didn't suffer much in the way of damages, let me remind you all of a little case called Hulk Hogan v. Gawker.

Hulk came out pretty well....

This isn't that. Terrible analogy.

 

[The Big Dog]

This isn't that. Terrible analogy.

oh golly, if you SAY so....

(Hulk Hogan was awarded $140 mil, it seems like that $1 mil per breach liquidated damages is making more sense now don't it folks?)

The answer is that it does.