Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[The Big Dog]

So? That has nothing to do with the enforceability of this specific agreement.

It has to do with the public policy argument and your statement that the FEC would be interested in the lawsuit.

 

[acbytesla]

Lol

Is he auditioning for The Apprentice?

Promotions aren’t going to work for his client.

Sure they are. You make the mistake of reading the contract too literally. The penalty listed is too outrageous to be enforceable. The penalty cannot be punitive. They can only award damages which is impossible to calculate. That Trump is a philandering sleazebag is hardly a secret so what are the damages? My guess is someone is covering whatever bill may arise. They made a calculation that whatever it costs, it will be worth it.

 

[logger]

Sure they are. You make the mistake of reading the contract too literally. The penalty listed is too outrageous to be enforceable. The penalty cannot be punitive. They can only award damages which is impossible to calculate. That Trump is a philandering sleazebag is hardly a secret so what are the damages? My guess is someone is covering whatever bill may arise. They made a calculation that whatever it costs, it will be worth it.

What happens when those calculations say the voting public doesn’t care? Is this secret money person still going to pony up?

 

[acbytesla]

It has to do with the public policy argument and your statement that the FEC would be interested in the lawsuit.

Not in context with this agreement. You don't think a Federal judge can't rule on validity of a non-disclosure contract based on the public interest without genuflecting to the FEC? How precious.

 

[acbytesla]

What happens when those calculations say the voting public doesn’t care? Is this secret money person still going to pony up?

I doubt its going to drag on 3 years. But my guess is this is pennies to that person.

 

[The Big Dog]

Not in context with this agreement. You don't think a Federal judge can't rule on validity of a non-disclosure contract based on the public interest without genuflecting to the FEC? How precious.

Oy vey... you went from “after all the facts come out” the FEC might be interested, and I explained that the FEC already had a complaint...

So many moved goalposts.

The court is not going to rule on the campaign finance aspects because the court knows that it does not have jurisdiction over it, which leads us to a garden variety NDA...

I have literally explained this several times.

 

[acbytesla]

Oy vey... you went from “after all the facts come out” the FEC might be interested, and I explained that the FEC already had a complaint...

So many moved goalposts.

The court is not going to rule on the campaign finance aspects because the court knows that it does not have jurisdiction over it, which leads us to a garden variety NDA...

I have literally explained this several times.

I didn't move any goalposts. The goalposts have been where they have always been. The enforceability of an NDA, that runs counter to the public's interests. Nothing garden variety about a Presidential candidate paying hush money. .

 

[The Big Dog]

I didn't move any goalposts. The goalposts have been where they have always been. The enforceability of an NDA, that runs counter to the public's interests. Nothing garden variety about a Presidential candidate paying hush money. .

Putting aside the campaign finance aspects, does anyone at all believe that a Federal Court Judge is going to find that there is public interest in learning who political candidates ********** a decade before they ran?

answer: No, no one believes that.

 

[acbytesla]

Putting aside the campaign finance aspects, does anyone at all believe that a Federal Court Judge is going to find that there is public interest in learning who political candidates ********** a decade before they ran?

answer: No, no one believes that.

You're kidding right? The agreement took place two weeks before the election. So the motive behind the agreement is obvious to all but the seriously obtuse.

 

[Trebuchet]

Popehat on Judge Otero's ruling. Pretty much "calm down, kids, we'll get there when we get there."

Has Trump tweeted "We think he's a Mexican" yet?

 

[Meadmaker]

I read today that Schwartz, Cohen's lawyer, said that Donald Trump had no knowledge of either the NDA, or the payment.

I am not a lawyer, but I'm absolutely certain no contract can exist unless both parties know about the contract.

So, the contract is between Clifford and Cohen's LLC? What does it have DD on it? Another thing I am sure about contracts is that each party has to get something out of it. What would Cohen get out of it? The possibility that it will be violated and he can sue for violating it? That can't be the basis of a contract either. If Schwartz is correct, what is the contract, and with whom?

 

[The Big Dog]

You're kidding right? The agreement took place two weeks before the election. So the motive behind the agreement is obvious to all but the seriously obtuse.

curious, you did not actually address what I wrote...

 

[The Big Dog]

Popehat on Judge Otero's ruling. Pretty much "calm down, kids, we'll get there when we get there."

Has Trump tweeted "We think he's a Mexican" yet?

There is literally no way on earth that you got that from that thread.....

The kid he was talking about was Stormy's stupid lawyer.

"I got a footnote like that from a federal judge once. I didn’t need a second one."

 

[acbytesla]

curious, you did not actually address what I wrote...

Pretty sure I did. The NDA was campaign hush money and if you dont believe that, you're an idiot. The question for the court is do we think such agreements should be valid?

 

[acbytesla]

I read today that Schwartz, Cohen's lawyer, said that Donald Trump had no knowledge of either the NDA, or the payment.

I am not a lawyer, but I'm absolutely certain no contract can exist unless both parties know about the contract.

So, the contract is between Clifford and Cohen's LLC? What does it have DD on it? Another thing I am sure about contracts is that each party has to get something out of it. What would Cohen get out of it? The possibility that it will be violated and he can sue for violating it? That can't be the basis of a contract either. If Schwartz is correct, what is the contract, and with whom?

It's like they are trying to have it all ways. They are also assuming that we are all stupid. Does anyone actually believe Cohen did this because he was a good friend? Does anyone actually believe that Trump didn't know about it? Does anyone think that this wasn't done because of the election?

 

[The Big Dog]

Pretty sure I did. The NDA was campaign hush money and if you dont believe that, you're an idiot. The question for the court is do we think such agreements should be valid?

Yeah, I explained about 5 times that the FEC has jurisdiction over campaign financing.

Taking the candidate out of it? no question that paying your **** buddy to not blab is not illegal, and no way a judge is going to find a public policy interest in disclosing who you **********.

it is fine, everyone else gets it.

 

[acbytesla]

Yeah, I explained about 5 times that the FEC has jurisdiction over campaign financing.

Taking the candidate out of it? no question that paying your **** buddy to not blab is not illegal, and no way a judge is going to find a public policy interest in disclosing who you **********.

it is fine, everyone else gets it.

I think you are dead wrong. The real question is paying hush money and if the public good is served by candidates paying hush money to hide their secrets. Is that in the public interest regardless of the secret? I would argue, it doesn't even matter the secret. The point is the electorates right to know. Also, if this kind of agreement isn't enforceable, it might dis-incentivise both bribery and blackmail. That is the public interest.

 

[The Big Dog]

I think you are dead wrong. The real question is paying hush money and if the public good is served by candidates paying hush money to hide their secrets. Is that in the public interest regardless of the secret? I would argue, it doesn't even matter the secret. The point is the electorates right to know. Also, if this kind of agreement isn't enforceable, it might dis-incentivise both bribery and blackmail. That is the public interest.

‘k

 

[Meadmaker]

So what do you think, Big Dog? You've done some legal analysis on this. Let us assume that Cohen's lawyer was telling the truth, and that Donald Trump didn't know about the contract. Who was the contract with, and what was it for?

Some things to keep in mind

1. The contract says it is with David Dennison, presumably a Trump alias. You can't enter a contract without knowing. It's just impossible.

2. Contracts require that the contracts give benefits to both sides. Assuming that the contract was with Michael Cohen's LLC, what was the benefit to Cohen? Without a benefit, there's no contract.

In general, I'm just confused. In truth, I do not believe that Trump had no knowledge of this agreement, but until proof is offered I guess we go with the assumption that Cohen's lawyer is telling the truth. If so, how can there be a valid contract?

 

[quadraginta]

It's a big mistake to read in to comments judges make. Also, FYI, the judge's comments are pretty much exactly what Rikki Klieman said yesterday on TV. That Avenatti's request for a trial in 90 days was never going to happen.

I think that's great. Sometime in late September or early October would be much better.