Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[acbytesla]

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?

I'm not sure how any observer would take the assumption that Cohen is telling the truth when the story is frankly unbelievable. Here's a reasonable question. Why would he do that in a middle of an election? And how did he know that this woman was going to share her story and must be stopped? Is he on Bimbo patrol? And he called Miss Clifford a liar saying that the affair didn't happen. So why would he pay her off? Whether the contract is valid is another question. Why does this lawyer think that potentially violating Bar ethics and campaign finance laws is a smart thing to do.?

 

[Thermal]

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?

I'm running with the assumption that Trump called out to Cohen over his shoulder one day 'hey Mike, I'm running for office now, throw some hush money at anything I battered my mini corn dog in. Oh, and make sure my name isn't on the check'. Cohen did so, and sloppily.

 

[Lambchops]

"Bimbo Patrol" is a great name for a band. Just sayin'.

 

[jimbob]

To be honest, the only evidence of a threat so far is her word.

True, but it is consistent with other threats that have been credibly linked to Trump.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So what do you think, Big Dog? You've done some legal analysis on this.

Bwhaahhahah. Calling partisan googling "legal analysis" is way too generous.

 

[The Big Dog]

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?

Well that Cohen's lawyer guy is quite a hoot, ain't he? Not a 100% sure who he is, or what he said or what his role is.... but lets run with the assumptions in your post that what he said was true.

As such, the topics we will be discussing today are delegated authority, apparent authority, actual authority and ratification. It should be a "Good" Friday!

 

[pgwenthold]

I guess I'm confused about the discussion regarding the enforcability of the NDA.

She's already disclosed it all. That is out of the bag. You can't undisclose something.

Now, she could have to pay penalties for violating the NDA. But if she does it will because what she said was true (you can't deny that he had sex with her and at the same time claim that she violated a NDA by disclosing that they had sex), which means that it is still true that he cheated on his wife with a porn star, who was then paid hush money to cover it up.

And then there will be the questions about where the money came from, and the laughable assertion that they did it without Trump's knowledge, leading to questions about the ethics of campaign contributions.

None of that changes, regardless of the outcome of any legal wranglings going on now.

We can consider the significance of those facts, and the hypocrisy of the GOP in dismissing them, but that doesn't make it any less factual.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well that Cohen's lawyer guy is quite a hoot, ain't he? Not a 100% sure who he is, or what he said or what his role is.... but lets run with the assumptions in your post that what he said was true.

As such, the topics we will be discussing today are delegated authority, apparent authority, actual authority and ratification. It should be a "Good" Friday!

You might be discussing those, but I'm not. I'm discussing the question of "Is there a contract?"

Some people don't understand that any old agreement made between people is not a contract. A contract has to meet certain requirements. Each party has to agree to the contract, and, this is the important part, each party has to get something from the contract.

It is being alleged that Stephanie Clifford has violated a contract, but that cannot be true if there was no contract in the first place. Donald Trump was unaware of the existence of the contract (so we are told) so the contract can't be with him. So, that leaves Michael Cohen. What did he get from the contract. If the answer is "nothing", or "the chance to collect if the contract is violated", then there's no contract.


(And our local real lawyers could jump in an correct me if I'm wrong. That's my understanding of contracts. I would accept the word of an actual lawyer.)

 

[The Big Dog]

You might be discussing those, but I'm not. I'm discussing the question of "Is there a contract?"

Some people don't understand that any old agreement made between people is not a contract. A contract has to meet certain requirements. Each party has to agree to the contract, and, this is the important part, each party has to get something from the contract.

It is being alleged that Stephanie Clifford has violated a contract, but that cannot be true if there was no contract in the first place. Donald Trump was unaware of the existence of the contract (so we are told) so the contract can't be with him. So, that leaves Michael Cohen. What did he get from the contract. If the answer is "nothing", or "the chance to collect if the contract is violated", then there's no contract.


(And our local real lawyers could jump in an correct me if I'm wrong. That's my understanding of contracts. I would accept the word of an actual lawyer.)

Well you should start discussing them because therein lies the answers to your questions.

 

[The Big Dog]

Stormy weather ahead... for stormy.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Equating me to the Taliban, obviously.

I know, right? That hardly seems fair to the Taliban!

(J/K, TBD, I loves ya’. Don’t ever change.)

 

[Tero]

She hasn’t disclosed his penis size yet! Or if he goes peep or grunts during orgasm.

 

[The Big Dog]

You might be discussing those, but I'm not. I'm discussing the question of "Is there a contract?"

Some people don't understand that any old agreement made between people is not a contract. A contract has to meet certain requirements. Each party has to agree to the contract, and, this is the important part, each party has to get something from the contract.

It is being alleged that Stephanie Clifford has violated a contract, but that cannot be true if there was no contract in the first place. Donald Trump was unaware of the existence of the contract (so we are told) so the contract can't be with him. So, that leaves Michael Cohen. What did he get from the contract. If the answer is "nothing", or "the chance to collect if the contract is violated", then there's no contract.


(And our local real lawyers could jump in an correct me if I'm wrong. That's my understanding of contracts. I would accept the word of an actual lawyer.)

Ok, using your assumptions:

Stormy comes sniffing around looking for a payday. The Donald calls his good buddy Cohen and say "I got 99 problems and now this Stormy is one. Things are going so good with Melania right now... I need you to make this go away and you have my full blessings to do it any legal way possible and i don't wanna know about it, because i am too busy trying to get a big promotion at work"

As such, Big Daddy D delegates full authority to Cohen.

Big Daddy reaches out to Stormy's people and tells them to work with C, and they know that C is his fixer, so that they think he has authority to get the deal done, which legal beagles refer to as apparent authority. In fact, C has actual authority to do the deal.

So the deal gets done, Stormy gets fat cash, and a promise that Big D won't sue her for extortion, C gets the photos and other tangible stuff and Stormy's promise to keep quiet, and all are fat and happy until Stormy decides she wants more and claims that despite the fact that she got paid fat cash and other side totally lived up to the bargain.

So Big D learns the details and "ratifies" the whole agreement and instructs his team to go to arbitration. And here we are.

"Ratification"

The confirmation or adoption of an act that has already been performed.

A principal can, for example, ratify something that has been done on his or her behalf by another individual who assumed the authority to act in the capacity of an agent.

 

[The Big Dog]

Fun bit of irony, Avenatti telling his opponents to "read" the order, which instructs Avenatti to "carefully read" the Court's standing order and the Court's Rules.

Oh mercy

 

[Thermal]

Fun bit of irony, Avenatti telling his opponents to "read" the order, which instructs Avenatti to "carefully read" the Court's standing order and the Court's Rules.

Oh mercy

I think he may have been referring to the 'it will all come out in due time, no rush' bit?

 

[The Big Dog]

I think he may have been referring to the 'it will all come out in due time, no rush' bit?

You mean the part where the Judge said that this was not the most important case on his docket and that requests for expedited treatment should be supported by a record showing that they are entitled to such relief?

Because this one very clearly was not?

 

[Thermal]

You mean the part where the Judge said that this was not the most important case on his docket and that requests for expedited treatment should be supported by a record showing that they are entitled to such relief?

Because this one very clearly was not?

Not true. He said expiditing the matter was not the most important matter on the courts desk. There is a difference. A big one. Think about it.

And expiditing was, as the court said, merely premature. Again, big difference.

 

[The Big Dog]

Not true. He said expiditing the matter was not the most important matter on the courts desk. There is a difference. A big one. Think about it.

And expiditing was, as the court said, merely premature. Again, big difference.

uhhh, about that?:

“The parties are advised that the instant litigation is not the most important matter on the Court's docket. Requests for expedited proceedings, hearings, and discovery not clearly supported by the record and law are discouraged.”

He said the entire motion was premature and that Avennati better think long and hard about bringing a motion to expedite where there are no real reasons to do so.

 

[Meadmaker]

Ok, using your assumptions:

Stormy comes sniffing around looking for a payday. The Donald calls his good buddy Cohen and say "I got 99 problems and now this Stormy is one. Things are going so good with Melania right now... I need you to make this go away and you have my full blessings to do it any legal way possible and i don't wanna know about it, because i am too busy trying to get a big promotion at work"

As such, Big Daddy D delegates full authority to Cohen.

Big Daddy reaches out to Stormy's people and tells them to work with C, and they know that C is his fixer, so that they think he has authority to get the deal done, which legal beagles refer to as apparent authority. In fact, C has actual authority to do the deal.

So the deal gets done, Stormy gets fat cash, and a promise that Big D won't sue her for extortion, C gets the photos and other tangible stuff and Stormy's promise to keep quiet, and all are fat and happy until Stormy decides she wants more and claims that despite the fact that she got paid fat cash and other side totally lived up to the bargain.

So Big D learns the details and "ratifies" the whole agreement and instructs his team to go to arbitration. And here we are.

So, under this theory, the deal really is between Clifford and Trump. Cohen is just acting to facilitate the deal. He has been appointed by Trump to take care of the details because he is far too busy to go around worrying about paying hush money to every whore he has ever had sex with. He has people for that.

Hmmm.......and you think this will work out well for him?

But now The Donald says he knows nothing, and Cohen's lawyer says D knows nothing, and that doesn't really fit very well with the idea that there's a contract with Trump. Well, I guess it will all get straightened out soon enough.

 

[applecorped]

Libs duped by a pornstar, how funny is that