Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[acbytesla]

Because, obviously, you just quoted some bare legal principles.

You have cited no authority whatsoever that this contract is illegal or that the. Public has an interest in the private, consensual sex lives of people that occurred years before they became candidates for public office.

I'm not sure there is precedent for a court enforcing a hush money agreement by a political candidate. But we will see...actually I don't think so. My bet is that Trump folds and walks away.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm not sure there is precedent for a court enforcing a hush money agreement by a political candidate. But we will see...actually I don't think so. My bet is that Trump folds and walks away.

NDA are routinely enforced, explain to us with specific cites to the authorities upon which you are relying why “political candidate” changes the law.

 

[acbytesla]

NDA are routinely enforced, explain to us with specific cites to the authorities upon which you are relying why “political candidate” changes the law.

Because fair and honest elections with a fully informed electorate is of the public interest. If you know of other court enforced NDAs which are clearly designed to prevent full transparency in an election, by all means cite it.

 

[The Big Dog]

Because fair and honest elections with a fully informed electorate is of the public interest. If you know of other court enforced NDAs which are clearly designed to prevent full transparency in an election, by all means cite it.

“Fully informed electorate” one of those completely undefined glurge terms that represent the ambiguous and completely unattainable.

The whole concept that a political candidate gives up core privacy interests like his sex life by running for candidate is certain to bring the quality of candidates even lower than the pitiful group we have now tends to rebut the spectacularly naive argument based on a fully formed electorate.

By the way, it is your claim that the contract is illegal. A fully informed electorate would frown on someone trying to switch the burden of argument to me.

 

[acbytesla]

“Fully informed electorate” one of those completely undefined glurge terms that represent the ambiguous and completely unattainable.

The whole concept that a political candidate gives up core privacy interests like his sex life by running for candidate is certain to bring the quality of candidates even lower than the pitiful group we have now tends to rebut the spectacularly naive argument based on a fully formed electorate.

By the way, it is your claim that the contract is illegal. A fully informed electorate would frown on someone trying to switch the burden of argument to me.

A candidate for the highest office in the land must be willing to be laid bare before the electorate and it is up to the voters to decide what imperfections are important or irrelevant to them. Not us. And while he has the right not to volunteer what those worts are, I don't think it is in the best interest of the nation that he can just buy off those who have information that some voters might find important to them.

I DO THINK the contract is ILLEGAL. That the payment was made two weeks before the election says loud and clear that it was made to obscure the true character of one of the candidates.

And I already admitted I was unaware of any precedent.

 

[SezMe]

Track-covering. It provides a plausible source of the cash that isn't Trump.

Good point.

 

[SezMe]

You have cited no authority whatsoever that this contract is illegal or that the. Public has an interest in the private, consensual sex lives of people that occurred years before they became candidates for public office.

If the public had no interest in the sex-capdes of even private individuals, People and Us and The Inquirer and countless other tabloid rags wouldn't exist.

 

[Trebuchet]

I'm not sure there is precedent for a court enforcing a hush money agreement by a political candidate. But we will see...actually I don't think so. My bet is that Trump folds and walks away.

...while declaring victory.

 

[acbytesla]

...while declaring victory.

Exactly. But I don't think people will buy it.

I also find it amusing that TBD, is actually arguing that there is no public policy issue to consider. This isn't like the many NDAs I've signed where I won't divulge details about their upcoming products.

No, this a Presidential Candidate cheating on his wife within a few weeks of her giving birth to his son and paying to keep that quiet a few weeks before an election. I don't want the power of the government to enforce that contract. Do you?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 12

 

[The Great Zaganza]

False

How?

If Trump wasn't DD, what possible standing would he have regarding the settlement?

 

[Lurch]

A common argument of Trumpian denialists is that a sex act of several years before the election should be of no concern at all. In and of itself, I mostly agree. Although knowing of a political candidate's lack of marital fidelity is arguably worthwhile for helping to form an opinion of overall character. And the matter of susceptibility to blackmail is important.

But in this instance, it's the suggested *illegality* in matters of campaign finance that demand looking into. Unless we are to yet again--and ever more, if the Trumpists called the shots--give Drumpf a Mulligan.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

We have good reason to suspect that Trump/Cohen inundated people they worked with with similar settlements and NDAs. If the deal with Clifford is deemed void, it can and probably will open the floodgates.

 

[logger]

Exactly. But I don't think people will buy it.

I also find it amusing that TBD, is actually arguing that there is no public policy issue to consider. This isn't like the many NDAs I've signed where I won't divulge details about their upcoming products.

No, this a Presidential Candidate cheating on his wife within a few weeks of her giving birth to his son and paying to keep that quiet a few weeks before an election. I don't want the power of the government to enforce that contract. Do you?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 12

He is? I think he’s asking you to post the relevant law, yours is simply opinion.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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?

I think it is possible Trump didn't know about it. It depends on exactly how truly ignorant and lazy trump is. I could see him fobbing off all of this on his fixer Cohen

 

[ponderingturtle]

May have been discussed already, but could arbitration be compelled without DD's signature on the Agreement? If it was not fully executed, the arbitration clause wouldn't matter yet.

The signature isn't strictly necessary in some contracts. And some lawyers thing that this isn't important. Of course if he didn't know about it he couldn't sign it and that is important. Legally Cohen could have signed for Trump but didn't.

So if that signature block was left blank because trump didn't know about the whole thing to cover up a relationship he asserts never happened, it is rather different.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's how I see it. You can't enforce contractual terms from a contract that has not been fully executed yet, in this case by DD's Sig.

That is not true. You don't get to weasel out of your bills to a contractor who said they would do X work for Y amount after you get the work because you never signed a contract for example.

 

[ponderingturtle]

He wishes. Anyone with a brain has to think secret payoffs during a Presidential election is not a good thing.

But that leaves aside all the Fox news viewers. If Nixon had Fox news on his side, do you think he would have had to resign?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Trump stiffed the caterers of one of his weddings after saying that being associated with the Trump name was, by his own estimation, worth way more than he owed them. It was a small company which had taken on sub-contractors for this one contract, on the expectation of prompt payment, so they went bust honouring their obligations.

Today they could crowd-source millions overnight, but that was then. It's hard to see anyone voting for such a man without feeling besmirched.

He really did live the republican dream.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Oh, oh, oh. Oh. And, also, oh.

This Daniels thing really is the gift that keeps on giving.

Not only is there confusion about identity of DD, but apparently, now there's confusion about whether Cohen was Trump's lawyer, courtesy of Trump's Lawyer's (?) Lawyer.

[Trump’s Lawyer’s Lawyer Now Says Trump’s Lawyer Wasn’t Actually Trump’s Lawyer]

David Schwartz - Cohen's Laywer - claims Cohen was not Trump's lawyer... just a generous friend who took out a $130k LOC against his home to help out The Donald right in the middle of a presidential campaign, but no it's not a campaign contribution. I mentally picture Cohen with a diary, writing "Michael Trump. Michael Cohen-Trump. Michael Trump-Cohen. Heart-heart, xxx ooo, he's so dreamy."



This is rich with potential. OK, so he's not an attorney, but actually a TPB?

This makes Cohen's claim to attorney-client privileges look like fraud, right? OK, so maybe Cohen will sue him. Schwartz should hire a lawyer. (who, in turn, may need a new lawyer, because that's the trajectory here)

My mental image of this right now: Trump's lawyers are nesting Russian dolls. I don't think, thats a coincidence.

And of course his statements are he took that out to facilitate the payment not make the payment.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's all this has ever been.

What if this is determined to be an illegal campaign contribution? What happens to Cohen? Trump? Fines, jail, Pence? Nothing?

ETA:
I think this is more or less over as far as John/Jane Q Public is concerned. The interview came and went and was underwhelming - most people don't care about the other details. Campaign finance is boring.

Watergate was boring until the saturday night massacre. Then Nixon lost half the republican support.