Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[ponderingturtle]

You absolutely do in many cases, especially when exactly what X and Y were agreed to represent comes in dispute, as in a contractor doing less than the customer expected. But not the point. If your contractor tried to enforce term Z (which you may not have even been aware of), without a contract agreeing to and disclosing terms, including X, Y, and Z, the contractor legally cannot.

But that is about comunicating the contract not signing it. If you get a contract from the contractor and agree to have him do the work, then it is all under that contract. Signing it is not important if you take supstantive acts as if it was in force. In this case the payment would be a substantive act but there is the whole issue of did he know about it or not. That is the point of contention really not the signature issue.

Cohen likely signs things for Trump all the time that is one of the things lawyers do.

 

[WilliamSeger]

And Heaven forbid that should ever come to pass ...

Too late right from the start, of course, but heaven forbid that it ever becomes accepted as completely unfixable. Someone once said that conservatives want to preserve a world that never really was, while progressives want to create a world that never really has been.

 

[theprestige]

Case law.

Case law is the interpretation of existing law. Acbytesla seems to be arguing for the creation of law by the court where no existing law exists to interpret. If there is no applicable law to interpret, then the proper action for the court is to reject the case and recommend that the Executive or Legislative branches take action to close the gap.

 

[theprestige]

Do campaign finance laws fall under "etc" here?

Of course. If acybtesla wants the courts to interpret campaign finance law, that's fine with me.

There's three things the courts could do: First, they could find that current law explicitly applies in this case.

Second, they could find that current law does not explicitly apply, but it does support an applicable interpretation. Such an interpretation would become part of the applicable case law going forward.

Third, they could find that the current law does not explicitly apply, and does not support an applicable interpretation. We should not want the courts to issue a ruling in this case, nor attempt to create new legislation from the bench out of whole cloth. The separation of powers is too important to our democracy to be set aside.

 

[The Big Dog]

Do campaign finance laws fall under "etc" here?

No, as I have explained on several occasions the Federal Election Commission has sole jurisdiction over civil campaign finance enforcement.

 

[Thermal]

But that is about comunicating the contract not signing it. If you get a contract from the contractor and agree to have him do the work, then it is all under that contract. Signing it is not important if you take supstantive acts as if it was in force. In this case the payment would be a substantive act but there is the whole issue of did he know about it or not. That is the point of contention really not the signature issue.

Cohen likely signs things for Trump all the time that is one of the things lawyers do.

Right, the whole issue of enforceability of any contract comes into play with the lack of signing. She presumably did take the cash, but if it was Cohen's cash, and DD had not specifically given power if attorney to Cohen in this matter, the terms of the contract (arbitration clause) may be deemed unenforceable. Cohen cannot independently bind DD to terms without DD's knowledge. Picture Cohen transferring all of DD's assets without express permission

 

[acbytesla]

But that is about comunicating the contract not signing it. If you get a contract from the contractor and agree to have him do the work, then it is all under that contract. Signing it is not important if you take supstantive acts as if it was in force. In this case the payment would be a substantive act but there is the whole issue of did he know about it or not. That is the point of contention really not the signature issue.

Cohen likely signs things for Trump all the time that is one of the things lawyers do.

Yea, I don't have a problem with the lack of signature.

But I do have a problem with the bribery. It may be legal contract, but it is not one that should be enforced. If there is no law on the books that could be interpreted as illegal, I'd find some other way not to enforce it. If I was Judge Otero, I'd make it as painful for Cohen and Trump as possible to enforce this contract and then at the end award them $1 because I had to saying that I can only award damages and given the world knows Trump is a sleaze Daniels violation is moot.

 

[logger]

Too late right from the start, of course, but heaven forbid that it ever becomes accepted as completely unfixable. Someone once said that conservatives want to preserve a world that never really was, while progressives want to create a world that never really has been.

Too bad you’re going to have to do that within the bounds of our constitution.

 

[The Big Dog]

Right, the whole issue of enforceability of any contract comes into play with the lack of signing. She presumably did take the cash, but if it was Cohen's cash, and DD had not specifically given power if attorney to Cohen in this matter, the terms of the contract (arbitration clause) may be deemed unenforceable. Cohen cannot independently bind DD to terms without DD's knowledge. Picture Cohen transferring all of DD's assets without express permission

I refer my right honorable friend to the answer I gave some days ago.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12238238&postcount=1693

 

[ponderingturtle]

Right, the whole issue of enforceability of any contract comes into play with the lack of signing. She presumably did take the cash, but if it was Cohen's cash, and DD had not specifically given power if attorney to Cohen in this matter, the terms of the contract (arbitration clause) may be deemed unenforceable. Cohen cannot independently bind DD to terms without DD's knowledge. Picture Cohen transferring all of DD's assets without express permission

Which is exactly the issue, the signature in and of itself isn't that important in this kind of contract. Some contracts need to be fully signed and some don't and apparently this is not the kind that does. But if DD never knew about it then it is void.

 

[logger]

Yea, I don't have a problem with the lack of signature.

But I do have a problem with the bribery. It may be legal contract, but it is not one that should be enforced. If there is no law on the books that could be interpreted as illegal, I'd find some other way not to enforce it. If I was Judge Otero, I'd make it as painful for Cohen and Trump as possible to enforce this contract and then at the end award them $1 because I had to saying that I can only award damages and given the world knows Trump is a sleaze Daniels violation is moot.

Well, there it is right there.

Plenty of activist judges already doing that. We need to start removing them for not be able to do their job correctly.

 

[Thermal]

I refer my right honorable friend to the answer I gave some days ago.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12238238&postcount=1693

Yes, but that answer assumes that full authority was given. We don't know that, and the President seems to deny it.

 

[Thermal]

Which is exactly the issue, the signature in and of itself isn't that important in this kind of contract. Some contracts need to be fully signed and some don't and apparently this is not the kind that does. But if DD never knew about it then it is void.

Yes, I'm inclined to think the omission was by design, rather than carelessness, to give wiggle room for interpretation

 

[acbytesla]

Too bad you’re going to have to do that within the bounds of our constitution.

Conservatives already know the left wants create utopia through government, history has shown us the results.

Pretty damn good If you ask me given that the happiest societies have plenty of government and some of the biggest hell holes on the planet have little or no government. I travel all over this country and conservative culture has created a dystopian America where homelessness and poverty is everywhere.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, but that answer assumes that full authority was given. We don't know that, and the President seems to deny it.

It does not necessarily, because Trump could ratify the agreement even if he knew nothing about it, which I suspect he will do in connection with the motion to compel arbitation

 

[Thermal]

Also, should Avenatti have named the President in the suit, as opposed to using the pseudonym? Seems intentionally breaching by any interpretation

 

[WilliamSeger]

Case law is the interpretation of existing law. Acbytesla seems to be arguing for the creation of law by the court where no existing law exists to interpret. If there is no applicable law to interpret, then the proper action for the court is to reject the case and recommend that the Executive or Legislative branches take action to close the gap.

Acbytesla specifically said "case law." If there isn't already a precedent for this particular situation -- a candidate paying hush money to cover up an affair -- as a violation of the "public policy" doctrine in contract law, then the judge has an opportunity to "make case law" with his decision.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, there it is right there.

Plenty of activist judges already doing that. We need to start removing them for not be able to do their job correctly.

We have a difference of opinion. Our government is supposed to promote fair and transparent elections. It shouldn't just be about who can buy. That a rich prick can buy silence from others doesn't mean he should be able to.

 

[logger]

We have a difference of opinion. Our government is supposed to promote fair and transparent elections. It shouldn't just be about who can buy. That a rich prick can buy silence from others doesn't mean he should be able to.

I wonder if any rich prick democrat politicians have done this?

Do you mean promote or enforce?

 

[phiwum]

I wonder if any rich prick democrat politicians have done this?

Do you mean promote or enforce?

I'm not aware of any rich prick Democrats doing the same and getting away with it. Are you?

I'm really not partisan. I loathe Trump, but not Republicans or conservatives. I loathe many Republicans, but not all. I dislike some Republicans sometimes, but not others.

The same is true for Democrats. I didn't loathe Hillary, but wasn't overly fond of her. Like so many Republican friends say, going the other way, better than the alternative.

Why should this be a recklessly partisan issue? Lankford, from Oklahoma, often says things I agree with, and often says things I don't. Seems over all a decent guy. Schiff, from CA, often says things that make sense to me. I like his opinions for the most part, but not all of them. Warren says some things I like, but she goes too far for my political tendencies in many areas.

Stormy Daniels is not an issue for me, unless campaign finance laws were violated or other issues arise. It paints Trump as a despicable son of a bitch, but we knew that.