Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[blutoski]

The text of the settlement requires Trump to be aware of it: Cohen can't make him a party to the deal without his knowledge.

Not legally, anyway

Either Trump agreed to the terms of the contract (pay $130k), or he didn't.

If Cohen signed on Trump's behalf without informed consent, then that's illegal and a good reason to nullify the contract.

This is the thing about this elitist subculture: they have a hokey pseudo law that works most of the time when they're ripping off the little people (employees, contractors), but it kinda only works because the victims mistake it for actual legal stuff. The environment's function is to look like law, but isn't actual law. It's a mechanism to circumvent law with sort of performance art.

We see exactly this with the Freemen on the Land: all this effort to author millions of pages of contracts in the hope that the other party is also participating in this imaginary parallel universe. Competence in actual law is irrelevant. It all comes to a screeching halt when it comes in contact with actual real law.

And the connection is fascinating. A fake billionaire who plays the role of a businessman on a TV show has fake lawyers... because of course he does.

Trump has coasted with these incompetent lawyers for decades, but I think this case is going to start a process of dismantling this legacy network of pseudocontracts.

This gave me a chuckle: [Real Law vs Alitoland: Trump desperately needs a crack legal team. But his lawyers are no match for Mueller, and no sane attorney would join them now.]

 

[Crossbow]

Not sure I 100% agree with your police work there Lou.

It is quite obvious that course you are not sure because you are confusing a court case with a political case.

 

[The Big Dog]

It is quite obvious that course you are not sure because you are confusing a court case with a political case.

That is just the way we talk up in Minnesota, donchaknow?

It was the "publicly" part because the arbitration clause requires confidential arbitration.

 

[Crossbow]

That is just the way we talk up in Minnesota, donchaknow?

It was the "publicly" part because the arbitration clause requires confidential arbitration.

Since Trump has already talked publicly about the hush money payment, then I would say that Trump has invalidated his own clause requiring confidential arbitration. Also, it is quite possible that the courts may make a similar ruling considering how much about this case has already been publicly disclosed.

Furthermore, I still fail to see why you believe that Trump has been so very smart about this issue.

 

[Zambo]

Armed federal police are on the border now.

I have been travelling and not fully updated on the news. But just to say that post of mine is not about current affairs, I am merely pointing out fatalities of people trying to cross the border will increase support for Trump candidates at the midterm.

 

[The Big Dog]

Since Trump has already talked publicly about the hush money payment, then I would say that Trump has invalidated his own clause requiring confidential arbitration. Also, it is quite possible that the courts may make a similar ruling considering how much about this case has already been publicly disclosed.

Furthermore, I still fail to see why you believe that Trump has been so very smart about this issue.

The fact that Stormy and her Thirsty lawyer filed the action in an open court file and Trump answered a question about it does not invalidate the confidentiality clause let alone render the Arbitration clause invalid, nor render the arbitration open to the public.

Which leads me back again to a point that I have made previously, namely that Stormy and Thirsty have deliberately used the courts to violate the very confidentiality agreement that they seek to invalidate.

"Self-help was viewed as "an enemy of law, a contempt of the king and his court.""

-Cecila Taylor

 

[CapelDodger]

Furthermore, I still fail to see why you believe that Trump has been so very smart about this issue.

It's either very smart or very stupid, and the latter is too awful to contemplate. So it has to be the former.

 

[Crossbow]

The fact that Stormy and her Thirsty lawyer filed the action in an open court file and Trump answered a question about it does not invalidate the confidentiality clause let alone render the Arbitration clause invalid, nor render the arbitration open to the public.

For anyone else, I would say that you are right.

However, just about anything and everything that a sitting President says is news and as such, his words do carry considerable weight.

Both the courts and Trump are well aware of this fact.

Which leads me back again to a point that I have made previously, namely that Stormy and Thirsty have deliberately used the courts to violate the very confidentiality agreement that they seek to invalidate.

"Self-help was viewed as "an enemy of law, a contempt of the king and his court.""

-Cecila Taylor

Again, if you are right, then the confidently clause that you speak of has been invalidated.

And again, you still fail to explain your belief that Trump is so very smart about how he has handled this issue.

 

[The Big Dog]

For anyone else, I would say that you are right.

However, just about anything and everything that a sitting President says is news and as such, his words do carry considerable weight.

Both the courts and Trump are well aware of this fact.



Again, if you are right, then the confidently clause that you speak of has been invalidated.

And again, you still fail to explain your belief that Trump is so very smart about how he has handled this issue.

One cannot unilaterally invalidate a confidentiality provision by unilaterally slapping the contract on a pleading asking the court to declare that she has not breached the contract. As I have already explained, Court's take a dim view of being played for chumps.

I have explained several times why Trump's words were clever, see eg post 2019

 

[Crossbow]

One cannot unilaterally invalidate a confidentiality provision by unilaterally slapping the contract on a pleading asking the court to declare that she has not breached the contract. As I have already explained, Court's take a dim view of being played for chumps.

But courts do invalidate contracts all the time.

I have explained several times why Trump's words were clever, see eg post 2019

And you have been consistently wrong about why you believe Trump has been so very smart.

For example, in the case of Post #2019 you make some important assumptions about the facts of the case as opposed to using the actual facts of the case (many of which are simply not known to the public just yet).

 

[The Big Dog]

But courts do invalidate contracts all the time.

And you have been consistently wrong about why you believe Trump has been so very smart.

For example, in the case of Post #2019 you make some important assumptions about the facts of the case as opposed to using the actual facts of the case (many of which are simply not known to the public just yet).

It is curious, you said I did not answer and now you say i was wrong when I answered, and you declare that I am "wrong" based on assumptions about the case, which would appear to be based on your assumption that the facts I am assuming are wrong, which I really find fascinating.

/protip: I am outlining optimal legal strategies based on the facts. It may be that Team Trump is not going to use these optimal legal strategies, which of course does not make me wrong.

 

[blutoski]

I have explained several times why Trump's words were clever, see eg post 2019

Your example wasn't a clear analogy, though. The school board in question authorized a negotiator for their own expenses. They are clearly a participating party - they're writing the cheque at the end of the day. The negotiator's results are on their ledger.

If he authorized a negotiator, fine, but that would mean it's his money, right? He might be able to say he didn't "know" the specific $130 total because he is ignorant about his business activities - is that the 'clever' claim?

Also, is this a confession that he authorized a negotiation of an illegal campaign contribution up to a certain amount? Is that the 'clever' claim?

I'm in agreement with the previous posters on this... I don't see any cleverness on this, just a confused man complicating his own legal defense with random statements.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

/protip: I am outlining optimal legal strategies

Evidence required.

based on the facts. It may be that Team Trump is not going to use these optimal legal strategies, which of course does not make me wrong.

And the setup to claim victory when the NDA is invalidated.

 

[The Big Dog]

Your example wasn't a clear analogy, though. The school board in question authorized a negotiator for their own expenses. They are clearly a participating party - they're writing the cheque at the end of the day. The negotiator's results are on their ledger.

If he authorized a negotiator, fine, but that would mean it's his money, right? He might be able to say he didn't "know" the specific $130 total because he is ignorant about his business activities - is that the 'clever' claim?

Also, is this a confession that he authorized a negotiation of an illegal campaign contribution up to a certain amount? Is that the 'clever' claim?

I'm in agreement with the previous posters on this... I don't see any cleverness on this, just a confused man complicating his own legal defense with random statements.

Actually in my hypotheitical the insurance company paid the whole claim.

I have also repeatedly explained why this is not an "illegal campaign contribution" and even if it were a "campaign contribution" all that means is that the "contribution" would have had to been reported, which is a trivial civil matter outside the jurisdiction of the court in Cali

 

[blutoski]

Actually in my hypotheitical the insurance company paid the whole claim.

I think I'd have to see more details about the case. You made it sound like a real case in that post, but now you are adding new information and saying it's a hypothetical. I'm not sure that post is anywhere near a convincing argument for that element of your claim, at this point. I don't know if it's an analogy, a hypothetical, or a similar case, or something completely unrelated and poorly argued.

I have also repeatedly explained why this is not an "illegal campaign contribution" and even if it were a "campaign contribution" all that means is that the "contribution" would have had to been reported, which is a trivial civil matter outside the jurisdiction of the court in Cali

Sure, let's work with that: let's assume it is a valid campaign contribution... it sounds like you're agreeing his 'clever' statement was confirmation on national television that he approved negotiation of hush money regarding an affair with a porn actress while his wife was postpartum, as a contribution in kind to his campaign.


I have a countertheory: his reflex is to deny, deny, deny, and this is just another shot from the hip without any forethought.

 

[The Big Dog]

I think I'd have to see more details about the case. You made it sound like a real case in that post, but now you are adding new information and saying it's a hypothetical. I'm not sure that post is anywhere near a convincing argument for that element of your claim, at this point. I don't know if it's an analogy, a hypothetical, or a similar case, or something completely unrelated and poorly argued.





Sure, let's work with that: let's assume it is a valid campaign contribution... it sounds like you're agreeing his 'clever' statement was confirmation on national television that he approved negotiation of hush money regarding an affair with a porn actress while his wife was postpartum, as a contribution in kind to his campaign.


I have a countertheory: his reflex is to deny, deny, deny, and this is just another shot from the hip without any forethought.

The school board case we have been discussing is premised on a real life actual case, and you should no doubt be able to find cases in your own life where a person or organization has been delegated authority to settle. Another real life example would be an insurance claim where the adjuster tells you he has a certain amount in authority to settle a claim without going back to the company. Have you ever had that happen? I am sure lots of people here have!

It is not a "campaign contribution" illegal or otherwise, and the fact that I deigned to explain the impact of it if it were deemed to be a contribution does not change my original detailed analysis

 

[blutoski]

Sure, let's work with that: let's assume it is a valid campaign contribution... it sounds like you're agreeing his 'clever' statement was confirmation on national television that he approved negotiation of hush money regarding an affair with a porn actress while his wife was postpartum, as a contribution in kind to his campaign.

Incidentally, this is not my interpretation, though.

Trump was asked if he knew why Cohen made the payment, and I think he said he had no idea. (I'm paraphrasing... he said: "You have to ask Michael Cohen.") If he didn't know why, then it sounds like he is denying he delegated negotiations for this to Cohen.

 

[blutoski]

The school board case we have been discussing is premised on a real life actual case, and you should no doubt be able to find cases in your own life where a person or organization has been delegated authority to settle. Another real life example would be an insurance claim where the adjuster tells you he has a certain amount in authority to settle a claim without going back to the company. Have you ever had that happen? I am sure lots of people here have!

Yep. And in these cases, the person is delegated for a specific event, and reports back to the delegator. The delegator would not say "gosh I don't know anything about that negotiation"

Trump's denying he delegated, and says he knows nothing about this.

So sounds like these examples are not what's happening.

It is not a "campaign contribution" illegal or otherwise, and the fact that I deigned to explain the impact of it if it were deemed to be a contribution does not change my original detailed analysis

I'm rejecting the claim that if Trump delegated hush money for an affair with a porn star during his wife's postpartum period, that confirming it on national television would be 'clever'.

 

[The Big Dog]

Incidentally, this is not my interpretation, though.

Trump was asked if he knew why Cohen made the payment, and I think he said he had no idea. (I'm paraphrasing... he said: "You have to ask Michael Cohen.") If he didn't know why, then it sounds like he is denying he delegated negotiations for this to Cohen.

Q: Then why did Michael Cohen make those if there was no truth to her allegations?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you’ll have to ask Michael Cohen. Michael is my attorney. And you’ll have to ask Michael Cohen.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yep. And in these cases, the person is delegated for a specific event, and reports back to the delegator. The delegator would not say "gosh I don't know anything about that negotiation"

Trump's denying he delegated, and says he knows nothing about this.

So sounds like these examples are not what's happening.


I'm rejecting the claim that if Trump delegated hush money for an affair with a porn star during his wife's postpartum period, that confirming it on national television would be 'clever'.

well that is groovy because that is not what he said.