Stormy Daniels Sues the President

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dr. Keith said:
At this point TBD may be offering advice that is comparable to what Trump's legal team is offering. And he is just as as likely to get paid for it.
Click to expand...

after reading the motion to compel arbitration, I daresay mine is a wee bit better.

sniff

/as far as payment, I am rendering my services Pro Bono Publico as a service to the Country the World.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
Yes, as I have explained previously Trump could ratify the actions of Cohen.
Click to expand...

How will you spin it if it turns out you're wrong about that?

If Trump was unaware of the contract at the time of it's signing, then it follows that Cohen signed a document on behalf of Trump without securing Trump's consent. Therefore Cohen's representations to Daniels were false and potentially fraudulent.”

Whether Trump later ratified the contract is immaterial to the above. A contract based on misrepresentation is fraudulent. A fraudulent contract cannot be binding.

On the plus side, Trump has succeeded in almost keeping his mouth shut on the subject for several weeks. This Trumpian feat of will makes me feel marginally better about the great Oaf who is occupying our Oval Office.
 
Last edited:
The Greater Fool said:
Except that Cohen said he was NOT acting as Trump's attorney, but as a friend, which is why he 'facilitated' the payment from personal funds. Which, of course, is itself a half-truth, as he was complaining about not being reimbursed months later.
Click to expand...

Which is where I was going. Trump's interview responses were noninformation. He says Cohen was his lawyer. OK, we knew that. Should we imply that this means Cohen paid $130K as a delegate negotiation for Trump? Because if so, that means Cohen lied.

Well, no, no, Trump only said he Cohen was his lawyer, we're reading into that that he was implying Cohen's $130k payment was a delegated responsibility. Shame on us for jumping to conclusions.

Sort of feels like Trump's throwing Cohen under the bus, actually.

So that reply is the same information as "no comment". I didn't see any 'clever' in there, just a lot of words saying nothing, Trump SOP.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
after reading the motion to compel arbitration, I daresay mine is a wee bit better.

sniff

/as far as payment, I am rendering my services Pro Bono Publico as a service to the Country the World.
Click to expand...

You can have whatever opinion you wish, but since you are not a lawyer your opinion counts for diddly in legal matters.
 
Toontown said:
How will you spin it if it turns out you're wrong about that?

If Trump was unaware of the contract at the time of it's signing, then it follows that Cohen signed a document on behalf of Trump without securing Trump's consent. Therefore Cohen's representations to Daniels were false and potentially fraudulent.”

Whether Trump later ratified the contract is immaterial to the above. A contract based on misrepresentation is fraudulent. A fraudulent contract cannot be binding.
Click to expand...

The only representations that matter are in the contract and if Trump ratifies those? No muss, no fuss.
 
The Big Dog said:
after reading the motion to compel arbitration, I daresay mine is a wee bit better.

sniff

/as far as payment, I am rendering my services Pro Bono Publico as a service to the Country the World.
Click to expand...

I am sure your services are worth exactly what you charge.
 
The Big Dog said:
The only representations that matter are in the contract and if Trump ratifies those? No muss, no fuss.
Click to expand...

Question, then... what would ratify look like in this case? Would he need to know there was a cash settlement up to a certain preapproved amount... but not bother to ask what that amount was? Does that sound plausible?
 
blutoski said:
Which is where I was going. Trump's interview responses were noninformation. He says Cohen was his lawyer. OK, we knew that. Should we imply that this means Cohen paid $130K as a delegate negotiation for Trump? Because if so, that means Cohen lied.

Well, no, no, Trump only said he Cohen was his lawyer, we're reading into that that he was implying Cohen's $130k payment was a delegated responsibility. Shame on us for jumping to conclusions.

Sort of feels like Trump's throwing Cohen under the bus, actually.

So that reply is the same information as "no comment". I didn't see any 'clever' in there, just a lot of words saying nothing, Trump SOP.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, quite the contrary there as he has specifically told us that Cohen is "my lawyer" and rather than placing him under the bus, it seems that he is embracing him to the bosom of Team Trump.
 
Toontown said:
How will you spin it if it turns out you're wrong about that?

If Trump was unaware of the contract at the time of it's signing, then it follows that Cohen signed a document on behalf of Trump without securing Trump's consent. Therefore Cohen's representations to Daniels were false and potentially fraudulent.”

Whether Trump later ratified the contract is immaterial to the above. A contract based on misrepresentation is fraudulent. A fraudulent contract cannot be binding.
Click to expand...

Could Trump have issued a blanket directive that did not require being informed of every action taken on his behalf?
 
blutoski said:
Question, then... what would ratify look like in this case? Would he need to know there was a cash settlement up to a certain preapproved amount... but not bother to ask what that amount was? Does that sound plausible?
Click to expand...

well he certainly knows NOW, the Thirsty lawyer slapped the damn agreement on the complaint and filed it in an open court file.
 
The Big Dog said:
after reading the motion to compel arbitration, I daresay mine is a wee bit better.

sniff

/as far as payment, I am rendering my services Pro Bono Publico as a service to the Country the World.
Click to expand...

How extraordinarily generous of you!

Your legal advice will actually be worth less than the paper that it is written on.
 
The Big Dog said:
whataboutism at its finest.

Kimmel gets an "f."
Click to expand...

I don't see the whataboutism here. Kimmel was highlighting Hannity's calling Kimmel out for his disrespect toward Melania for her accent. While Hannity turns a blind eye to Trump's disrespectfulness toward Melania by screwing around on her. And let's not theorize about some open marriage arrangement; covering up his unfaithfulness with hush money belies that (either to avoid her wifely wrath or her having an out in any prenup they might have.)

And on other two-facedness. The rightey-right has their knickers in a twist over Mexico and the manufactured prospect of invading hordes crashing the border (in spite of a lowest volume in several decades), while giving Trump a pass on his kissing Putin's ass (a demonstrated threat to America--at least to true lovers of liberty.)
 
The Big Dog said:
well he certainly knows NOW, the Thirsty lawyer slapped the damn agreement on the complaint and filed it in an open court file.
Click to expand...

The question was about the plausibility of the 'ratified' storyline. Does that sound like something that you think actually happened, or were you just answering a generic legal question not related to this specific case?
 
Crossbow said:
How extraordinarily generous of you!

Your legal advice will actually be worth less than the paper that it is written on.
Click to expand...

Yes, well I understand that the Judge has gone fully paper free, as such perhaps next time one will wish to create a "burn" from this Century?

Ahem.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Could Trump have issued a blanket directive that did not require being informed of every action taken on his behalf?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, this is normal, it's just 'delegating'.

The question is whether such an open ended delegation would include entangling him in legally binding obligations. My impression is that this is not a meeting of the minds for a contract.
 
LTC8K6 said:
You mean the threat story from 2011?

I heard about it.

Don't believe it at all.

A threat to her daughter and she didn't do anything?

Nope.
Click to expand...

I hilited the part of your post i was replying to. Why don't they speak, you asked. They went on 60 minutes and spoke.

If you mean something else, please clarify.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom