Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[The Big Dog]

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?

You see, it is quite immaterial when he ratifies the contract, so long as he and his team fulfilled all of the terms of the agreement and Stormy got everything she had bargained for.

 

[blutoski]

You see, it is quite immaterial when he ratifies the contract, so long as he and his team fulfilled all of the terms of the agreement and Stormy got everything she had bargained for.

It sounds like, therefore, ratification is not necessary. Why does it exist as a legal concept then?

 

[The Big Dog]

I think it is amusing that our correspondent believes that Brent Blakely will not receive whatever compensation he and his clients have agreed to.

 

[The Big Dog]

It sounds like, therefore, ratification is not necessary. Why does it exist as a legal concept then?

Because of principles of Agency.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I think it is amusing that our correspondent believes that Brent Blakely will not receive whatever compensation he and his clients have agreed to.

The only thing Trump is more famous for than his hair and tiny hands is his capacity to not pay bills that are owed for services rendered. Find me a single man that has been sued more for not paying his bills and I will buy you a nice glass of Whiskey next time you are in town.

(You know, I'd probably buy the drink anyway if you are in town, but I figure I have to offer some sort of carrot.)

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

Did you mean to prove that it was whataboutism, because you did a top notch job of doing so. Top Notch!

 

[blutoski]

Because of principles of Agency.

But you're saying it's not necessary?

Are you saying principles of Agency are not necessary for a contract?

 

[The Big Dog]

But you're saying it's not necessary?

Are you saying principles of Agency are not necessary for a contract?

what? The legal principle of ratification apply where there is a question whether the agent had the authority to bind the principal: it is the sword that cuts the Gordian knot of issue of authority!

/Oh that sounds very nice

 

[blutoski]

what? The legal principle of ratification apply where there is a question whether the agent had the authority to bind the principal: it is the sword that cuts the Gordian knot of issue of authority!

OK, how does that circle square with Cohen saying he was not acting as Trump's lawyer at the time?

ie: is it valid practice for a person to entangle a 3rd party in (non-delegated, according to Cohen) activities... if years later Trump hears about it and says it's OK?

Sorry, i'm trying to grasp the narrative here... earlier you were saying he was probably delegating this to Cohen; but in this Ratification story, you're saying probably he didn't, but it's OK because he probably approves now, after the fact.

These sound like two different stories that can't both be true.

 

[fuelair]

If Melania chooses to overlook her husband's past indiscretions, why should anyone else care?

Because whatever reason she has for overlooking, it is still very clear he is a philandering ******* with delusions. And a lot of people care about things like that.

 

[Toontown]

Could Trump have issued a blanket directive that did not require being informed of every action taken on his behalf?

The payment to Daniels may have been a violation of campaign finance law. Cohen had a legal and ethical obligation to consult Trump (and inform Daniels) before taking a possibly illegal action.

If Trump gave Cohen blanket authority which included independently taking action on Trump's behalf which may be illegal, then that would potentially be a Rico violation. Trump cannot legally insulate himself from criminal activities taken on his behalf by such blanket delegation. That's an old mob trick the Rico act is intended to counter.

 

[The Big Dog]

Seems like the Judge is already getting tired of the Thirsty lawyer's shenanigans:

https://twitter.com/big_cases/status/982350224768339969

the knucklehead raised a baseless objection to a request to stay filing a response while the motion to compel is pending, and refused to meet and confer with the other sides lawyers regarding a request for a simple accommodation, no doubt because he was too busy yammering in front of a microphone.

Weren't people telling me the Thirsty Lawyer was supposed to be the bee's knees? Seems like the porn star could use the services of TBD Internet Law Services Esquire Jr..

 

[The Big Dog]

The FBI is now investigating whether the payment to Daniels was a violation of campaign finance law.

Evidence?

 

[The Big Dog]

OK, how does that circle square with Cohen saying he was not acting as Trump's lawyer at the time?

ie: is it valid practice for a person to entangle a 3rd party in (non-delegated, according to Cohen) activities... if years later Trump hears about it and says it's OK?

Sorry, i'm trying to grasp the narrative here... earlier you were saying he was probably delegating this to Cohen; but in this Ratification story, you're saying probably he didn't, but it's OK because he probably approves now, after the fact.

These sound like two different stories that can't both be true.

Not sure you are following the thread. Someone asked a question and I answered it by explaining the principle of ratification. Perhaps you will wish to review that part of the thread again?

 

[blutoski]

Evidence?

Agreed... It would be


However... I was reviewing your claim that this would just be a filing issue, but I don't agree. The concern is that personal contributions are limited to $2700, except for the candidates, for which contributions are unlimited.

So, if this is a campaign contribution in kind - which is very arguable - then it's legal if Trump paid for it (ie: reimbursed Cohen) but illegal if Cohen did it independently.

As you say, Trump could have delegated this, but why wouldn't he offer to pay it? If this is after the fact and he's ratifying it, is he ratifying an illegal contribution by Cohen? Wouldn't that very act of ratifying invalidate the contract?

 

[blutoski]

Not sure you are following the thread. Someone asked a question and I answered it by explaining the principle of ratification. Perhaps you will wish to review that part of the thread again?

OK, so I am still trying to get a straightforward answer from you.

Does that reply above mean you don't think Trump has ratified this contract, and that you are leaning toward the model that Trump delegated to Cohen (which Cohen denies) to settle up to some maximum legal dollar value (which would be $2700, and Cohen exceeded to $130k and did not tell Trump)?

 

[Craig4]

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.

There's have to be someone untainted by a positive relationship to support Trump's version before you could take it seriously. No such credible third party has come forward so there's no reason to be detained by his denial.

 

[The Big Dog]

OK, so I am still trying to get a straightforward answer from you.

Does that reply above mean you don't think Trump has ratified this contract, and that you are leaning toward the model that Trump delegated to Cohen (which Cohen denies) to settle up to some maximum legal dollar value (which would be $2700, and Cohen exceeded to $130k and did not tell Trump)?

I actually explained this some days ago, it is one the myriad legal theories that the President has at his disposal.

/And the limit for settling personal disputes is not by any stretch $2700. I have already explained this is not a campaign contribution.

 

[blutoski]

I actually explained this some days ago, it is one the myriad legal theories that the President has at his disposal.

OK, in this version, why would Cohen lie about the delgation? The further he is from Trump's personal reimbursement, the closer he is to complications of illegal campaign contribution.

 

[blutoski]

I actually explained this some days ago, it is one the myriad legal theories that the President has at his disposal.

/And the limit for settling personal disputes is not by any stretch $2700. I have already explained this is not a campaign contribution.

You've made a countercase, but it's not very convincing. It's for the courts to decide. There's certainly a good case for it to be an illegal contribution, and enough that I figure a competent lawyer would protect himself.