Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[The Big Dog]

I've never seen anyone dodge questions like this. Always pointing to other sources.

 

[Toontown]

Clearly TBD has learned the Trumpian form of question-dodging well (but not well enough to sucker the people into letting him fondle the nuclear codes). So Trump is still the Master.

Melania: Did you cheat on me with her too, you bastard?

Donald: Obviously you haven't bothered to hire an investigator to look into it. Get back to me when you know more.

 

[The Big Dog]

Clearly TBD has learned the Trumpian form of question-dodging well (but not well enough to sucker the people into letting him fondle the nuclear codes). So Trump is still the Master.

Melania: Did you cheat on me with her too, you bastard?

Donald: Obviously you haven't bothered to hire an investigator to look into it.

Or, ya know, answering question with detailed answers that people do not understand.

I bet Trump would have looked up “specific performance.” I get that no one else bothered.

 

[acbytesla]

Or, ya know, answering question with detailed answers that people do not understand.

I bet Trump would have looked up “specific performance.” I get that no one else bothered.

Yeah, if only specific performance applied. It doesn't. Stormy Daniels has according to Cohen violated the contract twenty times. And she keeps on talking. And a judge CANNOT stop her. It's a civil case so any relief Cohen and/or Trump can expect is monetary damages...which may not be punitive.

Try again.

 

[acbytesla]

An order of specific performance is generally not granted if any of the following is true:

Specific performance would cause severe hardship to the defendant.
The contract was unconscionable.
Common Law damages are readily available or the detriment suffered by the claimant is easy to substitute, then damages are adequate.[1][2]
The claimant has misbehaved (unclean hands).
Specific performance is impossible.
Performance consists of a personal service [3]
The contract is too vague to be enforced.
The contract was terminable at will (meaning either party can renege without notice).
Note that consumer protection laws may disallow terms that allow a company to terminate a consumer contract at will (e.g. Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999[4])
The contract required constant supervision.[5]
Mutuality was lacking in the initial agreement of the contract.
The contract was made for no consideration.
Specific performance will not be granted for contracts which are void or unenforceable. The exception to this (in equity) is in relation estoppel or part performance.[6]

 

[The Big Dog]

Yeah, if only specific performance applied. It doesn't. Stormy Daniels has according to Cohen violated the contract twenty times. And she keeps on talking. And a judge CANNOT stop her. It's a civil case so any relief Cohen and/or Trump can expect is monetary damages...which may not be punitive.

Try again.

Falls over.

Specific damages is a civil remedy.

Can we at least expect that the next post you make pretends that you have looked that up? We’ll take a google level of curiosity at this point. Literally cut and paste the above sentence starting with “specific...”

Hey, you looked it up.... look at those goalposts get moved... again...

We went from no damages to now claiming that the person who paid the porn star has unclean hands and that the person who got paid 130k is gonna claim that she didn’t give anything back for that 130k.

Raise your hands if y’all see any problems with that theory folks.

 

[acbytesla]

Falls over.

Specific damages is a civil remedy.

Can we at least expect that the next post you make pretends that you have looked that up? We’ll take a google level of curiosity at this point. Literally cut and paste the above sentence starting with “specific...”

Hey, you looked it up.... look at those goalposts get moved... again...

We went from no damages to now claiming that the person who paid the porn star has unclean hands and that the person who got paid 130k is gonna claim that she didn’t give anything back for that 130k.

Raise your hands if y’all see ny problems with that theory folks.

Raise your hands if you think I didn't adequately address the reasons that Specific Performance really won't apply.

 

[The Big Dog]

Raise your hands if you think I didn't adequately address the reasons that Specific Performance really won't apply.

Raises hands!

 

[Toontown]

Deleted

 

[Craig4]

The contract covers substantially more than the liquidated damages provisions.

Review if and let me know if you have any questions.

I assume you read Loss Leader's explanation as to why those clauses are can't be enforced. We need not be detained by your legal analysis further.

 

[Meadmaker]

Cohen is not a party to the contract.

By the way, a party who got 130k and claims that the other person got nothing in return is what we call a real nonstarter.

But Cohen's LLC is a party to the contract, so it would have to get some benefit, and the only way that "it" would get any benefit is if its owner, Cohen, got a benefit.


Well, the lawyers will work it all out. When it's all said and done, I am extremely confident that Stephanie Clifford will not end up owing money to either Michael Cohen, Michael Cohen's LLC, or Donald Trump, with the possible exception of 130k, and goodness knows who will have to pay whose lawyer fees. Exactly how all the legalese gets worked out is beyond my knowledge, and insufficiently interesting to me to read up on it and find out.

What I am certain of is that the President of the United States has paid hush money to a sex worker, and lied about it, which is part of a pattern of behavior which we see from him again and again. People to him are tools to be bought, sold, paid off, and above all used for his benefit. He is not a good person, and this episode illustrates one of the many ways that he is not a good person, regardless how it all works out legally.

 

[LTC8K6]

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.

I didn't see the 60 minutes bit.

She apparently didn't say anything new, I take it?

If she is free to speak, and has spoken, what does she want?

Is Cohen trying to enforce the NDA at this point?

It seems a bit late if she is apparently free to speak and has spoken?

Is she afraid of having the NDA terms enforced?

It seems like Cohen / Trump have weathered whatever storm Stormy can produce for them and it would be better at this point to just let it go?

Again I have to say that this whole thing makes no sense to me.

Even the $130K payment being a campaign violation doesn't seem worth all the attention. It seems very unlikely to result in any trouble for Trump.

I think Trump needs to tell Cohen to let it go.

 

[LTC8K6]

But Cohen's LLC is a party to the contract, so it would have to get some benefit, and the only way that "it" would get any benefit is if its owner, Cohen, got a benefit.


Well, the lawyers will work it all out. When it's all said and done, I am extremely confident that Stephanie Clifford will not end up owing money to either Michael Cohen, Michael Cohen's LLC, or Donald Trump, with the possible exception of 130k, and goodness knows who will have to pay whose lawyer fees. Exactly how all the legalese gets worked out is beyond my knowledge, and insufficiently interesting to me to read up on it and find out.

What I am certain of is that the President of the United States has paid hush money to a sex worker, and lied about it, which is part of a pattern of behavior which we see from him again and again. People to him are tools to be bought, sold, paid off, and above all used for his benefit. He is not a good person, and this episode illustrates one of the many ways that he is not a good person, regardless how it all works out legally.

I totally understand that opinion, and I think it illustrates my point that Trump has already weathered this, however it ends, and he needs to tell his attorneys to drop it.

 

[LTC8K6]

I have to say the big news from Stormy this weekend was a letdown. She's hired a sketch artist to draw the person who threatened her in 2011.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I didn't see the 60 minutes bit.

You mean you didn't watch the show ? Even then, if you had even heard about the interview you ought to be aware that the it was Stormy speaking about her interactions with Trump, yes ?

She apparently didn't say anything new, I take it?

Why would yo assume that if you didn't see it ?

If she is free to speak, and has spoken, what does she want?

I think you've made an incorrect assumption. What she wants is detailed in her lawsuit, linked in the first post of this thread.

Is Cohen trying to enforce the NDA at this point?

No, as tbd would say, Cohen is not a party to this suit.

It seems a bit late if she is apparently free to speak and has spoken?

It's not apparent.

Is she afraid of having the NDA terms enforced?

I imagine so, since the claim is she owes > 20 million dollars. That would scare me, anyway.

It seems like Cohen / Trump have weathered whatever storm Stormy can produce for them and it would be better at this point to just let it go?

Again I have to say that this whole thing makes no sense to me.

Clearly. Possibly to do with your clear lack of knowledge regarding basic facts about the case.

Even the $130K payment being a campaign violation doesn't seem worth all the attention. It seems very unlikely to result in any trouble for Trump.

I think Trump needs to tell Cohen to let it go.

Yes, it seems violating the law is just a nuisance for trump, not worth following up on.

 

[Dr. Keith]

An immigrant story.

Chain migration.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There is much truth in this. The people who are expecting a huge midterm GOP loss don't seem to realize that Trump is doing what he said he would. There won't be mass desertions.

Of course his voters didn't think he would do that because they knew some of those ideas are dumb. It was all which ones they figured were just populist stoking lies and which were serious.

Hell I bet you can still find people who say that the wall was a metaphor.

 

[The Big Dog]

The Thirsty Lawyer refiled his motion asking for expedited discovery.

He managed to get it in under the page limits.

He must have been reading my posts in this thread, because now he is pretending that he is challenging the existence of the arbitration agreement. I trust that the judge will not be seduced by such chicanery.

 

[LTC8K6]

You mean you didn't watch the show ? Even then, if you had even heard about the interview you ought to be aware that the it was Stormy speaking about her interactions with Trump, yes ?



Why would yo assume that if you didn't see it ?



I think you've made an incorrect assumption. What she wants is detailed in her lawsuit, linked in the first post of this thread.



No, as tbd would say, Cohen is not a party to this suit.



It's not apparent.



I imagine so, since the claim is she owes > 20 million dollars. That would scare me, anyway.



Clearly. Possibly to do with your clear lack of knowledge regarding basic facts about the case.



Yes, it seems violating the law is just a nuisance for trump, not worth following up on.

I've heard nothing about the show at all.

Nothing new came out as far as I can tell.

I haven't done more than glance over the lawsuit pdf.

Okay.

Okay.

Who claimed that she owed $20M?

You are correct there, I'm not interested enough to follow it closely.

If Trump violated the law, there will plenty of people providing proof of same, I'm sure. There's certainly no shortage of people who don't like Trump and would gladly see him prosecuted for anything at all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Honest and honorable? Up until this point of her life I would agree, but she definitely threw honorable out the window.

She knowingly and willingly screwed a married world famous celebrity billionaire to get on his TV show, then, once he is President she revealed the affair to the world as a way to make money for herself. Talk about scumbags - they both are.

And not being on the show does this count as another instance of Trump not paying his debts? No true job creator ever pays anyone after all.