Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I’d just like to go on record and say I care. I don’t thinks it too much to ask of the POTUS. And this goes for all of them - JFK, Clinton, Trump - and any future one. It’s not in the top 50 list of things I’m asking for but I don’t like the fact that so many people just so easily dismiss it.
Because they want this story over with, and they figure it’s not hurting Trump?
If they concede that Trump wasn't a party to the agreement, then they may be more comfortable with the consequences that the NDA isn't valid (i.e., Stormy can disclose whatever pics/texts she has) than the alternative, which would involve Trump being deposed.
I care about the sex mostly because of the way the right used a BJ to try to turn Bill Clinton into public enemy #1 20 years ago and still obsess on it today. This (these) sex scandals by Trump are a fascinating example of blatant hypocritical partisan hacksmanship. The most horrid thing a person could do (according the Fox News and it's viewers) has suddenly become 'we didn't vote for him to be Mother Theresa'. That's why I care about the sex. It's exposing the right once again.
Same thing was true when he was recruiting my wife and I to join his Temple.
Double hot.Same thing was true when he was recruiting my wife and I to join his Temple.
True story.
Pretty hot hot wife though
Well, mine was hot too.
Sorry to hear that. Going through the process can be very difficult. There is life on the far side. Be assured, there is a good life once you have passed through.Koya said:Well, mine was hot too.
At the time.
I meant pretty hot. Also, soon to be EX wife - mine at least :nomarriage.com:
If they adopt this argument in the actual litigation, one potential result is that Trump can argue that there is no need for Avenatti to depose him.BigSteelThrill said:
The argument, I assume, is that Trump is a named third-party beneficiary of the contract. The problem with that argument is that the contract imposed obligations on Trump (release of certain claims and an obligation to refrain from further contact). So read in context, either Tump is meant to be a party or Cohen, acting though the LLC was vested with the authority to bind Trump. There's really no way to read the contract where Trump could have been unaware of it yet still have the power to enforce it.BigSteelThrill said:
I would prefer that our colleagues at the bar would conduct themselves with a bit more decorum. I believe this reflects negatively on the profession. His self-promotion, his aggrandizement of his ego creates misperceptions in the consumer as to what services they can expect us to provide and the manner in which we can be expected to provide them. If we as a profession start acting like carnival barkers we can expect to get paid like them and to garner the same respect as they get.
That's not all it requires of him.
The implication of that clause is that Trump won't do what David Letterman did. If Daniels had contacted Trump and said "pay me $$$$ or I will tell the press/your wife about our night together," Trump could, if he was prepared for the fallout, ask the authorities to prosecute her for blackmail.
Wouldn't this threat be a reason why Stormy felt compelled to sign the contract? On 60 Minutes she said she had better offers IIRC.
I guess what this means is that Stormy and Cohen both have to jump the usual hoops of starting a case, this time in federal court, before the judge will do anything. So, wait.
In New York, if Stormy Daniels obtained property because she threatened to "[e]xpose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject [Donald Trump] to hatred, contempt or ridicule" she would be guilty of Larceny by Extortion in the Second Degree (the value of the property is greater than $50,000 but less than $1 million). That's a Class C felony.
I think this is a threat which makes sense, more sense, than the other one Stormy raised, the guy approaching her in the parking lot.
Appreciate the kind words... there are worse place to be as a single middle aged dude than Dallas, that's for sure. Plenty of 25-40 year old talent.
Right, how this came to Cohen's attention matters. If Cohen hears through the grapevine that she's shopping the story, and then approaches her, there's no extortion unless he then threatens to call the cops in the first instance (and then he's extorting her).
Yes, Section 4.3 is really sloppy. The repeated subnumerals are only likely to be a problem if another part of the contract refers to 4.3(b)(ii), for example, and it is unclear what that refers to. But the subnumerals are in different sentences, which helps to distinguish them. I've seen a lot of contracts that use the same poor subnumeral approach. Usually you just add a new subsection or use (x),
, or (z) or something like that.
could Cohen have a Power of Attorney agreement with DJT? as i understand it, he could then act without the direct or explicit consent of DJT in certain matters. it's a stretch but still...
It would have to be a pretty broad power of attorney. And I think the agreement would have to give the LLC the power of attorney. Cohen signed on behalf of the LLC, not Trump. I think there's a "no presumption against the drafter" clause in the agreement (I'm too lazy to check again). But in the absence of that this is a case where we should assume that the guy who drafted the contract did so for a reason and ambiguities should be construed against him. Schwartz's point that Cohen drafted with the "option" to have Trump sign is ridiculous. If you put something in the contract, it is presumed to mean something under the canons of interpretation.
I will say that it's a bit weird for him to trumpet a judge's order that:
He's obviously extremely smart, hard working and has had great success - no doubt about that. This type of lawyer is a nightmare to be up against. That said, I think his hard-charging style may have done him and his client a disservice here. His motion was premature, and his attack is completely deflated at this point. Further, the Cohen/DJT side now have somewhat of a roadmap, and about a week or so to figure out how they want to approach this. They can now use the Court's ruling to structure their responsive pleading to avoid having to provide discovery and potentially avoid a jury trial altogether.
If Avenatti had waited until Cohen had responded and sought to compel arbitration, its likely they would have left Avenatti some good reasons to get what he wants, which is a chance to depose the president and put him on the stand in front of a California jury. There's probably no amount of money that would stop that from happening once a court has asked for it.
Yes, and also the footnote that the court is busy and doesn't really do expedited stuff.
I agree with this. Avenatti deposing Trump is the would be the big win. I could see a path where Trump's deposition is not needed to determine whether the NDA is valid, which wouldn't be great for Avenatti.
Can't threaten criminal prosecution to gain advantage in a civil matter. I have very little question in my mind that Cohen has done this repeatedly in his career working for Trump.Yes, Section 4.3 is really sloppy. The repeated subnumerals are only likely to be a problem if another part of the contract refers to 4.3(b)(ii), for example, and it is unclear what that refers to. But the subnumerals are in different sentences, which helps to distinguish them. I've seen a lot of contracts that use the same poor subnumeral approach. Usually you just add a new subsection or use (x),
That section is also sloppy in how it refers to PP. (Say that sentence out loud!) Stuff like "any of PP" and "the respective member of PP" and "any of "PP's name." The language was originally intended for an LLC and then modified for PP.
I think there is an ethical rule about how you can and cannot use the threat of prosecution (i.e., going to the police). I also don't think this agreement was supposed to see the light of day, but was instead meant to dissuade Stormy, upon consulting with an attorney, from ever talking about anything.
Employee quits and takes a bunch of company data. Former employer sues in civil court for the return of the data and to recover damages. You can’t threaten to call the police and file a report if the former employee doesn’t agree to pay damages in the civil case.
