What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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.

Stormy Daniels scandal thread (3 Viewers)

Banger said:
who knows...I wouldn't go too crazy on that aspect until there's more clarity / proof.  the attorney was very vague. 
Click to expand...
Interesting that he would say it at all. 

I’ve discounted this story thus far because there was no “MeToo” aspect; it was more like Gennifer Flowers than anything else. But if a threat was involved it becomes Juanita territory, and much more serious...

 
The Future Champs said:
Look dude, we're not disagreeing with the personal flaws and faults, but those were completely obvious during the 2016 election, and he still ended up POTUS.   The Russian collaboration/spy/traitor/manchurian candidate stuff is almost a Hail Mary by the opposition b/c we think it might be the only thing that brings this POS down.  We fully know we haven't seen any proof of collaboration.  There might not be any, despite the obvious overwhelming circumstantial evidence.   Trump's avoidance of emails might serve him well here, as his underlings might be left to take the fall.  We do hope, at the very least, that the Mueller investigation will produce charges against someone close enough to Trump (i.e. Kushner) that increased pressure is brought to bear on Trump, and he responds in his trademark stupid and oblivious manner, and in doing so he mortally damages his presidency.  

Finally, regarding the "whack job Russian collaboration" BS you spout, realize how far the goalposts have moved in a year, and we haven't even seen the results of someone close to Trump flipping, yet.   A year ago the Trump supporters were all laughing about the supposed ties to Russia.  Fast forward to now, and they've retreated to arguing that the ties don't prove collusion.   Aren't you in the least bit curious what another year of investigation will bring?
Click to expand...
I haven't seen the goalposts move an inch on the collaboration front.  Not an inch.  I have always said I could see the investigation leading to other charges associated with Trump business deals.... but we are well past stupid on the Trump as a traitor tactic.  It has become a partisan political game, which is a huge fail for us on two fronts: 1) It will not be linked to Trump in any actionable way (waste of time) and 2) we are for focused on Trump as the bad guy when it comes to the Russian meddling instead of.... Russia.  If somehow I am wrong  on #1 (no reason to imagine this right now), I will gladly be wrong.

This (Stormy) could actually accomplish something.  It is real, and actually related directly to Trump.  Every one of us can see how he and his lawyers screwed up.  We also know how legitimate this course is from Trump's utter silence regarding it.  He is trying to wait out this hush money issue.  Silent as a mouse.  This is fear.

Trump is happy to keep y'all chasing your tails on the Russia garbage.  I bet he tweeted another chunk of bait this morning.  He is flipping the script on Obama not* releasing his birth certificate to keep the Right frothing at the mouth over it.  Same game.

 
timschochet said:
Interesting that he would say it at all. 

I’ve discounted this story thus far because there was no “MeToo” aspect; it was more like Gennifer Flowers than anything else. But if a threat was involved it becomes Juanita territory, and much more serious...
Click to expand...
Juanita Applebum?

 
matuski said:
I haven't seen the goalposts move an inch on the collaboration front.  Not an inch.  
Click to expand...
I stopped right here. You seem like a bright guy, but how you could write this with revelations coming out on a daily basis is pretty stunning to me. It takes away all of your credibility. 

 
matuski said:
Trump is happy to keep y'all chasing your tails on the Russia garbage.  I bet he tweeted another chunk of bait this morning.  He is flipping the script on Obama not* releasing his birth certificate to keep the Right frothing at the mouth over it.  Same game.
Click to expand...
ROFL.  yeah, you can tell by the firing of Comey, furiousness at Sessions for recusing himself, and desire to fire Mueller that he's just tickled pink about the Russia investigation.  :lmao:

 
JuniorNB said:
ROFL.  yeah, you can tell by the firing of Comey, furiousness at Sessions for recusing himself, and desire to fire Mueller that he's just tickled pink about the Russia investigation.  :lmao:
Click to expand...
which has now spread inside the Trump Organization (which he warned against investigating..likely for good reason)...everyone can clearly see how stable he's been lately...he's clearly unconcerned.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
First of all thanks for a great, well written post. I think you have fleshed it out. This is the point of the And/Or. I have a question on this - isn’t this also the real cause/consideration for the contract? A shell company that has no members except a lawyer, does nothing else in real life, has had no damages and received no benefit, and yet it seeks to enforce this contract while denying that the person who gets all the benefits had any role. Can something like this stand?
Click to expand...
I dont know, seems like a similar setup as to folks who win big lottery payouts and then setup llc's to collect the money so they can maintain personal anonymity.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
First of all thanks for a great, well written post. I think you have fleshed it out. This is the point of the And/Or. I have a question on this - isn’t this also the real cause/consideration for the contract? A shell company that has no members except a lawyer, does nothing else in real life, has had no damages and received no benefit, and yet it seeks to enforce this contract while denying that the person who gets all the benefits had no role. Can something like this stand?
Click to expand...
Trump could be a third party beneficiary of the NDA, meaning that the benefit of Stormy's confidentiality flows to him.  A third party beneficiary must be intended at the time the agreement was entered into, so Trump would have to at least be identified as such.  Trump then wouldn't actually be a party to the NDA, but nevertheless benefits from it.  But other parts of the NDA indicate he was a party to the NDA: the and/or stuff mentioned above, and the point that Stormy's lawyer is making that the NDA requires Trump to sign it to be valid.  This aligns with your point about consideration.  In the agreement, Trump (specifically, "DD") releases Stormy from any claims she may have against him (and DD also makes representations and warranties to Stormy as well).  In order for Stormy to get that release from Trump, Trump has to sign, which makes him a party.  On this point, I'd also reference the section about ex parte injunctive relief (the "secret abritrator") on this point.  That provision says that "DD" can get an ex parte injunction, not that the LLC can do so, and not (as the arbitrator ruled) that any ex parte injunction against Stormy is contemplated by the agreement. 

I have no idea if something like this can stand.  In any normal scenario not involving Trump, the party that wants to enforce the NDA would just give the signature page to his/her client, ask them to sign, and then tell Stormy's lawyer: "look, it was signed by everybody, so it is valid, so be quiet."  But doing so here admits that Trump is a party to an NDA with a porn star.  A bit of a catch-22 for Trump and one that Stormy's lawyer is exploiting.  That is why this NDA is such a dumpster fire.  Who is going to respond to Stormy's complaint and how?  That such a fundamental issue is so unresolved is problematic.    

 
The Indestructible said:
Trump could be a third party beneficiary of the NDA, meaning that the benefit of Stormy's confidentiality flows to him.  A third party beneficiary must be intended at the time the agreement was entered into, so Trump would have to at least be identified as such.  Trump then wouldn't actually be a party to the NDA, but nevertheless benefits from it.  But other parts of the NDA indicate he was a party to the NDA: the and/or stuff mentioned above, and the point that Stormy's lawyer is making that the NDA requires Trump to sign it to be valid.  This aligns with your point about consideration.  In the agreement, Trump (specifically, "DD") releases Stormy from any claims she may have against him (and DD also makes representations and warranties to Stormy as well).  In order for Stormy to get that release from Trump, Trump has to sign, which makes him a party.  On this point, I'd also reference the section about ex parte injunctive relief (the "secret abritrator") on this point.  That provision says that "DD" can get an ex parte injunction, not that the LLC can do so, and not (as the arbitrator ruled) that any ex parte injunction against Stormy is contemplated by the agreement. 

I have no idea if something like this can stand.  In any normal scenario not involving Trump, the party that wants to enforce the NDA would just give the signature page to his/her client, ask them to sign, and then tell Stormy's lawyer: "look, it was signed by everybody, so it is valid, so be quiet."  But doing so here admits that Trump is a party to an NDA with a porn star.  A bit of a catch-22 for Trump and one that Stormy's lawyer is exploiting.  That is why this NDA is such a dumpster fire.  Who is going to respond to Stormy's complaint and how?  That such a fundamental issue is so unresolved is problematic.    
Click to expand...
:lmao:  It's funny cause its true and I'm sure Cohen et al did it 100s of times with Trump

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dutch said:
I dont know, seems like a similar setup as to folks who win big lottery payouts and then setup llc's to collect the money so they can maintain personal anonymity.  
Click to expand...
Trump could have entered into an NDA directly with Stormy that would (as most NDAs do) prohibit the disclosure of confidential information, which includes the existence of the NDA itself.  NDAs are private agreements between the parties and are not publicly available.  In contrast, the identities of lottery winners are public record.

 
The Indestructible said:
and the point that Stormy's lawyer is making that the NDA requires Trump to sign it to be valid.
Click to expand...
I am not following the legal arguments made in this case - but this still has me scratching my head.  

Generally speaking a contract has to be signed by the party against whom you want to enforce the provisions.  I don't know what makes an NDA any different in that regard.  Trump's signature is really irrelevant, in my mind anyway, since the money was clearly paid - thus Trump has fulfilled his obligations under the Agreement.

 
If Mueller would have hired Matuski onto his team to dissect fact from fiction, we'd have this whole witch-hunt wrapped up by now.  

 
Sinn Fein said:
Generally speaking a contract has to be signed by the party against whom you want to enforce the provisions.
Click to expand...
If you want to enforce a contract against someone, you have to show that he agreed to it. For a written contract, the normal way to show he agreed to it is by pointing to his signature ... but there are other conceivable ways.

In any case, I don’t think anyone is trying to enforce the agreement against Trump.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Zow
timschochet said:
I stopped right here. You seem like a bright guy, but how you could write this with revelations coming out on a daily basis is pretty stunning to me. It takes away all of your credibility. 
Click to expand...
Every revelation I see points to Russia.  Not a single revelation I have seen sticks to Trump.  It is a daily chumming of the waters for the sheep.

Unless you have something credible and actionable against Trump, my credibility stands (not that I give a rats ### about my credibility on message boards).  Despite that thread that has become nothing but an echo chamber reinforcing each other's latest nonsense.. there is nothing more today than a year ago that you can tie to Trump regarding collusion with Russia.

Guilt by association is about the strongest argument that will come from this... and nobody needed a year+ investigation to play that game.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinn Fein said:
I am not following the legal arguments made in this case - but this still has me scratching my head.  

Generally speaking a contract has to be signed by the party against whom you want to enforce the provisions.  I don't know what makes an NDA any different in that regard.  Trump's signature is really irrelevant, in my mind anyway, since the money was clearly paid - thus Trump has fulfilled his obligations under the Agreement.
Click to expand...
Some good analysis here: link

Stormy was supposed to get a release of claims from Trump under the agreement.  If Trump didn't sign, did she get that benefit?

Also, 8.6 says that each party represents and warrants that the agreement, "when signed by all Parties, is a valid and binding agreement..."  There is a signature line for Trump.  Trump is identified in several instances as a party.  So he is a party to an agreement that by its terms is valid only when signed by all parties.  Also, your language above - "Trump has fulfilled his obligations under the Agreement" - would mean that Trump is a party to the NDA, as an agreement cannot impose obligations on non-parties.  

You could definitely argue that there was a contract by performance because Stormy got paid.  But what are the terms of that contract?  Who are the parties?  What did those parties intend?  Cohen/Trump's attorney could show up in court and make the statement "Stormy got paid, so the NDA is enforceable," but I have no idea how they'd answer any reasonable follow up questions from a judge.  For example, if Stormy says "I intended to enter into a contract with Trump and the LLC" and Trump/LLC say "the parties did not intend Trump to be a party to the agreement," then we may not even have a meeting of the minds sufficient to form a contract.      

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
If you want to enforce a contract against someone, you have to show that he agreed to it. For a written contract, the normal way to show he agreed to it is by pointing to his signature ... but there are other conceivable ways.

In any case, I don’t think anyone is trying to enforce the agreement against Trump.
Click to expand...
Yes - I agree here - the money paid is sufficient to show that the other party agreed to the terms of the agreement.

I just was not following how Stormy's attorney was trying to use a lack of Trump's signature as a basis to invalidate the agreement.  His signature seems irrelevant to me - but I have not seen the agreement, nor followed the legal wrangling in the case.

 
I don't think the lack of signature, per se, is the best argument.  I do think that Daniels has a decent argument for rescission and possibly that Cohen breached, though.  I probably would have returned the money when I filed the DJ just to make that argument stronger.

First, it seems to me that the contract could very well be void for illegality.  Whether done with the knowledge of Trump or the campaign or solely by Cohen, I think the payment violates campaign finance laws either way.  Courts shouldn't enforce illegal agreements.

The relationship between Cohen and the lawyer who initially represented Clifford concerns me.  The contract is so one-sided as to approach unconscionability.  It's hard not to suspect that her initial lawyer (Davidson?) wasn't serving Trump Org/Cohen more than Clifford.  I don't know if it makes the contract unconscionable as a matter of law, but I suspect that Clifford could possibly assert a malpractice action that might insulate her from some contract damages.

The agreement specifies that neither party is to hear from the other party.  If the "threats" that Clifford is now hinting about were related to Cohen's coercive attempts to get her to sigh the statement when the agreement became public, I think Cohen than breached the agreement.  In addition to the DJ action, I probably would have sent a termination letter as well to Cohen at that time based on that breach.  Trump's failure to sign is also possibly a breach as he was obligated to release those claims.  

I do think that if they can show that Trump never intended to sign (because he wanted plausible deniability), then that can be used as evidence that he never intended to be bound and that an implied contract never formed.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The idea that a man would take out money on a home equity loan, pay interest on it, and risk disbarment, to silence the claims of a billionaire's affair when that woman is lying about it, never crossed my mind, but yeah if he did that it would make a lot of sense to sort of passively aggressively follow orders on it until it went off a cliff.
Click to expand...
Cohen's not that smart.

 
NREC34 said:
Sez who?

He is number one on my list of guys I’ll take pleasure in seeing go to jail besides Trump. 




 
Click to expand...
He's violated some canons of professional responsibility, but I have to admit that I don't know if a NY State Bar action could be filed if his client (Trump/Trump Org) was not inclined to file it.  

 
One possible law that Cohen may have broken is the one that Mueller is charging people with in the Russia probe.  Conspiracy against the United States.   They'd have to show another party aware of the financial maneuvers, but if Cohen and another agreed to do this in order to evade FEC oversight of financial contributions to Trump or the campaign, then it's the same as the creation of fake US citizens that the Russian troll farms used to try to evade FEC oversight.  

 
Yenrub said:
The tweet says “why would he want you (Stormy) when he has Ivanka?”

Isn’t Ivanka his daughter?
Click to expand...
Yes. That's what makes it funny.  In reality, as far as anyone knows, he hasn't successfully 'gotten' her yet, despite years of trying. 

 
JuniorNB said:
Yes. That's what makes it funny.  In reality, as far as anyone knows, he hasn't successfully 'gotten' her yet, despite years of trying. 
Click to expand...
this is apparently what Trump said Stormy (was reported in an interview)

 "He told me once that I was someone to be reckoned with, beautiful, smart, just like his daughter."

At the time of the alleged encounter, Ivanka Trump, Trump's eldest daughter, would have been 24 years old. Clifford would have been 26.

:X :yucky:

 
Banger said:
this is apparently what Trump said Stormy (was reported in an interview)

 "He told me once that I was someone to be reckoned with, beautiful, smart, just like his daughter."

At the time of the alleged encounter, Ivanka Trump, Trump's eldest daughter, would have been 24 years old. Clifford would have been 26.

:X :yucky:
Click to expand...
I just want to know if he was actually 'inside the Storm' when he said this to her. 

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
I don't think the lack of signature, per se, is the best argument.  I do think that Daniels has a decent argument for rescission and possibly that Cohen breached, though.  I probably would have returned the money when I filed the DJ just to make that argument stronger.

First, it seems to me that the contract could very well be void for illegality.  Whether done with the knowledge of Trump or the campaign or solely by Cohen, I think the payment violates campaign finance laws either way.  Courts shouldn't enforce illegal agreements.

The relationship between Cohen and the lawyer who initially represented Clifford concerns me.  The contract is so one-sided as to approach unconscionability.  It's hard not to suspect that her initial lawyer (Davidson?) wasn't serving Trump Org/Cohen more than Clifford.  I don't know if it makes the contract unconscionable as a matter of law, but I suspect that Clifford could possibly assert a malpractice action that might insulate her from some contract damages.

The agreement specifies that neither party is to hear from the other party.  If the "threats" that Clifford is now hinting about were related to Cohen's coercive attempts to get her to sigh the statement when the agreement became public, I think Cohen than breached the agreement.  In addition to the DJ action, I probably would have sent a termination letter as well to Cohen at that time based on that breach.  Trump's failure to sign is also possibly a breach as he was obligated to release those claims.  

I do think that if they can show that Trump never intended to sign (because he wanted plausible deniability), then that can be used as evidence that he never intended to be bound and that an implied contract never formed.  
Click to expand...
I very much agree with the first bolded point.  

The second bolded point is a good idea that I hadn't much heard about or considered.  I suspect that the LLC in this case would be ripe for a piercing the veil theory, but had a hard time coming up with a cause of action that Daniels would have against the LLC for damages (and hadn't released).  Maybe there is something there?

 
The Indestructible said:
I very much agree with the first bolded point.  

The second bolded point is a good idea that I hadn't much heard about or considered.  I suspect that the LLC in this case would be ripe for a piercing the veil theory, but had a hard time coming up with a cause of action that Daniels would have against the LLC for damages (and hadn't released).  Maybe there is something there?
Click to expand...
It's not surprising that they haven't pleaded breach because any such claim would need to be before the arbitrator (if you're going to affirm the contract, then the arbitration clause goes with it).  Because the arbitrator is probably in the tank for Cohen, this is probably moot, but in a normal contract action, I do think there would be a strong argument because the mutual promises of no further contact were identified as an essential purpose of the contract and a material breach can excuse future performance.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NajehHejan
Massive Ticketmaster Class Action
Replies
0
Views
543
NajehHejan
NajehHejan
Hipple Long Ware & Peete
WIRED: 9 reasons to wear a tinfoilhat
Replies
20
Views
2K
Sinn Fein
S
Hipple Long Ware & Peete
FWIW The NSA IS READING/SAVING ur emails/calls/texts etc
2
Replies
62
Views
3K
kevzilla
kevzilla

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top