Stormy's attorney pounces after idiot makes statement: VIDEO UPDATE

[Kingofalldems]

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[BigmanPigman]

1. Oh Happy Days!

The Fucking Moron did it to himself! Perfect!

[Cha]

28. What did the fucking moron say, BP?

I'd rather hear it from you than him.

[Maraya1969]

42. He said he had no knowledge of the NDA. So he just made it null and void.

[Cha]

66. Hehe HaHa!

Mahalo, Maraya

[Maraya1969]

74. Mahalo Cha!

[BigmanPigman]

50. Whoever his attorney is should invest in a gallon of Crazy Glue

and 100 yards of duct tape. And that is just for his hair and dentures! His running mouth will require much, much more!

[Cha]

67. LOLololololololol

Rofl I needed a good laugh.. Mahalo, BP!

[pangaia]

51. I'm glad people are finally using MY name for the fucking moron.

[BigmanPigman]

52. You should've copyrighted it and then sued Tillerson.

He can afford it. At first I thought you meant Pangia I was going to write, "That has been used before you you used it on DU".

[pangaia]

53. Lolo

Story of my life...

[dameatball]

2. Judging from the size of his hands she may not really know if they had sex or not.

[Cracklin Charlie]

5. Total spew!

New keyboard, please!

[iluvtennis]

45. LMBO

[malaise]

3. See #6

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210454240

[raven mad]

35. .....

"Tube Snake Boogie, indeed......
😘😁😁😘

[malaise]

37. You have to wonder if the Con ever thinks of consequences

He's a complete moron.

[raven mad]

38. Nah. His puppetmasters wouldn't dare even try to explain!

He'd surely have to hold a press conference to - ahem - prove he has no shortcomings.....


😇

[erronis]

69. It has fascinated me how some posts bubble up while others with same info

are less upvoted.

There is the presentation factor - pretty pictures/graphics/tweets seem to be important.
Probably also the time of day and other events happening simultaneously.

Anyhoo, here's mine for yours!

[malaise]

83. As long as DUers get the latest news, it's fine

and thanks

[Demovictory9]

4. !!

[Leghorn21]

6. *#Thanks for playing*!!!!

OMG!

Oh man, Spanky just needs to take a few questions from the press every couple days, he just...he just HAS to answer, he can’t stop, he can’t think, he can’t filter...

Just

[mountain grammy]

55. He can't help himself, he's dumb..

just dumb..

[BobTheSubgenius]

7. For about the 100th time...

...you just can't make this shit up.

[Cha]

29. I know.. we're living this fucking

real nightmare.

[Pluvious]

72. He is a cartoon character, and...

...We're living in a cartoon reality show.

[htuttle]

8. Plus, his lawyer committed a disbarrable offense

Possibly criminal.

[green917]

77. I put it like this when i heard 45's comments

He just ended his case and Michael Cohen's legal career.

It is surreal beyond imagining and incredibly frightening that we have someone this vapid sitting at the resolute desk.

[spooky3]

9. Hey DU lawyers--is it possible for a client to have given permission or power of attorney

to an attorney, and that enables the attorney to make a binding contract without the client's knowledge? I assume the answer is "no" and that the client has to have knowledge for it to be binding. But I wanted to ask the experts.

[pnwmom]

21. You don't have to be an attorney to know that an attorney cannot make valid

ASSURANCES as part of the CONSIDERATION of a contract for a client who doesn't know about the assurances and never agreed to give them.

[grantcart]

23. pnwmom is not an attorney. But she did stay in a Holiday Inn express last night, sounds right to me

[pnwmom]

30. Multiple attorneys have written about why you can't make promises on behalf of someone

who has no knowledge of the promises. But it doesn't require a legal background to understand that. Just basic intelligence.

But in the case of the Stormy Daniels contract, Cohen left the signature line of DD blank. He didn't sign on his client's behalf and he has never claimed there is another copy of the contract that he or Trump DID sign.

[LanternWaste]

78. I especially enjoyed how you adhered to the question with as much relevance as you are in fact, capa

I especially enjoyed how you adhered to the question with as much relevance as you are in fact, capable of. No snark, no sarcasm... just well-cited and objective evidence to further the discussion rather than reducing your character to that of a petulant child seeing someone else getting a hug. Nice job, little guy!

[grantcart]

85. Your reading skills continue to diminish

The character in the Holiday Inn never is a professional in the area they are performing but do appear to be as well trained, the lack of a degree made up by the superior rest of HI.

And if you didn't get the compliment I added "sounds right to me" to ensure that my agreement, now stated explicitly couldn't be missed, and yet you did.

[unblock]

24. the devil is always in the details.

donnie could have given cohen power of attorney and a budget for hush money payments/contracts and told him not to tell him about the details.

[spooky3]

57. Thanks nt

[Girard442]

58. If Cohen once held power of attorney for Trump and still does...

...could he sign Trump's resignation??

[unblock]

61. Haha!

Sadly I'm sure it's a *limited* power of attorney, even if he could be convinced to do something like that.

[Blue_true]

62. Transfer of power requires some form of notification.

When a person gives another power of attorney, some form of documentation must exist so that third parties who think that they are dealing with the principle know that power of attorney has been transferred. I have dealt with that in business a few times, typically it is in the form of a letter from the principle that mentions the person having POA and the range of the POA, and the letter is signed by the principle.

Things get tricky for Trump if he or Cohen says that a POA notification was delivered to Daniel's former attorney. Her current attorney can demand delivery of the original notification to the Court.

[unblock]

63. donnie may or may not have given cohen a limited poa, and the document may or may not be unsigned

if the argument is that cohen had a poa to execute the document on donnie's behalf, then it should not have had a blank signature line for donnie. cohen should have signed there on his behalf.

that said, cohen or donnie may yet be able to produce a signed version. stormy's ability to produce an unsigned version does little to prove there isn't a signed version around somewhere.

in truth, leaving it unsigned (or at least not distributing a signed version) for the sake of deniability and leaving him the option to sign it later sounds very trumpian.


in any event, donnie has to step up and fess up to being a party to the contract if he wants to assert any rights under it.

[jberryhill]

64. Trump is not asserting any rights under the contract

in any event, donnie has to step up and fess up to being a party to the contract if he wants to assert any rights under it

He hasn't asserted any rights under the contract.

It's mind boggling how these discussions proceed on TV and here with little connection to the actual facts of the case.

Cohen did not sign "on behalf of Trump" and does not claim to have signed on behalf of Trump. Cohen signed as principal and attorney for Essential Consultants LLC.

[unblock]

65. I agree

It's a peculiar tripartite agreement.

the reporting is sloppy because Cohen may be Donnie's lawyer in general, but he wasn't acting in that capacity as far as the contract goes.

I've heard Donnie filing for arbitration and Donnie claiming he's due a $20 million. More sloppy reporting? Not sure if it's actually essential consultants that has those rights.

If so, what did Donnie actually get in exchange for his assurances under the contract? Any enforcement rights at all?

[jberryhill]

68. On question 2

Yes, more sloppy reporting. If you read the complaint, it’s clear that EC went to arbitration under the ex parte provisions of the agreement. That’s the arbitration award that Daniels is trying to get out from under. Odds are that Judge Otero sends it back to arbitration, since the crux of the complaint is not to the arbitration clause specifically, but to the contract as a whole.

Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna 546 U.S. 440 (2006) is worth a read on the distinction between a challenge to the contract as voidable vs. a challenge to the arbitration clause alone. And, yes, whether EC is a proper party to the arbitration is a matter itself fit for arbitration.

It’s not as if any of this is “normal”. The television commentary is frequently dreadful, though, as it is sometimes obvious that the talking heads haven’t actually looked at the filings.

The over dramatization is kind of annoying. The worst case outcome for Cohen is he gets his 130k back and Daniels is free to talk about her consensual sexual encounter with Trump in 2005.

For example, help me out here: the prevailing logic is that if Trump didn’t know about the agreement, then it is not enforcible (leaving out that EC is also a party). So, Trump answers a public question which is interpreted as him denying knowledge of the agreement. Okay, so, if he sticks with that position then it’s a win for Avenatti, under Avenatti’s theory of the case. But, after Trump makes that statement, Avenatti tweets to the effect that he’s going to make Trump prove he didn’t know. W.T.F. for? If the other side makes an admission that wins your case, you don’t say, “Well, I look forward to seeing him try to prove THAT!”

If you buy into that paradigm, then it’s like the bank robber confessing to the police “yeah I robbed the bank” and the police coming back with “well you’re going to have to prove that in court!” What does Avenatti want to prove by challenging Trump’s professed ignorance? Does he want to prove that Trump DID know of and authorize the agreement, despite the lack of formal execution?

[Blue_true]

71. Could it be that Daniels and her attorney want to publicly humiliate Trump

and maybe get Mueller involved. If they get Trump to validate that he knew about the agreement, then the issue becomes the $130,000 payment, who it really came from and what funds were used, and whether the funds were used to decieve voters. The last issue does hold peril for Trump and has the potential of making Daniels a rich woman. Daniels is not the Linda Tripp type figure, hateful and unsympathetic, so far Daniels is playing this well.

[jberryhill]

73. I dont see the point

The campaign finance issue is already the subject of DOJ and FEC complaints filed by Common Cause back in January which nobody at DU gives a flying frogs fart about.

In the context of this civil suit, I don’t see the payday in there which you mention. Daniels is not disputing that she got paid the 130k under the contract, so where it came from is not an issue in the case.

If I got paid $10 by Jim to paint your fence, and I don’t paint your fence on the grounds that the contract was invalid because you didn’t know about it, then how Jim got the $10 to me is neither here nor there.

Daniels isn’t disputing that she got paid, and she’s not claiming the contract is invalid by some mechanism of how she got paid. If she wants to claim that she received an illegal payment, she can do that, but it has no bearing on the merits of the contract claim.

[Blue_true]

76. I wasn't saying that the payment to Daniels was illegal to her,

or that she hasn't acknowledged taking the money.

The issue that I raised was the money itself, the base motive for that payment and any relationship that payment had in preventing disclosure of the alleged sex with a pornstar to the American voting public. None of us know what would have happened had the information come out two weeks before the election, maybe it would have made no difference, maybe it would have made a big negative difference for Trump. Following the money, if people close to Trump or Trump himself percieved disclosure of the information as damaging and used the money to squash the possibility of disclosure, then the money and where it came from becomes a criminal issue because of the possibility that campaign finance laws were violated. George Steinbrenner was criminally convicted of a campaign finance crime in the seventies, if Trump was involved in the circulation of the $130,000, and to be frank in the absence of solid evidence, that is speculative, then he would have two points of criminal liability risk;
1. A criminal violation of campaign finance laws.

2. If he lies about his involvement in #1 to prevent discovery by Mueller that the money was indeed used to influence the outcome of the election, or that was the intent of the act of paying it, then he could be alleged to have obstructed justice.

Nixon did not go down for the Wateegate breakin and given the evidence, it was a little iffy if he could have been impeached for the breakin, but whether he was involved in planning or authorizing the breakin, or later found out when things hit the fan, his attempts to coverup the reality of the breakin and obstruct the investigation into the breakin, is what brought him down.

[jberryhill]

79. Yeah, that's all interesting stuff

Last edited Fri Apr 6, 2018, 04:07 PM - Edit history (1)

...but not relevant to the claims of this suit. THAT she got paid - the fact of the payment - is not in dispute by either side.

As far as the broader implications of how the money might have found its way to where it ended up, I think anyone with a pulse understands that there was something screwy going on, no matter how one tries to explain it. I agree that's all "heads you lose, tails I win" for Trump and Cohen on other fronts, but not in a way that leads to this suit being a vehicle for discovery of those details, because they are ultimately not relevant.

Cohen's brief is pretty clear that they are going to concede that Trump didn't sign, authorize, approve, know of, etc. the agreement or the payment. On that factual issue, they appear to be willing to completely concede the point, and they are hanging their hat on whatever the implications of "and/or" might be. Cohen seems to be making the argument that "and/or" rendered them completely interchangeable. The whole issue about "but Cohen couldn't make assurances of non-suit by Trump" is something of a red herring in that regard, because it's not as if he has pressed any hypothetical claims against her anyway.

In other I say to you, "If you paint my fence, I will pay you ten dollars and I will also guarantee you protection from rabid unicorns." You go ahead and take my ten dollars and go home. You don't paint my fence. When I try to get my ten dollars back, you can't say, "Unicorns don't exist, so the contract is invalid." Terms in contracts are severable. Just because I could not guarantee you protection from unicorns does not mean that you aren't obligated to give me back the ten dollars or else paint my fence.

Yes, unicorns don't exist. I did not have the ability to guarantee you protection from rabid unicorns. However, the part about painting the fence for ten dollars remains enforceable. At the end of the day, you have not in fact been attacked by any rabid unicorns, so it doesn't matter if I could guarantee you protection from them or not. What remains is you got ten dollars and my fence isn't painted.

[Blue_true]

88. Do you remember how Bill Clinton got into position to be impeached?

The blue dress with the cum stain was supposed to be produced as evidence in a civil suit. Lewinsky refused to produce the dress. Ken Starr entered and asked Clinton questions about the affair and Clinton lied to Starr and prosecutors. Clinton was taken down by proceedings from a civil suit.

If Mueller ask Trump about whether he knew about paying Daniels and Trump lies, Mueller has him in the same way that Starr got Clinton, but Trump faces even greater risk if the money was somehow campaign money, either from Trump's campaign funds, or given by his attorney, or anyone else. If Trump knew nothing at all about the money, then he skates and Cohen gets hammered, but to believe Trump was not involved, you have to believe that he was somehow honest.

As far as the civil case, the strategy of the Daniels team seem to make things bad enough for Cohen and/or Trump that one or both just drops everything and give her what she wants. But the Cohen side just walking away potentially opens a worse can of worms for them.

You questioned how Daniels could make money. Besides personal appearances, she could do a book about her experiences with this situation, I believe lots of people would want to read that, unfortunately.

[unblock]

75. i took avenatti's response as simply meaning "we're eager to hear you say it in court"

what parties to a case say in public often differs slightly if not dramatically from what they say in court, and much of it is like boxers and their promoters talking smack before a fight. there's a huge p.r. element, especially in this case, because avenatti not only wants to get stormy free to cash in, but also wants to make that cash in as lucrative as possible. don't know, but maybe he's getting a percentage of any story she can get if she can get paid for it.

i didn't take avenatti's tweet literally, i just took it as saying, fine, you're denying it now, but are you willing to perjure yourself in court to feign ignorance of the $130k? in fact, i think avenatti figures donnie will *not* perjure himself in court, that donnie's only lying in public.

i agree he should be happy if donnie's denials gets stormy out of the contract entirely, i just don't think he believes it will be so easy.

[jberryhill]

80. But the enforceability of the contract is an arbitrable issue

That's the thing. Whether a party is bound by the terms or not is a construction issue, on which Cohen seems to be hanging his hat on "and/or".

The entire issue of Donnie's knowledge or lack thereof, or the contract validity, has to get around Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardena in order to GET to court:


https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/04-1264

Facts of the case

John Cardegna signed a contract for a loan from Buckeye Check Cashing. The contract contained a clause in which Cardegna agreed to resolve any controversies over the loan through arbitration. Cardegna later sued Buckeye, claiming that the conditions for the loan stipulated by the contract were illegal. Buckeye filed a motion in Florida district court to have the case resolved by arbitration, as required by the contract. Cardegna countered that the contract as a whole was illegal and that the arbitration clause was therefore not enforceable. The court agreed and ruled for Cardegna.

On appeal, the state appeals court reversed, holding that the Federal Arbirtration Act, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, allows arbitration clauses to be enforced even if they are part of otherwise invalid contracts. The appeals court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Prima Paint Corporation v. Flood & Conklin Manufacturing Company. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed with the appeals court's use of Prima Paint, however, because the contract in that case had been merely voidable, while the contract in Cardegna's case was actually illegal. The Florida Supreme Court therefore reversed, ruling in favor of Cardegna.

Question

Under the Federal Arbitration Act, may a party avoid arbitration by arguing that the contract in which the arbitration clause is contained is illegal?

No. The 7-1 majority (Justice Samuel Alito not participating) ruled that challenges to the legality of a contract as a whole must be argued before the arbitrator rather than a court. The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia explained that "unless the challenge is to the arbitration clause itself, the issue of the contract's validity is considered by the arbitrator in the first instance." The Court held that the Florida Supreme Court had been wrong to rely on a distinction between void and merely voidable contracts, because the word "contract" in the Federal Arbitration Act includes contracts later found to be void. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented due to his long-held view that the FAA does not apply in state courts.

[unblock]

81. i'm not clear that that is his point.

whether it goes to arbitration or court, donnie's denial of knowledge of the $130k should work heavily in stormy's favor, no?

in any event i assume "considered by the arbitrator in the first instance" means that even if it has to go to the arbitrator first, the loser can appeal to the courts after?

[jberryhill]

82. It may

On your first question, again, it all wraps around back to whatever construction is made of the "and/or". By "work heavily in Stormy's favor", then you also have to remember what we're playing for. "Work heavily in Stormy's favor" = "Contract is voided, she owes Cohen $130k, and can say whatever she wants henceforth". It's not as if there are any damages on the table if she "wins".

On your second question, the odds of being able to "appeal to the courts" if one has lost an arbitration under which the arbitration clause itself was upheld, then the answer is no way Jose. That's the entire point of the Federal Arbitration Act. If a party has agreed to arbitration then, no, you don't get to "appeal to the courts" on the substance of the contract or the validity of the contract. Otherwise, there's no point to binding arbitration clauses if all they provide is one more procedural step on the way to litigation in court.

But, if it goes to arbitration, it is entirely possible for the defendants to fall on their sword and agree the contract was not valid. At this point, there is really nothing for them to "lose" under the contract claim, even if once they get into arbitration they simply concede the point. The worst result for Cohen in this suit is that he gets $130k back. From a 20,000 foot overview, Daniels accepted $130k to do something. Her argument now is that the contract was invalid. Okay, that's fine, but what is it that she received the $130k for?

Again, I pay you $10 to paint my fence. Time goes by, you don't paint my fence, and you say "we didn't have a valid contract." That's fine and dandy, but you still have my $10. You don't get to keep that by saying the contract was invalid for me getting my fence painted but not for you keeping my $10.

The only claim in the suit seeking any kind of monetary damages from the defendants is the defamation claim, which is going to be subject to a SLAPP motion, and it is going to be very tough to argue that even the phrased-as-a-hypothetical statement at issue is "defamatory" when it was in agreement with Daniels own denial at the time.

[jberryhill]

59. That question misses the point

There are two parties to the contract:

1. Essential Consultants Llc (Cohen's company) "and/or" Trump, and

2. Daniels

The "and/or" in defining the first party is something of a legal Rorschach test, as it is a truly pathetic piece of drafting. But in any event, Cohen signed as the principal of Essential Consultants Ltd., and as attorney for Essential Consultants Ltd.. Cohen did not sign the agreement on behalf of Trump or as Trumps agent (with the caveat that we do not know the ownership details of Essential Consultants Llc.).

It's not relevant to the current procedural posture of the case whether Trump knew of the agreement or not. Cohen's recently-filed motion to compel arbitration essential renders Trump a third party beneficiary, and argues that the "and/or" renders EC and Trump to be interchangeable. There are some problems with that, but they are not necessarily incurable.

Here's that brief which, unlike tweets and things people say on TV, is actually before the court and awaiting Avenatti's response:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4429429/4-2-18-Essential-Consultant-Motion-to-Compel.pdf

[spooky3]

60. Thank you nt

[wishstar]

10. He just told Ari Melber that he is ecstatic over Trump's remarks

He says that if Trump knew nothing about the payment or the agreement, then there is no valid agreement between Stormy and Trump and Trump having entered into agreement to sue her for disclosure is nonsense. Says Trump has thrown Cohen under the bus.

[Kingofalldems]

12. Posted the video, thanks.

[Achilleaze]

11. republican family-values role model Dirty Donny* just stuck his stubby in the wringer

* aka republican Draft-Dodger-in-Chief

[lunatica]

46. Your turn of phrase just tickled me into a giggle/snort

Stubby in the wringer...

[Skittles]

13. for the life of me I don't know what her "case" actually is

[brush]

14. Simple. She wants out of the NDA, possibly to sell her whole story, write a book, who knows.

[Kingofalldems]

15. I want all the detes on Trump.

[Skittles]

16. what is detes?

[Kingofalldems]

17. Details.

A lot of it was cut from 60 Minutes.

[MsLeopard]

18. Details? nt

[Chakaconcarne]

20. Pictures of penis....

[dem4decades]

27. Please not that many detes.

[maui902]

33. It would only be a small detail. n/m

[Skittles]

44. I am reminded of this scene

[lunatica]

48. Me too!

[Hekate]

19. Liberation from the NDA would also free her to talk more about the threat against her ...

...in front of her baby. When a thug looks straight at your baby and says what a shame it would be if anything happened to her mama, that pretty much constitutes a threat to the kid as well. Dead as collateral damage is still dead.

Whether she ever does a tell-all for money or not, I don't care. I think she wants to be free from further threats from Trump and his gang of thugs. jmo

[Skittles]

22. I woud have more admiration for her if she had come out BEFORE the election

she's a GRIFTER

[grantcart]

25. Need a grifter to catch a grifter. Anyone with good sense and morals not going to be caught within

five miles of Trump

Eventually the testimony against Trump will be from money launderers, wife beaters, porn stars and other con job artists. They are the ones that are attracted to him.

Melania appears to be the most normal person in his atmosphere.

[Skittles]

36. I agree Stormy and Trump are very much alike

and Melania? Let's be real - she is with Trump for the same reason Stormy was. Double

[Nasruddin]

41. It may be ...

she sensed weakness in Mr Trump, and decided to go back for another bite at the apple now.
If Trump is disgraced/out of office/jailed her story then won't be worth anything.
Perhaps she was intimidated into settling before, or didn't think the story was worth
all that much.

No, her motives are probably not altruistic.

[Skittles]

43. it's fun watching her toy with that con man

but I think she is disgusting

[erronis]

70. I think Melania is a very good/loyal handler for the dumpster.

I'll give her credit for putting up with the crap that being anywhere physically near the dump - whether or not she has outside controllers/interests.

[Skittles]

84. you're giving her credit for being a gold digger

I bet it just kills her she is now expected to "work" for her lifestyle

[erronis]

86. Well, no - I think she was groomed for that position. And expects to be well rewarded.

I would never accuse anyone of being just a gold-digger for the sake of the gelt.

There are always other reasons including
- desire to get out of poverty, feeding children/family (Guy deMaupassant)
- desire to be more fashionable than the "jones's"
- wanting bling (whatever that is)
- access to power in its own righ
- performing a duty for someone (friend/spouse/etc.) or something (country/belief)
- bribery/blackmail/etc.

None of these are male/female only and they can be mixed freely.

My hypothesis (weak, untested/proven) is that she is acting as an agent rather than just looking for a way out of poverty or seeking personal gain.

I tend to over-analyze everything - sorry!

[Skittles]

87. have you heard her speak?

she is either very good at acting or she is dumb as a rock

[Tatiana]

39. Exactly. She's useful.

We might as well be prepared to wade in the cesspool. It takes one to catch one, unfortunately.

[DaDeacon]

26. She tried to...

Hey do you recall that’s how we got here, she sold her story and it was killed never to be printed. She sued to get the rights back then the NDA became a thing.

[Skittles]

34. LOL, she TRIED to?

was that before or after she took six figures to shut the fuck up?

maybe you're thinking of the OTHER grifter

[cp]

31. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

[Bleacher Creature]

32. There have been too few good days as of late.

I'll certainly take it!

[Tatiana]

40. Avenatti has been baiting him for weeks.

And finally it looks like SCROTUS fell into the trap after riding on the racist high of more immigrant bashing.

[ismnotwasm]

47. K&R

[Corgigal]

49. Yeah, now please go talk to Mueller.

Republicans own a rocket scientist.

[Guilded Lilly]

54. I would love to see this woman take him down...

He has deserved to be taken down his entire life.
We deserve an end to this treasonous wretch of a human.

[mountain grammy]

56. Thanks for the video..

and Merry Christmas.