Here is the lawsuit and it contains the hush agreement from 2016. She says it’s void since he never signed it. He being “David Dennison” the fake name Trump used for this.
Also he sent her pictures and texts according to this suit
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/Filed%20Complaint.pdf
I’m surprised he didn’t just get John Miller to sign it for him.
You know, this used to be “Stupid Watergate” (…“a scandal with all the potential ramifications of Watergate, but where everyone involved is stupid and bad at everything,”) but it is now more like “Senseless Watergate”, a scandal that is so pointless, unnecessary, and clearly drawn from a rejected pitch for an episode of the ill-regarded Archer:Vice season that it doesn’t seem possible that an adult human being would get themselves mired in it. At this point I’d really like to hear the political commentary as presented in a discussion between Amber Nash, Judy Grier, and Aisha Tyler, which would be more useful than anything on CNN or MSNBC.
Stranger
Why would Trump have needed to sign an agreement between the two of them? As I understand it, he (allegedly) gave her money and she agreed not to talk about their affair. As soon as he pays her, he’s completed his portion of the agreement; he has no further promise to keep. He’s not pledging to do anything more so what would his signature on a contract represent?
Once he pays her, what’s to stop her from asking for more?
The agreement was between this lawyer and her. Dunno for sure, but my take on it is that Il Douce was never formally involved, he didn’t sign anything. Not nearly as slick as the “Enquirer” thing, where the Enquirer bought exclusive rights to a similar story but simply didn’t publish it.
(I track the Enquirer’s political…evolution…by reading the covers at the supermarket. They are kinda leaning towards Il Douche. “Kinda leaning” like a horn toad is “kinda ugly”.
she says the hush agreement says it’s not valid unless he signs it . Not sure why she’s worried he’s going to sue her , he claims he is going to sue many people and never follows through on it
It’s a contract. The contract is executed not on signing but when something of value passes. One side passed the money the other agreed to keep quiet.
She’s contesting the done deal for publicity; for money, presumably there will be a book, maybe a film, lots and lots of media deals.
Imo, Trump has made dozens of these deals in one form or another, frm his personal life, tax, the political campaign, his wife’s immigration. Literally dozens.
Josh Marshall, editor of Talking Points Memo, read the whole thing and analyzed it here.
He doesn’t think there’s much weight to her signature argument, because, as others have noted above, the money changed hands, done deal. Her other argument, which may have more weight, is that the other side has violated and voided the agreement by talking about it.
One of Trump’s primary tools as a bully and a conman has been to threaten to sue. It seems to me that going forward with a lawsuit against Stormy Daniels would be, for various reasons, more damaging to Trump than anything that is going on except for the Mueller investigation.
I think the fact that there’s no formal agreement would be the tricky part. She could claim he gave her the money for a lap dance. How could Trump’s people contest that? They present the deal, she says it was a tentative one he refused to agree to after she had and it’s null and void.
The owner of the National Enquirer, the aptly named David Pecker, is a friend of Donald Trump.
Not only do they suppress stories about Trump, but they wraponize the paper against Trump’s opponents. Remember the expose about Ted Cruz’s mistresses that ran late in the primary season?
Then there was the “expose” about Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski that he used as blackmail, having one of his staffers call Joe and offer to kill the story in exchange for a change in the tone of their coverage.
Pecker uses his paper to protect his friends, who include Harvey Weinstein as well as Trump. Not only does the Enquirer decline to run stories about them, but they use other tactics. These include buying the rexclusive rights to stories and then not running them and trading with other gossip outlets . If Page Six, for example, got some big dirt on one of Pecker’s friends, they would offer them another juicy exclusive on someone else in exchange for suppressing the story.
If anyone is intetested, The New Yorker has written much about this.
Seems like if the contract is void, so should the check. Looks to me like she wants some publicity to advance her career. I’m the last person to defend Orange McGroper, but it seems to me that her cashing the check indicates her acceptance of the contract, unsigned as it may have been. If I was her, I’d have kept my mouth shut out of shame for having carnal knowledge of that creep, but she apparently lacks shame as much as he does.
But isn’t the lawyer on record as saying that the payment was for “nothing in particular”? Given that, she’s presumably free to talk about whatever she wants, because she did nothing in particular to earn the money.
If that’s true, I withdraw my objection. Hey lawyer, if you’re reading, I’m not doing anything in particular for you, either.
I note that Marshall highlights the line in the agreement which stipulates that Daniels can’t share any “still images” from her time with Donald, which raises the spectre of Presidential Dick Pics.
Have a haunted good day!
I think she’s saying that the other side broke the contract when Michael Cohen shot his mouth off. Therefore, she’s free to talk because the contract is already broken, and it was void anyway.
I don’t think that means that she needs to forfeit her payment, because she’s not the one who broke the contract. At least, I think that’s her argument.
So, does disclosing the NDA itself violate the NDA? I have a hard time imagining that it was written in such a way. But the NDA itself is pretty juicy, as Merneith just noted.
I don’t think many people understand what really happened here. This is an action for declaratory relief, that is, they are asking the judge to define the rights of the parties.
The parties are;
#1 and #2, via #3 and #4 agree that the affair shall never be mentioned.
#2 does not sign the deal, yet #3 delivers 130k.
Part of the agreement was that any dispute should be arbitrated, where no one would ever find out about any of this. No parties were mentioned other than by a pseudonyms. So, a cover letter “for attorney eyes only” was sent. (Imagine that, attorney eyes only.) Said letter defined who the parties actually were, but said letter was not to be kept, it must be destroyed. (to protect #2 above.) Seriously.
#1’s, realizing #2 never signed the agreement feels it’s not binding, but thanks for the money anyway.
#3 says, you can’t make this public.
#1’s attorney says, cool, we’ll ask a judge who’s right and, of course, we have to do this publicly, because that’s how lawsuits work.
Now, #1 says something like, “Toodles, I got the money, and I made this public, have a nice day,” by filing this.
And of course, the path of the money, going through #2, 3 and 4 is so convoluted they probably can’t figure out who has standing to sue for it’s return.
So, I’m really laughing my ass off at the California kid (#1’s lawyer) beating the fat cat’s lawyer (#3). This really is one of the funniest things so far in peckerheads dynasty.
It was not chance that I assigned #2 to Trump herein.
It is a surprisingly complex subject. Cohen wasn’t reimbursed for paying off Daniels. That’s part of what Daniels is saying makes the agreement void. IT was ostensibly an agreement between Trump and Daniels, but Trump didn’t sign it or pay her the money. Some other dude paid for it out of his own pocket. It’s unclear if Donald even knew about it all, which is how Daniels’ is claiming that they never completed their side of the bargain.
Furthermore, if Cohen didn’t get reimbursed, then it’s possible that this is a campaign finance problem - a donation to help Donald’s campaign by burying this story (which surfaced during the Pussy Grabbing Tape reveal.) Several groups have sued on those grounds.
You’ll recall, no doubt, that John Edwards was prosecuted for using wealthy donor money to help cover his affair.
cite -
Hilarious that Cohen thought Donald would reimburse him. Also that Cohen might be in jepardy because Donald’s a leech.
This WaPo article describes the timing of it all in detail, along with other groups who might be in trouble for killing stories about Donald in the days before the election. There are groups who handle those sort of things for celebrities, and it’s not surprising that Donald would employ them. But in the days right before the election, killing unflattering stories becomes, arguable, an FEC violation, since it helped Donald’s campaign.
This is a hilarious situation when I step back. By engaging with this (i.e. trying to enforce the contract), Trump’s team will be admitting that it’s true. By not engaging, Stormy can say whatever she wants, and probably release any texts or pics she has if she wants.