This is a warning for being a jerk - the not so subtle reference to ignore list combined with the jerky type dismissal. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
The phrase “(Subject) apparently (verb)” is very, very commonly used in English as a pithy way of saying that a new development has arisen. If I come home and find one of my kids playing with a crossbow, I might drily comment to my wife, “Maddy has apparently found a new hobby.”
You seem to be claiming Rick Kitchen was using apparently in the sense of “it is not certain but based on evidence may be so,” as in “This project was a failure, so apparently Jim is incompetent.” However, in a context like “I was talking to Kevin and apparently, he and Debbie got divorced last year,” the term “apparently” does not convey doubt, but that you are conveying information with the added sense of noting that the information is surprising or previously unknown.
So, you know, come on, man.
Back on topic…
Is Michael Avenatti frickin’ Batman or something? How is he scooping pretty much the entire media?
It appears that in the case of the Trump tower tapes, what Avenatti has is access to an archive of CSPAN’s live recording of the Trump Tower elevators. It didn’t require any nefarious access to that which he ordinarily wouldn’t/shouldn’t have.
The ‘pollster’ in question is Mark Penn, who’s less a pollster than an all-around rancid, worthless slug who is an embarrassment to the Democratic Party. (If you think I’m just turning against him now because it’s convenient for purposes of this thread, check out my posts from 2008.) Looks to me like this piece is a desperate grab at relevance when he’s years past his sell-by date.
It doesn’t matter that this was a new development and the operative objections are over the information as presented. Remove the word “apparently” and my objection remains: it is painfully obvious that this was not a Trump tower security camera’s footage. Anyone looking at the video (with a huge C-SPAN logo in the corner, a low camera angle that is right over people’s head height and careful panning and focus-pulling) should know that wasn’t Trump Tower security footage.
By posting erroneous information like that, Rick potentially weakens arguments made by people when they refer to his post and the link it contained. If I made the claim that Rick did in a face-to-face discussion, I’d have to waste time trying to explain how even tho I have a lot of details wrong, trust me I’m right about something here.
How does it help us fight ignorance if we let misinformation slide just because it suits our short-term goals?
Especially in GD, I’m pretty sure we should always be encouraging facts and an accurate description of those facts.
That isn’t how contract law works at all. A contract does not require the signature of a party to be enforceable against the other party, so long as the party seeking enforcement has otherwise manifested agreement and performed its duty under the agreement.
Let’s say you are a widget buyer for Acme Retail Company. You order 300 widgets from Widgets R’ Us. They send you a purchase order, which you sign and send back. They send you 300 widgets. You don’t pay. They can enforce the contract to sell 300 widgets even though nobody signed the purchase order on their behalf. There are exceptions to this rule (which mostly fall under the statute of frauds), but none are applicable to Trump/Daniels.
So Trump doesn’t have to have signed the contract to seek enforcement against Daniels, so long as he manifested his agreement to it and performed (both of which are evidenced by the payment to Daniels). He doesn’t have to have understood it, or even have read it. I assume you’ve never ready any of Apple’s terms of service, but you nonetheless became bound by them when you clicked that little box (or possibly when you did not return the product after opening it).
If Trump was totally unaware of the agreement, as he’s claimed, the question is not whether it is enforceable, but whether he has standing to seek enforcement (as I explained above).
Oliver Willis: [INDENT][INDENT] Avenatti isn’t writing a Trump book based on access to the presidency. He doesn’t appear to care about getting info from Republicans in the future, and that’s why it seems he’s leaps and bounds ahead of the access-obsessed mainstream media. [/INDENT][/INDENT] x.com
He would have to admit to (1) being “David Dennison” and (2) reimbursing Cohen, though, right? He hasn’t yet done either, despite Giuliani’s inability to keep his yap shut. If that’s all public, there’s no secrecy left to enforce, even if that ship didn’t already sail months ago.
Nobody is motivated by money. Money is always a means to an end. At the bottom level, that end is being able to get the necessities for survival. Once you have those secured, money is still valued, but as a way to get the luxuries that you enjoy (whatever those might happen to be for you). And once you have enough to get all of your luxuries, it’s still a way to get prestige, fame, acclaim, and the like. But no matter what it is you want money for, you’ll be just as happy getting that whatever-it-is directly. And Avenatti is certainly getting plenty of prestige, fame, and acclaim.
Has it been mentioned this may just be a copy of the agreement that Stormy Daniels signed before Donald Trump signed it?
So all that was to make the distinction that it’s not enforceable by Trump, but it could be by someone else (presumably Stormy)? OK, sure.
He also likely has the funds devoted to hire a lackey to watch hours upon hours for something, anything, that might be of interest.
So here’s a gnawing thought…
Let’s say he didn’t know about it (yeah, right) and didn’t know about the payment when it was made (yeah, right)…can’t he, as a named (once you get through the convoluted attachments disclosing that Trump=Dennison) 3rd party beneficiary* of the contract, seek to enforce it?
I’ve not seen this addressed anywhere?
*Don’t get your legal advice from a website.
I think he’s doing it because he can, and believes that someone has to.
He has unique access to some information that others don’t because of his standing in the Stormy Daniels case. He’s also smart as hell, and I don’t think he likes Trump or what Trump and his cronies are doing to the country one little bit.
He’s also in a unique position because he is not constrained by investigative custom and practice as are the FBI and Mueller’s team. He does not answer to Congress. He is not tasked with protecting future elections. He isn’t worried about White House access. He can share what he chooses and risk only his own reputation and that of his client. Quite self-confident, yes, but not unreasonably so. I’ve known (rarely) other lawyers like him and I delight in those whose self-confidence is well justified.
He has frequently said he feels the American people have a right to know these things. I take him at face value.
I also believe that a single word from the Mueller team – “don’t” – would stop him immediately. He has backed away from discussing things where his investigations and Mueller’s appear to intersect.
Do you honestly really think he was unaware of the agreement?
The unredacted contract identifies who David Dennison is in real life. Absent a signature though he’s still free to disavow that he had any intention to be a party to the agreement.
Actually he may have gotten himself in some trouble by leaking the financial records of Cohen.
"his publication last week of Cohen’s banking history — hard-to-get information touching on some of the most sensitive issues before the White House — could jeopardize his ability to represent Daniels in court, some experts say.
…
while it’s rare for a judge to deny a lawyer’s request to practice out of state, the allegations against Avenatti, if true, could be a valid basis for the New York judge, Kimba Wood, to deny the request. Unlike journalists, he said, lawyers may not use or disclose documents that they know were illegally obtained even if the lawyer does nothing unlawful to get them."
Well, that’s why I pointed out that he doesn’t have standing based on his current public statements.
No. As I explained in my previous post, it could certainly be enforced by Cohen if he chose to do so. I am assuming you didn’t read “all that” because I explained that the agreement is probably not enforceable by Stormy Daniels because Trump didn’t sign it.
He’s not a third party beneficiary who can enforce the contract unless Cohen made the payment in consideration of a duty he previously owed to Trump (in other words, unless it was a quid pro quo).
I’m reaching here (and, in this case, playing “Devil’s Advocate” is really an apt description), but, according to the story that Trump’s team has floated, Cohen was on Trump’s payroll as his “fixer”, meaning he had an obligation to negotiate deals on Trump’s behalf to prevent Trump from being tarnished.
Now, forgetting the legal obligations Cohen would have as Trump’s lawyer to keep him informed, doesn’t that arrangement mean that Cohen was making the payment “in consideration of a duty” he owes Trump - to keep Trump safe from criticism? In that sense, Cohen is signing the contract as a quid pro quo for the regular monthly payments he is getting to be Trump’s fixer; and in doing so he expressly makes sure that the contract is for Trump’s benefit.
I’m not saying that it’s a winner, but I’m surprised (given all the crazy that comes out of Trump’s team) that they haven’t at least floated the idea that Trump could enforce a contract, even though he didn’t sign it, because it was drafted and signed for the purpose of benefitting him.
Good try, but no. The third party beneficiary doctrine requires that the duty be one that can be extinguished. In other words, if Cohen could have discharged his obligations to Trump by making the Daniels arrangement (or by doing so and, say, paying Trump some money) then Trump would be a creditor beneficiary. However, obligations like the ongoing service agreement between Trump and Cohen don’t qualify.
Probably a better argument is that Cohen acted as Trump’s actual or apparent agent in establishing the agreement with Daniels, but that goes to whether Daniels can enforce the agreement, not whether Trump can.