- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 20,738
- Reaction score
- 6,290
- Location
- Sunnyvale California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
this is the most recent development in the legal battle between Trump and Stormy Daniels being reported on:
here is the important development
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...2d48460b955_story.html?utm_term=.d5973b4670f0
Stormy Daniels ramped up her legal battle against President Trump on Monday, alleging in court that his personal attorney Michael Cohen defamed her by insinuating that she lied about an affair with Trump more than a decade ago.
Daniels amended her existing lawsuit against Trump, adding Cohen as a defendant in the pending case. The expansion of the lawsuit in a California federal court comes one day after the adult-film actress’s widely watched interview on “60 Minutes.”
She has alleged that she had a sexual relationship with Trump in 2006 and signed a nondisclosure agreement shortly before the 2016 election. She says she received $130,000 for her silence and has sued to break the agreement, alleging that it was invalid.
here is the important development
Besides accusing Cohen of defamation, the amended complaint broadens Daniels’s contention that the confidentiality agreement was illegal, because it lacked Trump’s signature. The new complaint says the payment violated federal laws that impose limits on campaign donations and require those donations to be publicly reported.
Cohen’s $130,000 payment amounted to an in-kind campaign contribution that exceeded those limits and was never reported, according to the amended complaint. The government watchdog group Common Cause has made the same argument in complaints pending before the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department.
The nondisclosure agreement included a clause requiring any disputes to be settled in private arbitration, where the matter was being handled before Daniels’s lawsuit. Cohen and Trump have said in court filings that they intend to try to force the matter back into private arbitration.
The amended complaint argues that the clause requiring private arbitration is invalid. Secret arbitration would hide an allegedly illegal campaign contribution and violate “public policy by suppressing speech on a matter of enormous public concern,” the complaint says.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...2d48460b955_story.html?utm_term=.d5973b4670f0