• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stormy Daniels' lawyer: Case against Donald Trump 'grows stronger' due to 'buffoonery' of president'

Cardinal said:
Before yesterday, at issue with the contract signed between "Peggy Peterson" and "David Dennison" (Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump, respectively) was whether Trump's failure to sign the contract himself was a relevant factor in nullifying it. It wasn't a great argument because lawyers sign contracts on behalf of their clients all the time and it could be reasonably argued that Daniels took the money as "good faith" recognition of the contract's terms. That left Daniels' lawyer, Avenatti with two possible avenues for nullifying the contract: 1)argue that Trump left the space blank with the hopes that he might leave himself room to deny it later, an extremely credible argument considering the timing and the circumstances, and 2)argue that a contract is nullified if it is itself illegal and/or bad public policy. These aren't bad arguments, but they're not airtight.

But then David Schwartz, Michael Cohen's lawyer, decided to do a run of televised interviews. In them, he argued repeatedly that Trump had no knowledge whatsoever of the contract or the payment to Daniels, which means that the contract, seeing as it was drawn up without the knowledge or consent of the person being represented...is no longer a contract. No Trump, no contract. Oh, and Cohen has now opened himself up to the possibility of being disbarred.

"Wait," you argue. "The contract was drawn up between Daniels and EC LLC, the company Michael Cohen formed for just this occasion." Unfortunately, that argument doesn't work for two reasons: 1) This section is baked into the contract:

"The following agreements, warranties and representative are made by DD as material inducements to PP to enter into this Agreement, and each Party acknowledges that she/he is executing this agreement in reliance thereon:"

In other words, the contract only lists remedies available to DD, not to the LLC. In other words, only Trump can enforce the contract. Which is why I say, no Trump, no contract.

And 2)"Michael Cohen left the option open. That's why he left the signature line open to go to him [Trump]. He chose not to bind the LLC, EC LLC and Stormy Daniels into the contract."





https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/29/sto...r.html?__source=sharebar|twitter&par=sharebar

It's a porn star and her ambulance chasing lawyer versus a billionaire President, and thus far the best that Trump's legal team is able to muster is

lPf85oA.gif
Click to expand...


I have been party to signing court documents & believe me, if the documents are not signed by the relevant parties the documents don't mean **** ........
 
VanceMack said:
ANd has precisely dick to do with Stormy Daniels and her lawyers actions. They are shooting for a paycheck, and you are desperate for SOMETHING!!! Please God...ANYTHING....to get Trump on.

Do you realize how goofy you all look? I mean...seriously...its been...what...2 years worth of allegations and you have gone from dreams of a frog walk over what you just KNEW was Russian collusion, to clinging to a porn star and her scumbag lawyer
Click to expand...

none of this looks much different than a $54 million Whitewater investigation that uncovered a lie about a blow job ........ just the deets .......
 
Hawkeye10 said:
And it really calls into question Muellers decision to move at the speed of mud.
Click to expand...

Didn't know you're on the inside with Mueller. Those of us on the outside have no way of judging how fast Mueller is moving, what he has found other than what has come out with the indictments so far, or how much longer he may expect the investigation to continue. We do know that the repeated claims by Trump that Russians played no role in his campaign were false, and that men at the very top of his campaign are charged with serious crimes.
 
cuban smokes said:
none of this looks much different than a $54 million Whitewater investigation that uncovered a lie about a blow job ........ just the deets .......
Click to expand...
Say that again...and realize what you are saying about yourself.

Ive said numerous times. Clinton had the morals of a sewer rat but as president, I would have had him back in a heartbeat over Bush and Obama. I dont need my presidents to be a moral compass...I need them to be effective leaders. I also dont care about consensual relationships. Clintons problem was not the blowjobs from Lewinsky or using her ***** as a humidor. Clintons problem was lying under oath during a civil trial for sexual harassment, compounded with being caught on tape, twice, suborning perjury. The revelations of rape and sexual assault didnt help his case much. But Lewinsky was in many ways the best thing that ever happened to Bill Clinton, including the disclosure of the relationship.
 
VanceMack said:
Clinton...
Click to expand...

...was nowhere near the scene when Trump barebacked a porn star and illegally paid her coverup money to not talk about it.
 
Cardinal said:
...was nowhere near the scene when Trump barebacked a porn star and illegally paid her coverup money to not talk about it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should be having that conversation with the person that brought him up.

But I suppose you are right. In 2006 while Trump was reportedly Doing the porn star, Clinton was on Epstein’s jet to pedophile island.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Cardinal said:
...was nowhere near the scene when Trump barebacked a porn star and illegally paid her coverup money to not talk about it.
Click to expand...

yeah, ole Orange Cheeto didn't even put a raincoat on his doggy to screw a porn actress .......
 
trouble13 said:
Not that it matters in the grand scope of the context but in your view is she obligated to return the money that she accepted for keeping her mouth shut?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Why should she? David Denison doesn’t exist as trump has said he doesn’t know anything about it and stormy is talking about trump so the lawyer basically gave her free money.
 
trouble13 said:
If I'm understanding you correctly, your saying stormy who accepted money to keep her mouth shut (oh the irony) isn't obligated to do so because of a legal loophole?

If your right, congratulations on finding a way to embarassing a sitting president over an indiscretion that happened over 10 years ago. You all have so much to be proud about it and crow over. You all should campaghin it on it for the midterms, I think you got a winner

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So, you think it's been ten years since Trump cheated on his wife? I doubt it. I also doubt Trump will be embarrassed by this if he's not embarrassed by any of his myriad of other "indiscretions".

Personally, I don't care if he's not faithful to his wife. That's between them. What I care about is that he's not faithful to anyone or anything, other than money and self-aggrandizement and the typically oh-so-judgmental right wing is pretending not to notice. My concern is that he's SO corrupt that the republicans will have no choice but to downplay it all, rather than admit they elected a giant, criminal douche. Trump's embarrassment is nothing compared to the embarrassment of the republican party that clearly, conveniently has lost all sense of morality and now just plays the part of the bystander who didn't see anything.
 
D_NATURED said:
So, you think it's been ten years since Trump cheated on his wife? I doubt it. I also doubt Trump will be embarrassed by this if he's not embarrassed by any of his myriad of other "indiscretions".

Personally, I don't care if he's not faithful to his wife. That's between them. What I care about is that he's not faithful to anyone or anything, other than money and self-aggrandizement and the typically oh-so-judgmental right wing is pretending not to notice. My concern is that he's SO corrupt that the republicans will have no choice but to downplay it all, rather than admit they elected a giant, criminal douche. Trump's embarrassment is nothing compared to the embarrassment of the republican party that clearly, conveniently has lost all sense of morality and now just plays the part of the bystander who didn't see anything.
Click to expand...
Its a little late for the left to preach to anyone about a person's character flaws. You all abandoned it long before the right did. You all lionized teddy Kenedy and made Clinton a hero. Trump hasn't raped anyone or left them to die.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Praxas said:
Why should she? David Denison doesn’t exist as trump has said he doesn’t know anything about it and stormy is talking about trump so the lawyer basically gave her free money.
Click to expand...
Arguing that David Denison does not exist is like arguing that Steven king does not exist. David Denison is someone's alias. Regardless of that she signed a contract not to talk about her affair with Trump and she accepted payment for it. She breached her agreement. She may end up taking it in the ass in a way that she finds rather unpleasant when all is said and done.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Arguing that David Denison does not exist is like arguing that Steven king does not exist. David Denison is someone's alias. Regardless of that she signed a contract not to talk about her affair with Trump and she accepted payment for it. She breached her agreement. She may end up taking it in the ass in a way that she finds rather unpleasant when all is said and done.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No the money was specifically, if you read the contract, not to disclose anything about David Denison. Since trump has claimed that he knows nothing about it, trump is not David Denison for the purpose of the contract. I notice you ignore the fact that if she has violated a so called NDA the only way she could do so is by telling the truth. Love how you defend that pig trump who has cheated on all three of his wives.
 
Praxas said:
No the money was specifically, if you read the contract, not to disclose anything about David Denison. Since trump has claimed that he knows nothing about it, trump is not David Denison for the purpose of the contract. I notice you ignore the fact that if she has violated a so called NDA the only way she could do so is by telling the truth. Love how you defend that pig trump who has cheated on all three of his wives.
Click to expand...
Im not defending Trump. I am only talking about if she is contractually obligated to not talk about her affair with him. I'm not obsessed with the man's personal life like some of you are.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Im not defending Trump. I am only talking about if she is contractually obligated to not talk about her affair with him. I'm not obsessed with the man's personal life like some of you are.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I’m interested if he violated campaign laws for this. His lawyer used a trump campaign email to facilitate all this.

The fact he basically proved evangelicals to be chumps for believing he is a Christian is just a bonus :lamo
 
lurchadams said:
Not surprisingly you left out Trump:

When Has Trump Been Accused of Rape or Attempted Rape? Allegations Include a Child, His Wife and a Business Associate
Click to expand...
Are we having a purge? Cool...we can do that. We can talk about ALL of them. But I think you are missing the part where 1-I responded to someone else that brought up Clinton and 2-I responded to someone that thinks it was inappropriate that Clinton was brought up and BOTH of you arent addressing the person that brought up Clinton.

Funny how you lot do that.
 
trouble13 said:
Its a little late for the left to preach to anyone about a person's character flaws. You all abandoned it long before the right did. You all lionized teddy Kenedy and made Clinton a hero. Trump hasn't raped anyone or left them to die.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I see you don't count Nixon's criminal activity or Reagan's terrorism in Central America as "character flaws", huh? I'm certain there were more rapes and murders of innocent people at the behest of the Reagan and W administrations than Teddy Kennedy could have drowned in a thousand years. And, Bill Clinton was a serial womanizer who happened to be very good at the job of President. He couldn't even get a position on the practice squad, though, compared to the major league douche bags that the GOP shamelessly runs, and always has.

Trump doesn't just have "character flaws", as that implies that there is any character to begin with. Trump is a notorious exploiter of women, of the law and of what remains of human decency. He's a simpleton and a raging narcissist who is so understandably insecure about himself that he only surrounds himself with sycophants and boot-licks. His reputation, world wide, is that of a buffoon and a pervert. Don't be so quick to say Trump never raped any one. Successfully suppressing, threatening and paying off the victims does not make him innocent of anything.
 
Cardinal said:
Nope! No card here. This one I'm enjoying all for its own sake.

I'm not here on business. I'm here on pleasure.
Click to expand...

So was trump. For Stormy, it was business.
 
Cardinal said:
It's a porn star and her ambulance chasing lawyer
Click to expand...

Is there something specific about that Avenneti guy you're going with, or just the popular bias against that profession?





I'm just curious. After a while, one begins to wonder why one has devoted one's career (life) to helping people when those very same people spend their lives pissing in your face because it's popular humor or whatever, right up until the moment when they need you.
 
Mr Person said:
Is there something specific about that Avenneti guy you're going with, or just the popular bias against that profession?

I'm just curious. After a while, one begins to wonder why one has devoted one's career (life) to helping people when those very same people spend their lives pissing in your face because it's popular humor or whatever, right up until the moment when they need you.
Click to expand...

I'm being extremely tongue in cheek. It's more a commentary on the fact that the best a billionaire United States President can muster is being bested by a regular citizen's lawyer.

I can certainly see how a legal professional might mistake my post for being insulting, but it wasn't intended that way.
 
Cohen has filed a motion to compel Daniels into private arbitration.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/02/trump-stormy-daniels-lawsuit-496427

Renato Marioti's analysis of that move:
https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/980955413763018752

tldr version: the absolute muckery that Cohen and his lawyer made of the contract and the ensuing narrative has left Cohen and Trump with almost no maneuvering room, and it seems likely that Daniels will ultimately win out on the point of forcing Trump into deposition (and therefore discovery).
 
Cardinal said:
Cohen has filed a motion to compel Daniels into private arbitration.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/02/trump-stormy-daniels-lawsuit-496427

Renato Marioti's analysis of that move:
https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/980955413763018752

tldr version: the absolute muckery that Cohen and his lawyer made of the contract and the ensuing narrative has left Cohen and Trump with almost no maneuvering room, and it seems likely that Daniels will ultimately win out on the point of forcing Trump into deposition (and therefore discovery).
Click to expand...

Let us hope so.
 
Cardinal said:
I'm being extremely tongue in cheek. It's more a commentary on the fact that the best a billionaire United States President can muster is being bested by a regular citizen's lawyer.

I can certainly see how a legal professional might mistake my post for being insulting, but it wasn't intended that way.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I suppose. I've had it more or less up to HERE with the popular prejudice against the legal profession. The scent is easier to ignore from certain sources, as compared to others...




We have our ****stains indeed - Jon Edwards anyone? - but then we have a whole lot of good people and there are actually a number of areas in the profession that are not particularly profitable. But it does too often seem that the lawyers are scumbags thing gets played too often and too unfairly. We're not supposed to be in the business of policing clients' claims, and people wouldn't be happy if we were. If the civil client says "go after everyone you can", the lawyers goes after everyone he/she can. Yet people seem to blame the lawyer, not the client, on the assumption that the client was talked into doing things a moral person just would not do. Yadda yadda. Yadda.

Of course, by picking criminal defense I chose a different popular prejudice: that all accused criminals are bad and I must be just as bad for representing them, constitution and otherwise-praised rights be damned. But that's a different can of dung beetle.
 
The guy who is in deep doo doo the most right now is Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen. Consider what he claimed: That he gave Stormy Daniels $130,000 without ever informing Trump and without even asking Trump if a sexual encounter took place. This puts him in serious legal jeopardy on several fronts:

1) Lawyers are not allowed to go behind their clients' backs and commit acts, or make deals, on behalf of their clients without the knowledge of their clients. Cohen will most likely eventually be disbarred for that.

2) Getting Daniels to believe that she was making an agreement with Trump when Trump had no idea that such an agreement was being worked out constitutes fraud.

3) The payment constitutes an illegal campaign contribution. If Cohen is convicted, he will do a little time in jail.

4) And, of course, if Cohen never got confirmation from Trump that the Stormy Daniels story was either true or false, then his calling Story Daniels a liar constitutes defamation. A defamation lawsuit has already been filed on this point.

Cohen's goose is cooked.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom