The arbitration states only Trump can file for arbitration not Cohen so Trump is stuck

[MattP]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkprogress.org/stormy-daniels-micahel-cohen-arbitration-fc8fdadf9e57/amp/

Great article from thinkprogress on the subject

[Gabi Hayes]

1. Best thing about this is the thundering silence from the mainstays of the Party Of Family Values

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/25/opinion/republican-hypocrisy-hall-of-fame.html

This isn’t even up to date, but that would be a Sisyphean task, on the order of defeating the Hydra



Also Needs updating, but that’s the point, isn’t it?

[jberryhill]

2. There's a hole in that argument

Most contracts will include a specific clause about conditions under which rights under the contract can be assigned, or duties under a contract delegated, to some other party.

This one, interestingly, doesn't have any restrictions on assignment.

Note that Section 8.1 states:

"This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Parties, the Releasees, and each of their respective successors and assigns and designees."

All that is required to vest EC with DD's right to bring an arbitration is an assignment agreement from DD to EC. That need not be a part of this Agreement.

The business about Trump not signing it is unproven. The Agreement, by its own terms, states that it can be signed in separate counterpart copies, and does not require delivery of signed copies. The copy which Daniels has produced with the Complaint doesn't bear Trump's signature, but that doesn't mean he hasn't signed a copy, and then assigned his rights under the contract to Cohen's company.

[sarah FAILIN]

3. The whole not signing the copy she got..

That seemed odd. What if he did and she is producing an earlier draft? I'm rooting for her, but ...

[jberryhill]

4. She would not necessarily possess a copy signed by him

There's no obligation to deliver a signed copy in this contract.

But, at the end of the day, a signed writing is only important when the contract is sought to be enforced, and the only signature required is that of the party against whom enforcement is sought. She's not trying to enforce the contract against Trump. Clearly, the sole obligation of the other joint party to the contract "EC and/or DD" has been performed. To put that another way, is she giving back the $130,000 she obtained under this "illegal contract"? I don't think so.

[sarah FAILIN]

5. Yes, that's how I took your post

Everything you said makes sense. She is the one being kept quiet, she signs.

[jberryhill]

6. Why root for anyone in this?

The cat is out of the bag, and there’s no more cat to be had.

I don’t know why Daniels is some sort of heroine in any of this. If she didn’t want the $130,00 she could have divulged anything and everything about her relationship with Trump at any time prior to October 2016 without any issues whatsoever.

Instead, she decided $130,000 was sufficient. Like everyone else, she probably assumed he wouldn’t win, and so she was betting that the “sell by” date on her information was rapidly approaching.

But you are rooting for someone who decided that $130,000 was more important than the public interest in knowing that the GOP candidate for president had been cavorting with an adult entertainer.

Now that he’s been elected, it is worth more than that, so she wants out of the agreeemnt.

The “big deal” here is whether there was an FEC violation. But I care no more about Daniel’s career or financial decisions than any other strange person.

[struggle4progress]

7. The document actually refers to her as "PP"?

Maybe some of those really unsavory stories about him are actually true