Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumOn Fox, Trump adviser Jay Goldberg: Stormy Daniels agreement 'not valid' if Trump didn't sign
no_hypocrisy
(46,234 posts)His attorney paid. That's a gift of money, not consideration of a contract.
unblock
(52,387 posts)has as much as said so, also claiming he has yet to be reimbursed.
this may explain why the lawyer's been blabbing.
Historic NY
(37,454 posts)Whats the price for 8X10 glossy these days?
unblock
(52,387 posts)donnie's lawyer blabbing is a much better argument.
donnie not signing? even if taking the $130,000 and keeping it isn't evidence enough that a contract exists, all donnie needs to do is produce a signed version and that argument falls apart.
stormy's failure to find a signed version is hardly compelling. even if donnie never signed it, he could sign a copy tomorrow. he could even backdate it. that would be illegal, but it could never be proven. just to prevent serious analysis of the age of the signature or paper, he could make a photocopy and present that instead. there's no need to produce an original signature, he can claim he lost it. doesn't matter.
but donnie's lawyer blabbing turns at least some of the confidential information into public information, leaving stormy free to comment.
no_hypocrisy
(46,234 posts)It's that contrived.
Ms. Toad
(34,117 posts)I heard the clip with the definition of contract, the claims of invalidity (rather than unenforceability) - recognized it as exactly the same confusion my students expressed on the essay I had just graded between contract formation and enforceability.
Couldn't pass it up. I played the clip, then assigned half of the class to be Trump lawyers and half to be Daniels' lawyers. It worked out well.
And for next week, we'll use it to talk about parol evidence . . .
(There's a wealth of really bad law in that complaint.)
C_U_L8R
(45,025 posts)It seems that Team Stormy is banging the bushes, so to speak, to get Trump's lawyer to publicly admit that he was actually representing Trump.
California_Republic
(1,826 posts)Never mind
unblock
(52,387 posts)And Donnies lawyer was representing himself as essential consultants, llc
thesquanderer
(11,996 posts)Either can be done without the other. Also, even if you grant someone power of attorney, it can be limited to particular functions.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)In real estate, at least, a contract if valid if it is oral. However, it is not enforceable unless it is written (and signed both ways)
unblock
(52,387 posts)Unless California has done unusual laws in this area, non-disclosure agreements dont have to be in writing, though of course it certainly helps.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It's that simple. Trump can't sign the agreement and backdate it because his attorney has already signed it. Any attempt to do what you describe is going to present far more legal hurdles than they already have. Stormy is also free to return the $130,000 so hooking their wagon to that check isn't going to get very far.
unblock
(52,387 posts)you don't even need a written contract.
hell, donnie can even claim he lost the signature page. the exchange of funds and any compliance on stormy's part (return of confidential information) is pretty compelling evidence that a contract exists.
and if the agreement didn't exist, then it looks a lot more like prostitution and/or blackmail and stormy could be in more hot soup than she wants.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The reason written contracts exist is because verbal ones are virtually indefensible. So what you are really talking about is an even weaker legal argument. Meanwhile Stormy's case is strengthened by a number of factors, not the least of which is no signed agreement. Even if it were legally signed, Trump himself has already violated it. Furthermore as Goldberg mentioned, the 1st Amendment will also come into play, especially since Trump is now POTUS.
unblock
(52,387 posts)they are required to be in writing under the statute of frauds. the requirement to be in writing applies to a few other things. one could make an argument that it might apply in this case given the amounts involved ($130,000), but generally, nondisclosure agreements can do not need to be in writing.
if she accepted and held the money, that's pretty compelling evidence that an agreement existed, especially if she also complied with other provisions, such as returning any confidential information.
moreover, her failure to produce a signature from donnie is not very convincing evidence that donnie never signed it. donnie could easily produce a signed version.
even if a court were convinced that donnie never signed it, it's not clear that the entire agreement falls apart. the main agreement is between stormy and cohen. it's possible that a court could determine that donnie has no rights under the contract but cohen still does, and that really doesn't advance stormy's position much. cohen can still silence her.
in fact it's not even clear to me that donnie needed to be in the contract at all.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Which is part of the reason why title companies are such a thriving business. If that analogy bothers you, substitute pretty much any other bilateral or multilateral contract that involves values in excess of 2 figures. The bottom line is that just because verbal contracts can be legally enforceable, doesn't mean the legal argument is strengthened by one over a written contract. Pretty much the reverse is true. In this case merely the attempt at a written contract effectively negates any verbal one.
thesquanderer
(11,996 posts)Yes, he could sign his copy now; and there's no way for SD to prove that he never supplied her with a signed copy, if he produces one himself.
BUT... since he's denying that the affair ever happened (at least based on what we've heard from Sarah Sanders), providing a signed copy now would open up another can of worms for him. I think the reason this strategy could make sense for SD is because she know that he does not want to produce that signed copy.
So he either produces his copy, thereby confirming her story; or he fails to produce a properly executed copy and then she's no longer bound by the agreement (it would be difficult for Trump could claim damages based on an agreement that he says does not exist). It might be a lose-lose scenario for Trump.
Even if he does produce the agreement, she could still fall back on it arguably being at least partially voided based on his attorney's disclosures.
helmedon1974
(92 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Botany
(70,614 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,178 posts)To discuss hush money payoff details to a porn star by a POTUS, a month before the last election. To skirt around the ACTUAL STORY in hopes of finding any life line to grab onto... trying to assure their viewers that, no, she can't disclose her story because of a technicality. In hopes I assume of dismissing the whole thing.
Fox News was born partly from the hype during Bill Clinton's white lie around the definition of "sexual relations" with a legally aged consenting adult. The outrage that Clinton was trying to wiggle out of responsibility because of a technicality of a legal interpretation of an act.
Now they are desperately trying to defend a President that had multiple affairs, including with this porn star, while married and his wife pregnant, with any technicality they can hope to find.