Another Left Tard Fail: Stormy Daniels Crashes and Burns!

[Wickerthing]

How would that matter if she made a legal agreement to not talk about something and was compensated for it?

Once AGAIN --- how can you find a way to not-talk about something you're claiming never happened?

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS --- if you entered into an NDA, you're saying by definition that there's an event to not-talk about. If you simultaneously claim there was no event, then there can be no valid NDA.

This is not that complicimated. It's either one or the other -- can't have both.

If she accepted money to not talk about something, whether it happened or not, and signed a legal agreement to that effect, would she not be bound to not talk about it, and violate the agreement if she did?

Once AGAIN --- what is this, seventh time now? Eighth? ***HOW*** can you be bound to not-talk about something that never happened?

If that's too many words, the question is """"How"""".

Are you not bound to the terms of a contract when you sign it and accept payment?

Shall we go for nine?

The reason you can't answer the question is that there is no answer --- you CAN'T agree to not-talk about an event that does not exist. Because there's uh... nothing there to not-talk about.

Duh?

Either there IS an event *AND* an NDA about it ---- or there is NO event and NO NDA.

If Rump wants to claim there was no event --- and he already has -- then he cannot collect on an NDA, by definition. Even if his name were on it, which it isn't.

Rump fucked up here. And he would have got away with it if Stormy hadn't rained on it. He has himself --- or she has him --- painted into a corner. Consider the whole escapade as if it were, say... a casino. In Atlantic City. A bigly gamble goes down, it fails, and the casino goes down too.

Yeah, I'm also not a lawyer but I can't think of any way that Trump and his lawyer can prevail. A contract has to have two clear parties to it. And it seems that nobody can even determine who the parties are let alone who the aggrieved party is. It's a stinky mess that I think no judge could unravel. I'd be very surprised if Trump or Cohn ever see a penny. Except maybe a ruling to return the $130 grand to Cohn. Stormy has no doubt already made up for that amount and once the NDA is deemed void, she'll really rake it in. This is a case where both supposed parties are slimy as hell. But I really think she's out Trumped Trump.

 

[Pogo]

And again --- he's named as "intended beneficiary" ------- where?

I have already discussed this. I feel like I am bashing my head on the wall with you.

He does NOT have to be named to be an intended beneficiary. He doesn't even need to be born yet or have a fucking name to begin with. It is the intent of the parties to the contract that matters. If Trump can prove that he is an intended beneficiary, he will have standing.

Yeah you did already say that. And I already asked "How" he could do that. And you didn't answer.

 

[Pogo]

Once AGAIN --- how can you find a way to not-talk about something you're claiming never happened?

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS --- if you entered into an NDA, you're saying by definition that there's an event to not-talk about. If you simultaneously claim there was no event, then there can be no valid NDA.

This is not that complicimated. It's either one or the other -- can't have both.

If she accepted money to not talk about something, whether it happened or not, and signed a legal agreement to that effect, would she not be bound to not talk about it, and violate the agreement if she did?

Once AGAIN --- what is this, seventh time now? Eighth? ***HOW*** can you be bound to not-talk about something that never happened?

If that's too many words, the question is """"How"""".

Are you not bound to the terms of a contract when you sign it and accept payment?

Shall we go for nine?

The reason you can't answer the question is that there is no answer --- you CAN'T agree to not-talk about an event that does not exist. Because there's uh... nothing there to not-talk about.

Duh?

Either there IS an event *AND* an NDA about it ---- or there is NO event and NO NDA.

If Rump wants to claim there was no event --- and he already has -- then he cannot collect on an NDA, by definition. Even if his name were on it, which it isn't.

Rump fucked up here. And he would have got away with it if Stormy hadn't rained on it. He has himself --- or she has him --- painted into a corner. Consider the whole escapade as if it were, say... a casino. In Atlantic City. A bigly gamble goes down, it fails, and the casino goes down too.

Yeah, I'm also not a lawyer but I can't think of any way that Trump and his lawyer can prevail. A contract has to have two clear parties to it. And it seems that nobody can even determine who the parties are let alone who the aggrieved party is. It's a stinky mess that I think no judge could unravel. I'd be very surprised if Trump or Cohn ever see a penny. Except maybe a ruling to return the $130 grand to Cohn. Stormy has no doubt already made up for that amount and once the NDA is deemed void, she'll really rake it in. This is a case where both supposed parties are slimy as hell. But I really think she's out Trumped Trump.

Happily, Roy Cohn is dead and gone to Hell. This is another guy. I agree with the rest.

Roy Cohn in large part trained Rump to be the sleazeball he is as far as tactics of refusing to pay people and then telling them "sue me" and tying them up in court (for example). He was there with Rump and his father when they got sued for not renting to black people and tried to countersue the government for picking on them And of course before that he was Joe McCarthy's goon.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yeah you did already say that. And I already asked "How" he could do that. And you didn't answer.

How? Who are the parties to the contract? The Restatement indicates that most Courts favor the intent of the promisee (which in this case, appears to be the lawyer). Thus, I am pretty sure the lawyer's testimony would probably just about wrap it up. What do you think?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yeah, I'm also not a lawyer but I can't think of any way that Trump and his lawyer can prevail. A contract has to have two clear parties to it. And it seems that nobody can even determine who the parties are let alone who the aggrieved party is. It's a stinky mess that I think no judge could unravel. I'd be very surprised if Trump or Cohn ever see a penny. Except maybe a ruling to return the $130 grand to Cohn. Stormy has no doubt already made up for that amount and once the NDA is deemed void, she'll really rake it in. This is a case where both supposed parties are slimy as hell. But I really think she's out Trumped Trump.

That's what I have been saying. Quantum Meruit. Or at least rescission and return of the money. Or, Cohn (the promisee) can testify that Trump was the intended beneficiary and Trump can bring the action as a third party.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah you did already say that. And I already asked "How" he could do that. And you didn't answer.

How? Who are the parties to the contract? The Restatement indicates that most Courts favor the intent of the promisee (which in this case, appears to be the lawyer). Thus, I am pretty sure the lawyer's testimony would probably just about wrap it up. What do you think?

If the lawyer continues to flog the story that Rump knew nothing à la Sargent Shultz and that he simply paid her out of his own pocket for no apparent reason, yeah that will 'wrap it up' --- in another happy ending for Stormy. Uh, so to speak.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, I'm also not a lawyer but I can't think of any way that Trump and his lawyer can prevail. A contract has to have two clear parties to it. And it seems that nobody can even determine who the parties are let alone who the aggrieved party is. It's a stinky mess that I think no judge could unravel. I'd be very surprised if Trump or Cohn ever see a penny. Except maybe a ruling to return the $130 grand to Cohn. Stormy has no doubt already made up for that amount and once the NDA is deemed void, she'll really rake it in. This is a case where both supposed parties are slimy as hell. But I really think she's out Trumped Trump.

That's what I have been saying. Quantum Meruit. Or at least rescission and return of the money. Or, Cohn (the promisee) can testify that Trump was the intended beneficiary and Trump can bring the action as a third party.

How can Cohen (again Roy Cohn is DEAD and burning in Hell) make a case that Rump is the intended beneficiary when (a) Rump is already on record denying that the event happened at all, and (b) such a direction would amount to tacit agreement that the payment *WAS* in fact made to benefit the Rump campaign --- which automatically makes it an illegal campaign contribution?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If the lawyer continues to flog the story that Rump knew nothing à la Sargent Shultz and that he simply paid her out of his own pocket for no apparent reason, yeah that will 'wrap it up' --- in another happy ending for Stormy. Uh, so to speak.

Trump doesn't have to know anything about the contract. It could be a contract with an infant as the intended beneficiary. They infant (probably through the infant's parent or legal guardian) would still have the right to sue as a third party beneficiary.

 

[bripat9643]

Sleaze charge: ‘I took drugs, had homo sex with Obama’

LOL

WND is a site for fruits and nuts.

You must be thinking of CNN or MSNBC.

Nope, I'm talking about a website so far detached from reality, they even post articles like this one where they claimed Al-Qaeda had as many as 70 nuclear weapons, including some inside the U.S....

Al-Qaida nukes already in U.S.

Only the dumbest of rightards rely on WND for information.

How dumb are the retards who believed Trump had advance access to the stolen emails published by WikiLeaks?

Your non-sequitur is noted and dismissed. Meanwhile, WND publishes pure nonsense and does nothing but dumb down its readers. According to WND, the U.S. was nuked more than a decade ago.

How is it a non sequitur? You claimed only the dumbest use news sources that publish bogus information. That includes the following CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, CNBC, NYT, WAPO, LA Times, yada, yada, yada. According to all of them, Trump had access to the Wikileaks emails before they were published on the internet. That's only one of the many lies they have told.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, I'm also not a lawyer but I can't think of any way that Trump and his lawyer can prevail. A contract has to have two clear parties to it. And it seems that nobody can even determine who the parties are let alone who the aggrieved party is. It's a stinky mess that I think no judge could unravel. I'd be very surprised if Trump or Cohn ever see a penny. Except maybe a ruling to return the $130 grand to Cohn. Stormy has no doubt already made up for that amount and once the NDA is deemed void, she'll really rake it in. This is a case where both supposed parties are slimy as hell. But I really think she's out Trumped Trump.

That's what I have been saying. Quantum Meruit. Or at least rescission and return of the money. Or, Cohn (the promisee) can testify that Trump was the intended beneficiary and Trump can bring the action as a third party.

How can Cohen (again Roy Cohn is DEAD and burning in Hell) make a case that Rump is the intended beneficiary when (a) Rump is already on record denying that the event happened at all, and (b) such a direction would amount to tacit agreement that the payment *WAS* in fact made to benefit the Rump campaign --- which automatically makes it an illegal campaign contribution?

No it doesn't. To be illegal, douchebags like you would have to prove that Cohen coordinated his actions with Trump. He denies that, and there is no evidence that he did.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

How can Cohen (again Roy Cohn is DEAD and burning in Hell) make a case that Rump is the intended beneficiary when (a) Rump is already on record denying that the event happened at all, and (b) such a direction would amount to tacit agreement that the payment *WAS* in fact made to benefit the Rump campaign --- which automatically makes it an illegal campaign contribution?

Well, (a) Trump doesn't have to have knowledge about the contract. The intent is Cohen's, not Trump's.

And, (b) that does NOT mean the payment was made to benefit the Trump campaign. It may have been intended to benefit Trump personally, because he is a public figure and was prior to entering into politics. His public reputation outside any political campaign would still be something he would want to protect. He would benefit from such an agreement whether he was running or not. It is independent of his political campaign.

Now, for purposes of campaign finance, they may be able to make a case for an improper donation, but that is on Cohen, not Trump. ESPECIALLY if Trump knew nothing about it.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, I'm also not a lawyer but I can't think of any way that Trump and his lawyer can prevail. A contract has to have two clear parties to it. And it seems that nobody can even determine who the parties are let alone who the aggrieved party is. It's a stinky mess that I think no judge could unravel. I'd be very surprised if Trump or Cohn ever see a penny. Except maybe a ruling to return the $130 grand to Cohn. Stormy has no doubt already made up for that amount and once the NDA is deemed void, she'll really rake it in. This is a case where both supposed parties are slimy as hell. But I really think she's out Trumped Trump.

That's what I have been saying. Quantum Meruit. Or at least rescission and return of the money. Or, Cohn (the promisee) can testify that Trump was the intended beneficiary and Trump can bring the action as a third party.

How can Cohen (again Roy Cohn is DEAD and burning in Hell) make a case that Rump is the intended beneficiary when (a) Rump is already on record denying that the event happened at all, and (b) such a direction would amount to tacit agreement that the payment *WAS* in fact made to benefit the Rump campaign --- which automatically makes it an illegal campaign contribution?

No it doesn't. To be illegal, douchebags like you would have to prove that Cohen coordinated his actions with Trump. He denies that, and there is no evidence that he did.

And naming Rump as the beneficiary would do exactly that.

 

[Pogo]

How can Cohen (again Roy Cohn is DEAD and burning in Hell) make a case that Rump is the intended beneficiary when (a) Rump is already on record denying that the event happened at all, and (b) such a direction would amount to tacit agreement that the payment *WAS* in fact made to benefit the Rump campaign --- which automatically makes it an illegal campaign contribution?

Well, (a) Trump doesn't have to have knowledge about the contract. The intent is Cohen's, not Trump's.

And, (b) that does NOT mean the payment was made to benefit the Trump campaign. It may have been intended to benefit Trump personally, because he is a public figure and was prior to entering into politics. His public reputation outside any political campaign would still be something he would want to protect. He would benefit from such an agreement whether he was running or not. It is independent of his political campaign.

Now, for purposes of campaign finance, they may be able to make a case for an improper donation, but that is on Cohen, not Trump. ESPECIALLY if Trump knew nothing about it.

Umm.... he's a bit more than "not a public figure" when he's a major party's candy for President a couple of weeks out from the election. Had Cohen pulled this in, say, 2009, there would be no issue. The timing tells the tale.

As far as "Rump knew nothing about it", that goes with "The check is in the mail" and "This won't hurt a bit".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Judge denied her attempts at weaseling out of her NDA Penalty she signed over an Appearance Fee, when her and her weaselly attorney tried to depose The President who's name does not even appear on the NDA.

She is closer to having to pay out that $20 Million she owes for violating the contract. Her and her agent are idiots for trying to cash in on a 12 year old NDA for an appearance fee, and agreement she signed with Michael Cohen. They tried to color around the edges, because they knew anything even inferred about President Trump would get attention of The Rabid Foaming at The Mouth Trump Hating Media and result in more appearances and more appearance fees.

In her own words in numerous public statements, she said:

"I did not sleep with Trump and it's absurd that I would accept a mere $130,000 for something like that."

Trump keeps on winning, and you creeps keep on scheming.

When are you going to learn?

Judge denies Stormy Daniels' request to depose Trump

Stormy Daniels ordered by arbitration judge not to sue, Michael Cohen's lawyer says

Judge denies Stormy Daniels’s bid to expedite case against Trump over confidential agreement

Stormy Daniels Denies She Had an Affair With Donald Trump

Remarkable, but not surprising, the extent to which Trump sycophants just don’t get it.

The Orange Idiot is going to lie during this, or any one of his other depositions – he can’t help himself, he’s a pathological liar.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Umm.... he's a bit more than "not a public figure" when he's a major party's candy for President a couple of weeks out from the election. Had Cohen pulled this in, say, 2009, there would be no issue. The timing tells the tale.

I said Trump IS a public figure. He was a public figure well before he ran for office. He was a public figure in the 80s.

Like I said, there may be a case against Cohen for an improper campaign donation, but not against Trump.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Remarkable, but not surprising, the extent to which Trump sycophants just don’t get it.

The Orange Idiot is going to lie during this, or any one of his other depositions – he can’t help himself, he’s a pathological liar.

I agree.

He fucked Stormy. We all know he did.

He is going to lie his ass off. We all know he will.

Trump is nowhere CLOSE to the exception. This is the standard for public officials. Why would we EVER let them have even more power?

 

[bripat9643]

Why wasn't it news when a homosexual said he had sex with Obama and snorted coke with him?

Where the fuck do you get this shit from. From where all shit comes? Amazing.

Sleaze charge: ‘I took drugs, had homo sex with Obama’

I visited that website to see what you've got. Are you fuckin' serious? You look to this rag for truth? You think this is a viable source for news? The longer I'm on this forum the more I can see how Trump got elected. You folks wouldn't recognize truth if it bit you on the forehead. These "Journalists" put Fox Noise to shame in partisan horse hockey. Let me ask you straight out, Do you really believe this site is a reliable source of information?

Quotes are quotes, dumbass. You're attempting the standard leftwing fallacy of attacking the source. You even posted the same quote of Brennan that I posted.

Quote of Brennan? WTF? When the source is clearly full o' shit then it deserves to be attacked. That site is the very definition of "Fake News" that you Trumpers like to talk about. I'll bet 90% of what they post is hogwash meant to defend the orange scourge.

Sorry, I fail to notice an obvious problem with it. Apparently you believe that any source that isn't constantly spewing anti-Trump propaganda is fake news. Nevertheless, your own preferred site posted the exact same quote from Brennan. The fact that you don't see a problem with what Brenan said is sad.

 

[Pogo]

Umm.... he's a bit more than "not a public figure" when he's a major party's candy for President a couple of weeks out from the election. Had Cohen pulled this in, say, 2009, there would be no issue. The timing tells the tale.

I said Trump IS a public figure. He was a public figure well before he ran for office. He was a public figure in the 80s.

Like I said, there may be a case against Cohen for an improper campaign donation, but not against Trump.

There already is, even if Cohen doesn't name Rump as beneficiary. That is, of course, if anything is ever adjudged to be due to a beneficiary at all. And if he does name Rump as beneficiary, that's tantamount to admitting Rump paid for the hush money in the first place. That would be his investment.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Either Skanky Daniels has some benefactors with some seriously deep pockets, or she's just a dumb porn whore.

No mention of the big dumb media whore she fucked whose wife was home with a new baby?

 

[WaitingFor2020]

How can Trump sue her for violating an NDA which Trump's lawyer just said today that Trump was not aware of?

Oopsie!

Trump's lawyer is the one suing her, not Trump, dumbass.

Then why is he suing her?
Check the law before you open your piehole and let the flies out:
(B) A member shall not accept or continue representation of a client without providing written disclosure to the client where:

• (1) The member has a legal, business, financial, professional, or personal relationship with a party or witness in the same matter; or
  
  (2) The member knows or reasonably should know that:
  • 
    (a) the member previously had a legal, business, financial, professional, or personal relationship with a party or witness in the same matter; and
    
    (b) the previous relationship would substantially affect the member's representation; or
  (3) The member has or had a legal, business, financial, professional, or personal relationship with another person or entity the member knows or reasonably should know would be affected substantially by resolution of the matter; or
  
  (4) The member has or had a legal, business, financial, or professional interest in the subject matter of the representation.

The State Bar of California