Dissecting Trump's and Stormy's Hush Agreement

This ruling is going to come down to one thing, the NDA.

This NDA was done between 2 people, and the fact that one of the persons did not sign, raises a valid question is it a valid NDA. That is the part of the case that a Judge will have to decide. And there is one other part, the third party.

A third party was able to find out this information and disclose it, without either participants revealing anything. Thus, that part would also have to be asked of the courts to rule, since a third party found out this information through various research, and not from the parties on the NDA, is the NDA still effect?

But in either case, the President suing Storny Daniels, is a bad idea and move for him. While it is an interesting legal move, it does open up parts of the Presidents life he is not wanting to have opened up, and that would be through discovery.

a reply to: tadaman

Your Physical Life is Short in Perspective to your Immortal Existence . What we Do and Decide in this Life is an Abbreviation in the Greater Scope of Things......

a reply to: xuenchen

Or, he has the upper hand and could "blackmail" many others.

So you'd be ok with Trump blackmailing people? Pretty low bar we've set.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: MotherMayEye


I must admit that I am looking at this as in our modern Internet society. Simply making a check on a box at website that I understand and have read the terms and agreement is a legal contract. if I did not sign my signature nor read and understand ... Legally I have no standing to disagree that I simply did not understand.

I can see her signature and a notary. She agreed to the terms of the contract. It makes no difference whether anyone else signed. She did! She signed a contract fully aware that she was agreeing to not disclose anything.

She has no excuse. Stupidity unless determined mentally unstable or disabled? Perhaps? But stupidity is no excuse. Though if she is a mentally disabled individual...can you believe what she has to say?

Amazingly, the agreement included an acknowledgement that her lawyer had fully explained the terms to her AND SHE AND HER LAWYER SIGNED the agreement.

It was drafted to be completely favorable to Trump though....not give her any wiggle room...

Did her lawyer explain that?

No? Then I think she will have to file a professional negligence Complaint against her attorney to recover any damages she might be liable to Trump for.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: DogStarIn1066

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: DogStarIn1066

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: DogStarIn1066

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: GuidedKill

Present your legal arguments that dispute mine.

I am allowed to discuss my take and you are free to dispute the legal merit of my take.

If your only argument is that I am not a lawyer, then that doesn’t dispute a single thing I’ve written.

Go after the ball, not the player.

Ahem, I did, and you never addressed mutuality or acceptance. If Trump never signed then how do we know he agreed and understood, much less accepted.

We don’t have any good cause to believe he didn’t sign it and neither does Stormy.

The agreement specifically allows for him to sign it and NOT deliver a copy to Stormy or her attorney.

He can even sign it tomorrow and the terms say it’s retroactive to October 28, 2016.

Those are the expressed terms that Stormy agreed to.

She signed that she was of sound mind, not coerced, etc...

It’s a private agreement regarding mutually agreed confidential information...surely Stormy knew and understood she would not be getting a Trump-signed copy of it considering she agreed to turn over such damning material — videos, photos, information — regarding DD and the agreement.

AND, AGAIN, THE AGREEMENT DIDN’T REQUIRE HIM TO GIVE HER A SIGNED COPY. She signed that agreement.

These are the expressed terms.

See, that is the problem. You cannot write a contract that breaks contract law. Mutuality and acceptance are part of contract law. Did Trumps lawyer not know this?

This seems like a job for the courts to decide. Should be fun when Trump is deposed and says one thing, and his lawyer another. The whole contract could be tossed in an initial review. Who knows.

Mutuality and acceptance are covered in the agreement. He just didn’t have to give her a signed copy.

But she has made her notarized and signed copy public. She claims to have agreed to the expressed terms.

Then there is no proof by both parties that the contract was executed, and that invalidates the contract. Contract law 101. Sounds like Trumps lawyer put unefforceable clauses into the contract that render it invalid.

She has no legal basis to doubt he has a signed copy and no legal right to ask to see one AND is prohibited from violating the terms she agreed to.

If that is your position then ask someone other than me, like a judge. I am sure that is what Stormy's lawyr will do.

BTW, nice job on the OP.

No hard feelings. I had not looked at the contract till you posted. When I read through it about 10 red flags popped up, and some are very basic contract law fkags. It will be interesting to watch this play out.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: xuenchen

Or, he has the upper hand and could "blackmail" many others.

" So you'd be ok with Trump blackmailing people? Pretty low bar we've set.

"



Is there some Kind of Evidence to Support that Claim , or is it just a Supposition ?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: MotherMayEye

If someone puts a gun to your head and says to sign this..

And the contract says “of my own free will”. It’s irrelevant..


Though I doubt any threat against her was “real” would you be super surprised if jr or some close family loyalist made threatening comments???

Any threat, or even just chance of a threat would invalidate it all, screw who knew or signed what..

She doesn’t strike me as someone fearful to tell the story, but if she has proof that she was threatened or unlawfully coerced, of course I would consider it seriously.

a reply to: DogStarIn1066

Pffft, no hard feelings, at all.

a reply to: DogStarIn1066

The lawyer did not sign the contract as “lawyer for David Denison”.

He signed it “David Denison” and now claims he did that without trumps permission.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

There is an even money chance there was no threat, but a threat would invalidate the contract..


The only way trump screwed himself was by paying her off.. threat or not..

As MOTHERMAYEYE stated.. trump having a fling with a porn Star is “baked in”..

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

"Upper hand" as in "advantage" as in him having the ability to blackmail people being an advantage.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Yes , a Possibility , but According to the Law , there Must be Substantial Evidence that Points to that . is there ?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


As MOTHERMAYEYE stated.. trump having a fling with a porn Star is “baked in”..

I didn’t state that. I don’t even know what that means.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

That Trump can blackmail people or that the poster I was replying to thinks it would be a good thing if he could? I never said the former but believe the latter based on the OP's wording and post history.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

My mistake..


It means that people voted for trump knowing he did things like cheat on his wife with porn stars..

So that isn’t game changing news..

No one voted for trump because they agree with his morals.

However, imho paying her off to hide it from the American people and /or threatening her to sign . I do not think that is “baked in”.

I think that will likely change some minds.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

That Trump can blackmail people or that the poster I was replying to thinks it would be a good thing if he could? I never said the former but believe the latter based on the OP's wording and post history.

You don't mean me by 'OP,' eh?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think it will mainly cause people who are opposed to Trump feel more resolved in their opposition.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, the poster I originally replied to. My mistake, it was bad wording on my part.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Oh I think it is the opposite..

Only those who are hard core supporters won’t care..

Moderates absolutely will care..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: MotherMayEye

My mistake..


It means that people voted for trump knowing he did things like cheat on his wife with porn stars..

So that isn’t game changing news..

No one voted for trump because they agree with his morals.

However, imho paying her off to hide it from the American people and /or threatening her to sign . I do not think that is “baked in”.

I think that will likely change some minds.

I don't think it will change minds. Most folks at this point are in the "buy the tickrt, take the ride" mentality. on both sides.

It has gotten gradually worse for trump, but it is gradual, so no one notices.

I didn't vote for him or HRC. Both terrible. But I bought my ticket a long time ago, and I am here for the ride.

Might have to get out and push at some point....