F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
ETA: Also, what do you mean Trump voided the agreement by running his mouth about the whole thing?

NDA's in order to be enforceable have to be applied to both sides, you cannot have an NDA where one side can say anything they want, but the other side is prevented from responding.

Also, this contract was extremely one sided which brings the legality of the whole thing into question. But that will be a question for the courts, and has nothing to do with this raid.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan

Where did the NDA attach Trump? It is a NDA between Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels.

Are you stating that for some reason Michael Cohen did not have the power to execute a contract himself? If so, how in the Hades did he take out that mortgage?

TheRedneck

It attached David Dennison. Whether or not that is Trump remains to be seen. Trump won't confirm or deny it, but Cohen has strongly implied that it's Trump.

a reply to: soberbacchus

It is profoundly illegal for an Attorney to act on a clients behalf without their knowledge or direction.

Statute, please?

Trump was either his client in the transaction or he wasn't.

The key phrase is 'in this transaction.' If Trump was not aware of the transaction, did not sign the NDA, and did not pay the expenses of the transaction (either directly or through reimbursement), then obviously he was NOT a client in the transaction. That does not preclude him from being Cohen's client in other matters.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
Except that Trump never signed the NDA, neither as himself, nor under the alias provided by his attorney, Cohen.

You don't know that he didn't sign it. Again, all we have seen is Stormy's copy. But, there is a counterpart clause in the agreement, so it is very possible that Trump did sign a copy. Plus, Stormy was the only one required to deliver a sign copy to the other party (to 'DD' specifically).

originally posted by: TheRedneck
The attorney cannot assist criminality in any way. If a client has murdered someone, the attorney may not pay a potential witness for their silence; that does supersede attorney-client privilege. However, in this case, having an affair is not criminal (and is also a non-issue as far as I'm concerned... if anyone really cares so much about who did what with who, go become a professional peeping Tom).

It's a bigger issue for Trump, because it would be grounds for a divorce with Melania without their prenup coming into play. That puts half of his assets at risk.

a reply to: Aazadan

Then when we get confirmation that David Dennison is an alias for Donald Trump, I will agree with you that it was a legal representation and Trump was attached.

Until then, Donald Trump is not involved.

TheRedneck

a reply to: soberbacchus

I don't find you credible or honest.

I couldn't care less.

You willful denial that he submitted a filing with the FEC is the definition of trolling.

A "response" is different than a "filing".
I simply asked for a link to the FEC filings YOU referenced. Asking for links to info is now trolling? Haha that is funny.


I do not think the FEC has done squat on this issue.

www.newsweek.com...
It does not appear that the FEC(the ones whose job it is to interpret election laws) are the ones taking action.

In January, independent government watchdog Common Cause filed a complaint with the Justice Department and the FEC alleging Cohen’s payment to Daniels, which occurred in the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign, was an undisclosed campaign contribution because it was made to influence the election. (Common Cause also filed a similar complaint about a $150,000 payment to former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal in February.) The FEC is still working through old cases and is expected to take a year or longer to decide on Common Cause’s complaint, NBC News reported.

hmm...a year or longer to decide on the complaint...
Cohen is not getting treated differently as to a timeline for the FEC to decide is he?

“It looks like Trump has made these kinds of payments to people before unrelated to his campaign or as a candidate,” former Republican FEC Chair Bradley Smith, who is the founder and chair of the Institute for Free Speech, a nonprofit advocacy group, told Newsweek. “It’s hard to show this payment was made solely because he was running for election.”

a reply to: Aazadan

I disagree...

This is a guess, but I don’t think there are any stipulations concerning both sides..

That is why only one side gets paid... they are getting paid because of the differences in stipulations...

If the deal had to be the same both directions. Why is one party getting paid to do it???



HOWEVER, I think the clincher that makes the NDA invalid is that the lawyer forged trumps name “without his knowledge “.

If trump gives his lawyer consent, then your lawyer can sign for you, but I don’t see how your lawyer can sign for you without consent..

That can’t be legally binding..


So trump is in a pickle..

If he didn’t know about the NDA, it would be invalid.

If he did d know about it, then he broke election law for not reporting it.

a reply to: Aazadan

It's a bigger issue for Trump, because it would be grounds for a divorce with Melania without their prenup coming into play. That puts half of his assets at risk.

I care as little about that as I do about whether or not he actually had the affair: none. That's called "personal business."

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
ETA: Also, what do you mean Trump voided the agreement by running his mouth about the whole thing?

NDA's in order to be enforceable have to be applied to both sides, you cannot have an NDA where one side can say anything they want, but the other side is prevented from responding.

Also, this contract was extremely one sided which brings the legality of the whole thing into question. But that will be a question for the courts, and has nothing to do with this raid.

You are going to have to provide some kind of source for your claims, but she and her attorney signed that they understood the Agreement and were of sound mind....oh, and that she was not coerced.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Asking for a hard to find obscure government filing, when everyone agrees the filing exists. Is absolutely trolling..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
HOWEVER, I think the clincher that makes the NDA invalid is that the lawyer forged trumps name “without his knowledge “.

Link, please.

The only copy I've seen was blank on the line for 'DD's' signature.

a reply to: EchoesInTime

Playboy model and Porn star?
These were both known.

I seriously doubt trump sits down with anyone after this.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yea, I’m pretty sure that is why one side is getting paid.. because the agreement isn’t equal for both sides..


That said contract law is VERY intricate, so it’s possible someone would have to specifically state they could talk, but the other side can’t..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: shooterbrody

Asking for a hard to find obscure government filing, when everyone agrees the filing exists. Is absolutely trolling..

It is pretty simple, don't reference "filings" that do not exist.
Complaints have been filed with the FEC, and those complaints received a response.
The FEC has not done ANYTHING with this yet. To represent that they have is dishonest.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
You are going to have to provide some kind of source for your claims, but she and her attorney signed that they understood the Agreement and were of sound mind....oh, and that she was not coerced.

That doesn't mean the other party held up their end. Once the contract is broken, or never formally signed in the first place, then both parties are free from it. If Trump wasn't party to the agreement, then she can't be silenced with the NDA. Furthermore, NDA's cannot be used to cover up criminal activity. If a campaign finance violation or bank fraud happened, as NY now believes did happen, an NDA cannot be used to cover up the facts of that case.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I deal with NDAs all the time... and to date I have yet to see one that precluded the person requesting the NDA from disclosing anything.

An NDA is commonly used when collaborating on an invention with another party. Patent attorneys use them constantly. They exist in order to prevent the one the idea is disclosed to from disclosing it further, not to prevent the inventor from disclosing his own invention.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
That said contract law is VERY intricate, so it’s possible someone would have to specifically state they could talk, but the other side can’t..

Just because that term is added to a contract doesn't make it enforceable. NDA's go in both directions.

put a fork in it, Cohen's law license is toast, if he is lucky enough to keep it, he'll be representing drunken driver arrests from now on. the noose around trump's neck has tightened considerably.

a reply to: Aazadan

NDAs do NOT "go in both directions." Please educate yourself.

TheRedneck