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

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

Losing his law license is the least of Cohen's worries right now. He's looking at a potential life sentence, and every contract he ever negotiated on Trumps behalf being invalid.

Maintaining his freedom and getting disbarred is his best possible outcome here. Given the actions of everyone else who has been close to this investigation on Trumps side, from his legal team, to the HIC, to others in Congress, to White House staff, and the way they have all run away from this screaming I can guarantee there is a lot to this that we don't know, and that it only gets worse... much worse.

originally posted by: Aazadan

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.

That's not true. An NDA can be unilateral or mutual: Unilateral vs. Mutual NDAs

Low-hanging Wiki fruit ...

NDAs are commonly signed when two companies, individuals, or other entities (such as partnerships, societies, etc.) are considering doing business and need to understand the processes used in each other's business for the purpose of evaluating the potential business relationship. NDAs can be "mutual", meaning both parties are restricted in their use of the materials provided, or they can restrict the use of material by a single party.

originally posted by: The GUT
Talk about Deep State corruption and shenanigans. The Puppet Mockingbird MSM were primed and ready to go by their sold-out Handlers.

Suddenly pulling a story from a wire service such as the AP is "the deep state". Crazy. Who knew all these years that the AP and Reuters were pulling the strings!

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan

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

TheRedneck

They are either one way or mutual. In this case it would have to be mutual. It is not a legal contract where one party retains the ability to disparage the other party, and that party is prevented from speaking out against it.

originally posted by: Aazadan

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.

So...you are suggesting that she could breach the NDA, at any time, and then she was simply free from it?

Really?

So all those terms about $1 million per breach...nonsense? Like, why would anyone bother with an NDA if that was the case??

And, again, NO ONE knows if Trump signed it or not. Certainly, 'EC' signed it and was authorized to sign on behalf of the first party. But, there is the counterpart clause which shows that Trump could have his own signed copy and Stormy was not entitled to a copy signed by him.

The public isn't entitled to see a copy signed by Trump either. We aren't a party to the agreement.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, the public isn't entitled to see it, but he could show it to Avenatti and destroy the entire case, then collect on the damages, and possibly even counter sue. He could also show it to a court and destroy the case. He is not doing that.

a reply to: Aazadan

I said "please educate yourself," not "please wallow in ignorance."

Perhaps you misunderstood.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: mkultra11
a reply to: Scrubdog

After all that. It has nothing to do with Trump. Name the law he broke which makes him a criminal? Its the disappointment in Trump haters that really make me laugh.

The investigation is ongoing. There is no way anyone yet knows what Mueller has but he is obviously getting close to someone whose official residence is at 1400 Pennsylvania Ave.

That said, I'd say that Trump has demonstrated on numerous occasions that he is not averse to obstruction of justice. Whether the Mueller can (yet) prove that he has actually done so is unknown. Certainly if he fires Mueller, it is a slam dunk obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice IS a crime. Taking foreign money for your campaign IS a crime. Taking gifts from foreign entities, especially for favors, IS a crime.

By the way, impeachment does not require a crime. The phrase is 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. It is a POLITICAL decision by the House of Representatives to decide whether some 'misdemeanor' is worthy of impeachment and by the Senate whether or not to convict.

Hope they raid 1400 Penn ave.

Why on earth would they want to raid an empty plaza in front of the Willard Hotel? The Willard itself might yield a treasure trove of philanderers and floozies. Don't you just love alliteration? Anyway, the only papers at 1400 Penn, as opposed to 1600, are discarded hot dog wrappers. But don't feel bad. You're in good (I think) company. Sarah Palin made the same mistake.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan

I said "please educate yourself," not "please wallow in ignorance."

Perhaps you misunderstood.

TheRedneck

Not every contract that gets signed is enforceable.

Also, an aspect to this that hasn't been talked about much yet is that Cohen is the RNC Finance Chair. This could extend well beyond Trump and to the entire party.

What if the real motive here...

Is to get Cohen to talk.

Let's say they already have collusion proof on Trump.. but they need a stronger case. They know Cohen is/was involved...

So they dig.. find things they can get him on personally...

Then cut him a deal to talk and testify against Trump.

Oh that would be so good.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, the public isn't entitled to see it, but he could show it to Avenatti and destroy the entire case, then collect on the damages, and possibly even counter sue. He could also show it to a court and destroy the case. He is not doing that.

Actually, Avenatti amended his request for the Court to invalidate the NDA. Now, it's not so much about Trump not signing it as it is that the $1 million per breach agreement is 'unconscionable."

Also, Stormy agreed to settle all disputes in arbitration -- where the details would be sealed. So that's what they have requested the Court to do....send it to arbitration. I assume Cohen/Trump would prefer to wait until the judge has decided on that before revealing anything.

a reply to: Aazadan

Believe whatever you want to believe.

This is precisely why I vet people before even agreeing to execute an NDA with them.

TheRedneck

Right now this is all speculation.

This is what we know:

The DOJ, from the Southern District of New York, went in with search warrants, on the personal attorney of the President. So this was signed off on by a judge, who agreed that there was probable cause of a crime has been done. As Mueller is not involved, this has no bearing on that investigation.

What the man is accused of doing, we do not know.
As far as attorney client privilege, from what all I understand, the SDNY will pull lawyers, who are federal investigators to look at the evidence, putting them into three piles. So that privilege can be maintained.

Until charges are put forth, and it will be public, all this is, is mere speculation.

But if this deals with Stormy Daniels, then it could be more of a financial crime, and possible going into the timing and thus violating the campaign finance issue. But here again, that is speculation and can not be proven.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
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...

The Payment was in 2016, the FEC Complaint was made a few months ago (January), not over a year ago.
It was made when the payment became known publicly.

Any other "confusion" I can clear up for you?

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
What if the real motive here...

Is to get Cohen to talk.

Let's say they already have collusion proof on Trump.. but they need a stronger case. They know Cohen is/was involved...

So they dig.. find things they can get him on personally...

Then cut him a deal to talk and testify against Trump.

Oh that would be so good.

If this has ANYTHING to do with russia then it is muellers, and he gave this away so no russia here.

originally posted by: Aazadan

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

Losing his law license is the least of Cohen's worries right now. He's looking at a potential life sentence, and every contract he ever negotiated on Trumps behalf being invalid.

Maintaining his freedom and getting disbarred is his best possible outcome here. Given the actions of everyone else who has been close to this investigation on Trumps side, from his legal team, to the HIC, to others in Congress, to White House staff, and the way they have all run away from this screaming I can guarantee there is a lot to this that we don't know, and that it only gets worse... much worse.

you're right...I've heard that Cohen has been under investigation for a while, about much more than that pay-off to stormy.....I think Trump is finally realizing that he is in a world of s**t. I wonder how many more white house employees will cut their losses and get the hell out of there.....

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The arbitration terms were unfair, which again are not enforceable. Arbiters are supposed to be neutral. The contract states Trump/Cohen get to pick the location and Arbiter.

The motion to depose Trump (which was originally thrown out) is in reaction to Trump admitting to it last week.

a reply to: Aazadan

"always make sure the day job is secure" 👋🤦

--Confucius in the 21st Century

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The arbitration terms were unfair, which again are not enforceable. Arbiters are supposed to be neutral. The contract states Trump/Cohen get to pick the location and Arbiter.

The motion to depose Trump (which was originally thrown out) is in reaction to Trump admitting to it last week.

But she and her attorney AGREED to the terms. They signed that they were of sound mind, not coerced, and understood all of it.

Besides, the agreement is neutral. If she didn't breach it, there would be no problem. $130,000 just for saying nothing...seems like she got a great deal.

The $1 million per breach figure was high because of 'DD's' high profile status. I cannot recall the exact words used in the Agreement, ATM, but it was all very clear and...

....she agreed to it. She doesn't deny agreeing to it.