Stormy Daniels’ attorney Michael Avenatti is thrilled that President Donald Trump finally broke his silence on his alleged affair with the porn star.
(Watch the video at link)
While speaking to the press pool on Thursday, Trump said he did not know about a $130,000 payment that Michael Cohen made to Daniels in exchange for her silence and did not know where the money came from. It is the first public comment Trump has made on his alleged relationship with Daniels. Avenatti said on MSNBC shortly afterward that Trump’s comments were a “gift from the heavens.”
“This is a gift from the heavens,” he said. “I could think of few things that would be better for our case than the statements that the president made on Air Force One.”
Daniels is suing to be released from her non-disclosure agreement, claiming that the agreement is invalid because Trump never signed it.
Poster Comment:
....gift from heaven?
More like from hell. The 'attorney' is a pimp for Stormy the whore!
What, pray tell, is the purpose of this apparent romp by citizen Trump in the gutter if not for something more that the Democrat-Communist party can bray about?
This is truly a non-case regardless of whether Trump had a tryst with the whore or not!
DemocRATs and their collaborators are at home roiling about in the gutter.
#1: Jameson To: IbJensen (#0)
You may live in a world of denial if you please.
The facts and the law suggest otherwise......
Trump’s lawyer is in legal peril
Cohen’s lawyer told CNN’s Erin Burnett last week that Trump “was not aware of the agreement. At least Michael Cohen never told him about the agreement.”
Daniels has sued Trump and Cohen to set aside her hush agreement, and the lawsuit is proceeding in federal court in California. The story Cohen and Trump are taking into litigation, then, is that Cohen was a complete freelancer. He saw a problem for his friend and fixed it, paying with his own funds, while insulating Trump from any uncomfortable repercussions and safeguarding his deniability.
First, Cohen’s radically blinkered stance sharply increases his exposure to civil liability for defamation of Daniels. Cohen has tried to be careful to leave the characterizations of Daniels’s claim to his own laywer, but he blundered at least once, publicly implying that Daniels’s account is false — a problem because his strategy requires being ignorant of the facts of the affair.
Second, the rules of professional responsibility are explicit that the lawyer can’t simply enter into a settlement that binds the client but “must promptly inform the client of its substance” unless the client has previously authorized it. In other words, only the client can approve a settlement. Cohen’s strategy thus entails an admission of serious professional malfeasance.
He might have also committed patent, and potentially criminal, fraud against Daniels. He induced her into a settlement agreement without disclosing that Trump had no knowledge of it and, therefore, couldn’t uphold his end of the bargain. The agreement assigns Trump certain obligations, including a release of all his claims against Daniels and a promise not to communicate with Daniels or her family. But how can Trump — who is referred to as a “party” in the agreement — have legally promised to undertake these obligations if he was never aware of them?
Such fraud, under contract law, would mean that the agreement was never properly formed. Certainly, a court or an arbitrator won’t take kindly to learning that an agreement it is being asked to enforce was, on this level, a sham.
Finally, Cohen’s insistence that the settlement — made less than two weeks before the election and three weeks after publication of Trump’s notorious comments about grabbing women’s genitals — had nothing to do with the election is, to put it mildly, suspect. The timing opens him to potential civil and criminal charges of making illegal campaign contributions.
By Harry Litman
Harry Litman teaches constitutional law at the University of California at San Diego. He served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department from 1993 to 1998 and U.S. attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania from 1998 to 2001.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-lawyer-is-in-legal- peril/2018/04/03/7155f348-36aa-11e8-acd5-35eac230e514_story.html? utm_term=.9033ab81e169
Jameson posted on 2018-04-06 07:32:26 Reply Private Reply
#2: A K A Stone To: Jameson (#1)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-04-06 07:39:34 Reply Private Reply
#3: misterwhite To: Jameson (#1)
She took money in exchange for her silence and maintained her silence for 10 years. Now she's speaking. She broke the contract.
All the rest is irrelevant and legalese bullshit.
misterwhite posted on 2018-04-06 08:48:48 Reply Private Reply
#4: Jameson To: misterwhite (#3)
Thank you for the low-information voter's perspective.
merca! eff-yeah!
Jameson posted on 2018-04-06 09:01:52 Reply Private Reply
#5: IbJensen To: Jameson (#1)
And you are living in a lawyer's paradise if this bullcrap sees the light of day.
What is this prostitute after? She still has $130,000 which is more than she comade letting legions of men stretch her monkey.
IbJensen posted on 2018-04-06 09:29:11 Reply Private Reply
#6: Jameson To: IbJensen (#5)
Sure. We are living in a nation based on the rule of law.
What is this prostitute after?
I don't believe she was a prostitute, if you have proof to the contrary, please share.
What is she after? We can only speculate, but I'm betting that she has more to share about DD45 than the "story"........
Jameson posted on 2018-04-06 09:54:50 Reply Private Reply
#7: IbJensen To: Jameson (#6)
Oh, pleeeze!
IbJensen posted on 2018-04-06 10:35:39 Reply Private Reply
#8: Jameson To: IbJensen (#7)
Jameson posted on 2018-04-06 11:40:04 Reply Private Reply
#9: IbJensen To: Jameson (#8)
You care. How sweet.
IbJensen posted on 2018-04-07 06:12:01 Reply Private Reply