Why Trump Didn't Sign Agreement with Stormy Daniels

[DonViejo]

March 7, 2018 at 9:18 am EST By Taegan Goddard

Michael Avenatti, attorney for porn star Stormy Daniels, told the Today Show why he thinks Donald Trump didn’t sign the confidentiality agreement with his client.

Said Avenatti: “There were three parties to the agreement…two of the three signed. Mr. Trump did not sign. We believe that was so that he could later claim deniability, and therefore, from a legal perspective, we believe she’s free to talk.”

He added that Daniels is prepared to return the $130,000 she was given.


###

https://politicalwire.com/2018/03/07/trump-didnt-sign-agreement-stormy-daniels/

[ffr]

1. She should keep the $130,000 as a gift. But tRump and Co are in more hot water legally.

Link to tweet

[Motley13]

11. lock them both up

I don't think the suit will work, however more proof of what a thieving scumbag he is & that serves a purpose.



The 'hush agreement' used fake names, the maggot likes to use fake names to praise himself, John Miller, John Barron

The "hush agreement" used alias names to refer to Trump and Daniels within the agreement, according to the lawsuits.

"Ms. Clifford was referred to by the alias 'Peggy Peterson' or 'PP.' Mr. Trump, on the other hand, was referred to by the alias 'David Dennison,' or 'DD,'" the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit includes an attachment of the hush agreement, showing the alias names.
Trump is accused of not signing the agreement on purpose

According to the lawsuit, the "hush agreement" required the signatures of all those involved, including Trump, who did not sign.

"Mr. Trump purposely did not sign the agreement so he could later, if need be, publicly disavow any knowledge of the Hush Agreement and Ms. Clifford," the lawsuit alleges.

http://www.abc10.com/article/news/nation-now/a-bungalow-meeting-aliases-what-we-learned-from-the-stormy-daniels-lawsuit-alleging-trump-affair/465-e546c519-1ed8-4bbb-879f-9b91db36319c

[Merlot]

2. Yes, and I figured that out without having a law degree.

[Va Lefty]

3. Per Josh Marshall TPM...

"The first argument is that Donald Trump himself never signed the agreement – willfully, not through inattention – and thus there’s no agreement. I suspect this is not a terribly strong argument since news reports at least suggest that Daniels accepted the payment of $130,000. My sense is that in most cases if you sign an agreement and accept the consideration, i.e., the money, that’s an agreement whether or not the other person signs. And remember, Cohen signed on Trump’s behalf. So this argument doesn’t sound terribly strong."

[unblock]

5. technically cohen signed on his own, not as donnie's lawyer.

it was a tripartite (3-way) agreement, "donnie's lawyer" actually couldn't be representing donnie in that case because he was representing a different party to the agreement, namely, himself (as "essential consultants, llc&quot .

the rest of your quote makes sense, though. hard to say an agreement didn't exist if she took the money and held it for months and months.

moreover, her inability to find a signature isn't compelling evidence that donnie never signed. all donnie has to do is find a signed copy. of course, he could even sign it tomorrow if he hadn't earlier. illegal, but good luck proving it (just to prevent any document analysis, he could send in a photocopy).

[myraphilips]

4. Sounds like

It's common for lawyers to sign on behalf of their clients and that is what most likely happened here. She can give back the funds helping her cause and will make more money from endorsements and deals and I'm sure strong women like myself would be glad to contribute and pay for her legal fees should a suit arise against her.

[Danascot]

14. OK, but what I really want to see coming out of this is for

Michael Cohen to go to prison. (Trump too but he's already cooked 100 times over.)

Welcome to DU!

[Jersey Devil]

6. Failure to sign does not automatically make an agreement unenforceable

Trump paid her and payment of "consideration" is an event that is what they call an exception to the "Statute of Frauds". This lawsuit sounds like baloney.

[DetlefK]

8. Trump did not pay her. A third party, Cohen, paid her.

[Jersey Devil]

10. All the more reason why Trump's signature was not necessary.

If her contract was with the lawyer rather than Trump, who would be a third party beneficiary, then his signature would be totally unnecessary.

[DetlefK]

13. I see, you're correct. But this opens a new can of worms:

If Trump did not make that contract with her, if he was just a third-party beneficiary, then Cohen made this agreement to Trump's advantage. Trump did not make this agreement to his own advantage. And that makes the argument even stronger that Cohen's spent the hush-money on Trump's behalf to influence the election. And that's against election-laws.

[shanny]

9. Cohen paid her, according to him.

And allegedly the money didn't come from Trump or his campaign.

Also, apparently it was a three-party agreement, one of whom didn't sign it.

Dunno what that means or if Daniels can prevail; do know that I'm enjoying it.

[global1]

7. What Are The Tax Implications For All Parties Involved In This?....nt

[Whiskeytide]

12. I have not had time to read over ...

... the agreement - a 20 something page agreement to say "don't tell anyone you boinked Trump and we'll pay you $130k" is more than a little overkill.

But I did see that the document is called a "Mutual Release". That means Trump was releasing HER as well as she was releasing Trump. His failure to sign could, therefore, be an issue since she may not have gotten everything that was bargained for.

This is a very complicated set of legal issues. A party doesn't always have to sign an agreement to make it enforceable against a party that DID sign. Consideration was paid and accepted. A lawyer can - in some circumstances - sign for and bind a client to terms. And a breach by one party doesn't always mean the entire agreement is void.

It's interesting, though. I'll read over it perhaps later today - after I pick up some hand(eye) sanitizer at the drug store.