Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A quick read of the Amended Stormy Daniels Complaint [View all]gratuitous
(82,849 posts)2. I wonder if the new argument was available in state court?
I haven't read the new complaint to compare it to the original filing, so I'll take your word for it that a new specification has been added: The NDA is invalid on policy grounds as the payout was an illegal campaign contribution. Could it be that this allegation wasn't available in a state court proceeding, but is available in a federal proceeding? If so, it could be that Trump's legal team has once again shot itself in the foot.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
42 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Under this argument, every NDA is problematic because it is a form of blackmail
EffieBlack
Mar 2018
#10
"when he first filed the suit, the campaign finance issue was floating around in the ether"
jberryhill
Mar 2018
#15
Interesting analysis - but I think the campaign finance argument is stronger than you do
EffieBlack
Mar 2018
#6
That still conflates the object of the contract with the means of performance
jberryhill
Mar 2018
#22
Whether or not she knew the payment was an illegal campaign contribution is irrelevant
EffieBlack
Mar 2018
#41
From the bleacher seats it seems Michael Avenatti has David Dennison right where he wants him.
DemocratSinceBirth
Mar 2018
#38