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]jberryhill
(62,444 posts)23. Then you should go argue with Avenatti
You have just successfully argued against Daniels claim in the suit.
If you are saying the contract was not inherently illegal, then it is not voidable for illegality.
Compare what you have written with Daniels actual allegation:
45. First, the Hush Agreement was entered with the illegal aim, design, and purpose of circumventing federal campaign finance law under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 52 U.S.C. §§ 30101, et seq., and Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations.
So are you are saying is that Avenatti is full of crap there?
I'm certain you must know what "ab initio" means, and you must know why it is specifically stated throughout the complaint.
Avenatti's complaint, which I would suggest giving a thoughtful read, is at odds with what you are arguing here.
Moreover, the contract says nothing about being silent about the payments in and of themselves
Well that's just plain not true. The contract defines confidential material, and FURTHER states that the existence of the agreement is itself confidential. That inherently means being silent about the payment.
If you are going by the terms of the contract, no, she was not allowed to say she'd been paid $130k to keep quiet. That's basic to the design of the agreement.
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