Trump being sued by porn actress Stormy Daniels

[Deleted]

Because both involved parties in a case have to sign, should be quite obvious.

If you say so. If his representativ signed it, aint that in lawterms the same as if he would have?

- - - Updated - - -

I believe you would need trumps sig and his lawyers for a legally binding contract. Which is different to delegating business responsibilities

Probably right. Just semms odd, that for alot of other things you can use representativs.

[ati87]

I dont mean that nobody would have to sign, im wondering why just trump had to sign.
All contracts for his corporation surley does not have it his signature on them. Would not a signature from a representativ be enough?
Maybe its comparing the wrong things, im no expert on this kind of things.

- - - Updated - - -



So so Trump representativ is not enough?

Plus since we aren't talking about a businesses expense the contract needs to be signed by all parties to be valid because thats how contracts between people work.

Trying to deflect by talking about businesses contracts is kind of sad.

- - - Updated - - -

If you say so. If his representativ signed it, aint that in lawterms the same as if he would have?

- - - Updated - - -



Probably right. Just semms odd, that for alot of other things you can use representativs.

WHat's odd? The company I work for has allot of people that are allowed to sign off on expenses.

Example

The teamlead can sign off till 10k
THe manager of the teamlead 50k
Next person 100k
Person after that 250
CFO 1M
CEO everything

This is how business work, nothing weird about that except your understanding.

[Cthulhu 2020]

What I'm most looking forward to are family-values oriented socially conservative Christians falling over themselves to excuse it.

Meh, they've already largely excused it. Despite his numerous other anti Christian values actions throughout his life, they claim he's doing God's work so therefor all past sins should be forgiven. But then, you have to wonder what they mean when they say he's doing God's work by spreading hatred and protecting corruption and greed.

[Machismo]

I dont mean that nobody would have to sign, im wondering why just trump had to sign.
All contracts for his corporation surley does not have it his signature on them. Would not a signature from a representativ be enough?
Maybe its comparing the wrong things, im no expert on this kind of things.

- - - Updated - - -



So so Trump representativ is not enough?

That would largely depend on if he was an actual legal representative, and had a power of attorney over such decisions. Just because he was Trump's lawyer may not be enough. Generally, such relationships are very specific in how the attorney is an actual representative.

If they do try and argue that the lawyer was legally allowed to make the NDA binding, then it may be even worse for Trump, as there would be no deniability in saying he did not know about it. After all, if he is a legal representative on the matter, then it is the same as Trump signing (and knowing about) it.

[Deleted]

That would largely depend on if he was an actual legal representative, and had a power of attorney over such decisions. Just because he was Trump's lawyer may not be enough. Generally, such relationships are very specific in how the attorney is an actual representative.

If they do try and argue that the lawyer was legally allowed to make the NDA binding, then it may be even worse for Trump, as there would be no deniability in saying he did not know about it. After all, if he is a legal representative on the matter, then it is the same as Trump signing (and knowing about) it.

Thanks for explaning without being a fucking asshat.

Yeah, no matter what the heat around MR. Trump is rising.

Gonna be intresting to se this unfold, heard his lawyer is trying to stop her from doing a 60 min intreview.

[Machismo]

Thanks for explaning without being a fucking asshat.

Yeah, no matter what the heat around MR. Trump is rising.

Gonna be intresting to se this unfold, heard his lawyer is trying to stop her from doing a 60 min intreview.

I will be the first to admit that I know little about legal matters. I don't see them being able to stop the interview from airing, but judges have made stranger decisions in the past. At most, they can go after her after the fact for breaking the NDA. By then, the information will already be in the open. Since CBS never signed an agreement with him, they are simply airing someone else's free speech. All they would have to do, is make sure to announce that the things she's saying are her own, and not in any way indicative of the opinion of views of CBS.

Even then, an NDA can easily be circumvented, even of both parties initially agree to it. Since Trump didn't sign this one, then a judge will probably deem it to be non-binding. If the lawyer did have power of attorney to sign it, then we would have to know when such power was signed over, and it would almost certainly be a tacit admission that Trump knew about the payment the lawyer had made to Stormy Daniels.

[Dontrike]

She is offering to pay back the $130,000 if the NDA is lifted, allowing her to tell her story.

[cubby]

She is offering to pay back the $130,000 if the NDA is lifted, allowing her to tell her story.

I thought she was still contesting that the NDA was invalid. Or is she running multiple legal maneuvers simultaneously?

- - - Updated - - -

I will be the first to admit that I know little about legal matters. I don't see them being able to stop the interview from airing, but judges have made stranger decisions in the past. At most, they can go after her after the fact for breaking the NDA. By then, the information will already be in the open. Since CBS never signed an agreement with him, they are simply airing someone else's free speech. All they would have to do, is make sure to announce that the things she's saying are her own, and not in any way indicative of the opinion of views of CBS.

Actually stopping the interview is nearly impossible. Except for a valid NDA - and even then, that can't stop the interview. Trump can just sue on violation of the NDA. Nothing legally actually stops the interview from airing.

Even then, an NDA can easily be circumvented, even of both parties initially agree to it. Since Trump didn't sign this one, then a judge will probably deem it to be non-binding. If the lawyer did have power of attorney to sign it, then we would have to know when such power was signed over, and it would almost certainly be a tacit admission that Trump knew about the payment the lawyer had made to Stormy Daniels.

I hadn't heard about the power of attorney gambit - are they making a run at it? Because that could be an interesting way to weasel out of any admission.

[Sage89]

I wish she had not taken the hush money to begin with.

[cubby]

I wish she had not taken the hush money to begin with.

Taking the money and having a documented record of the transaction, so to speak , is actually better than her just telling a story. Trump has successfully deflected 20+ accusations of sexual assault and affairs, and the timing of this during the election would have seem opportunistic, especially to his rabid base.

Now, however, we have legal documentation that shows the world what he did, and when, and why. And it might also help some Trumpsters who are on the fence, or recently come over to reality, sit even more peacefully with their new found reality.

[Dontrike]

I thought she was still contesting that the NDA was invalid. Or is she running multiple legal maneuvers simultaneously?

It looks like it might be both, giving Trump and his lawyers any out still shows something happened. Her and her lawyer are dangling things in front of Trump to make this go away, but it won't no matter what.

[Somewhatconcerned]

Meh, they've already largely excused it. Despite his numerous other anti Christian values actions throughout his life, they claim he's doing God's work so therefor all past sins should be forgiven. But then, you have to wonder what they mean when they say he's doing God's work by spreading hatred and protecting corruption and greed.

[Drake] God's plan, God's plan [/Drake]

[Machismo]

I thought she was still contesting that the NDA was invalid. Or is she running multiple legal maneuvers simultaneously?

- - - Updated - - -



Actually stopping the interview is nearly impossible. Except for a valid NDA - and even then, that can't stop the interview. Trump can just sue on violation of the NDA. Nothing legally actually stops the interview from airing.




I hadn't heard about the power of attorney gambit - are they making a run at it? Because that could be an interesting way to weasel out of any admission.

That's the problem, a power of attorney, meaning an attempt to validate an unsigned NDA, would mean that Trump was legally aware of the contract that his lawyer signed on his behalf. Admittedly, I don't think they would take that route, and simply admit that the NDA isn't actually valid.

[cubby]

That's the problem, a power of attorney, meaning an attempt to validate an unsigned NDA, would mean that Trump was legally aware of the contract that his lawyer signed on his behalf. Admittedly, I don't think they would take that route, and simply admit that the NDA isn't actually valid.

Actually, I was thinking that with Power of Attorney, Trump could claim his attorney never told him about it. And attorney could claim he thought Trump wanted it to be handled. Therefore admitting it existed but not admitting it's validity.

[Machismo]

Actually, I was thinking that with Power of Attorney, Trump could claim his attorney never told him about it. And attorney could claim he thought Trump wanted it to be handled. Therefore admitting it existed but not admitting it's validity.

That's the problem, legally speaking, it would be as if Trump did know it existed, and admitted to its validity.

Now, I don't think for a second that they would try to argue he had the power to sign it for Trump, but I have heard a person or two try and make that claim.

[cubby]

That's the problem, legally speaking, it would be as if Trump did know it existed, and admitted to its validity.

But the thought process I suggested above would give Trump an "I didn't know about it" out - claiming that his lawyer never ran it by him before signing, under Power of Attorney, and the attorney assumed Trump wanted this to go away, regardless of the validity of the claim.

It might be a narrow path out.

[Machismo]

But the thought process I suggested above would give Trump an "I didn't know about it" out - claiming that his lawyer never ran it by him before signing, under Power of Attorney, and the attorney assumed Trump wanted this to go away, regardless of the validity of the claim.

It might be a narrow path out.

It may help with his base, but not with a court.

[cubby]

It may help with his base, but not with a court.

I think you're right. I think on a useless technical level I'm right, but the moment a judge has the authority to rule, it will be (accurately) called bullshit.

I'm also not up on my power of attorney law, so I could be wrong twice.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It may help with his base, but not with a court.

It won't help in court, but even if Trump is shown to have paid Stormy Daniels 140k to sleep with her, what is that going to do to his base?

My guess is at best they'll just try to ignore that he's an adulterous elite asshole who pays $140k for a mediocre porn star. And that's the old, religious nutjobs.

At worst they'll just cheer it on, saying that Trump is a baller for being able to hire porn stars.

I mean we see all of this stuff that looks and is horrible that Trump is doing. That if any other president had done anything remotely close to it, Republicans would have been screaming impeach from the second it was even uttered, and screamed impeach every minute til the next scandal came up (Which many of them did about Obama). Now we're just seeing both their hypocrisy and how they've abandoned all morals. Pointing out Trump's corruption, amorality, and lawlessness is only firing up his base, not turning them off.

[Felya]

I think you're right. I think on a useless technical level I'm right, but the moment a judge has the authority to rule, it will be (accurately) called bullshit.

I'm also not up on my power of attorney law, so I could be wrong twice.

He cannot use power of attorney, because it would be a problem for Trump Organization.