Understand that the "lawyer" on the left is saying a bunch of things that literally have nothing to do with contract law. Trump was not a party to the NDA and cannot enforce it; Michael Cohen (as EC, LLC) was a party but cannot show damages. Also, Cohen has violated the contract.
2/ "EC, LLC" has nothing to do with Trump—and Cohen didn't sign the NDA as Trump's attorney or an entity in any way connected to Trump. Attorney Harder can claim all he wants that Trump is a party to the contract, but we see no evidence of it in the four corners of the document.
3/ In order for Trump to make himself a party to the NDA, his attorneys will have to introduce evidence of facts outside the four corners of the document. And in so doing, they'll open up a can of worms in terms of new discovery, depositions, and politically damaging revelations.
4/ The idea that you could have a "third-party beneficiary" to a contract who's listed in the contract as having responsibilities and making representations of fact but who—mirabile dictu—somehow doesn't have to sign the contract is so far outside contract law as to be laughable.
5/ Cohen's pal—a "lawyer"—slips up repeatedly here due to the incoherence of his legal theory. At one point he says Trump can collect damages as the contract's intended beneficiary, while at another he says Cohen—who suffered no harm—was in fact the beneficiary and will collect.
6/ The simple fact is that this was a sham "contract" intended to look legit and thus—with the help of some money— shut Stormy Daniels up.
But then Cohen went ahead and violated its signature clause, arbitration clause, and much else—making his attempts at enforcement foolhardy.
But then Cohen went ahead and violated its signature clause, arbitration clause, and much else—making his attempts at enforcement foolhardy.
7/ So now Trump—who's not a party to the contract, claims to have known nothing about it, and insists nothing ever happened between him and Daniels that he'd want to hide via an NDA—is trying to join the lawsuit against Daniels and get $20 million off it. This is a damned circus.
8/ Meanwhile, Karen MacDougal, seeing how incompetent Trump's lawyers are—the bottom line is that Cohen is just a brute and a fixer playing at being a lawyer—is preparing to go Stormy Daniels' route, which she'll be able to do and easily.
Next up? Summer Zervos' defamation suit.
Next up? Summer Zervos' defamation suit.
9/ Now we know why Cohen and his pals' idea of "lawyering" is just (if public reports are to be believed) threatening people. There's no evidence whatsoever that Cohen or his cronies have any idea how to draft an airtight contract, let alone litigate a contract in a court of law.
10/ Even more incompetent than anything we've seen from Cohen—quite an achievement—is everything we've seen from Trump, who rejected an offer to give Cohen his money back and let Daniels say whatever she wants in favor of a suit that'll expose him further legally and politically.
CONCLUSION/ Trump's best bet was to let Daniels speak her piece and simply deny everything she said—while fighting off any attempts to turn this she said/he said into litigation. Instead, he's welcoming litigation that could put him under oath and lead to new document production.
NOTE/ Trump's legal theory puts him in a hilarious catch-22: if he successfully establishes himself as a party to the contract to collect damages, he establishes too (per the contract) he was a necessary signatory to the contract, didn't sign it, and can't enforce it.
*facepalm*
*facepalm*
VIDEO/ Here's the full debate.
(I'll just say, to paraphrase a reader, "Trump's lawyer's lawyer needs a better lawyer.")
(I'll just say, to paraphrase a reader, "Trump's lawyer's lawyer needs a better lawyer.")
NOTE2/ Cohen's pal said Cohen signed the contract as the lawyer for "EC, LLC," not as Trump's lawyer, which happens to be one of the only accurate things he said to CNN. It also means Cohen had no authority to make representations on Trump's behalf in the contract. Which he did.
