Sanders, in her daily presser, let the cat out of the bag. She said the president won arbitration against Daniels.

If the contract was merely one made between Cohen and Daniels, with Trump as a disinterested party, the contract not being about him at all, then how is that he had a ‘win’ in regard to it?  At this point, Sanders is the one who validated the entire episode as far as Daniels’ narrative being the truth. I’m sure Trump sent her out there to say it, being a megalomaniac who has to show ‘wins’. But if you have no dog in the race, as was claimed by Trump, this was just something between Cohen and Daniels, how does someone break a contract that they aren’t a party to, and gain a win? Trump screwed the pooch, whether Daniels gets her full story out there or not.  We know he is actively and currently trying to silence her, which is what her lawyer has been saying.

And now, the entire story is that he silenced her, to not talk about it during the campaign or election. Where, let’s face it, Trump supporters wouldn’t have given a sh*t about it anyway. Now the story is about Trump Inc laundering the payoff money through an LLC, set up simply to shut her up.  I don’t buy the story that has been run up the flagpole that Cohen was mad that he never got reimbursed. This guy has been with Trump for years and years. Ain’t no way he didn’t get compensated and reimbursed. They are using this story as a plausible way to separate Trump from the NDA, because he has a legitimate history of being a deadbeat on debts.  Funny that they are using one of Trump’s worst attributes as a defense.  Someone has to look into any payments to Cohen through the RNC. Like I said, someone in a dirty business doesn’t walk away without their share, some way, some how. Cohen KNOWS Trump, he’d have his own guarantees for payment.

It seems likely that Donald would have added serious penalties for leaving him while in office, which would have required upping the ante by a few million if she left at another time.  The not-so-fatherly Donald probably makes threats about custody, too, just to be a prick.

That’s why in order for Trump to obtain an additional benefit – Melania not leaving him while in office – Trump would have had to add money or something else of value to the payout.

It is a partial renegotiation of the deal, to which Melania would have had to agree, an outcome Trump could have informally “forced” in many ways.

Agreed @ earl.

or republicans, remember Martha Mitchel

‘TV Newz’ now saying Trump is angry that she added more fuel to the fire about the hush money. Who knows?

Sanders is saying that Trump had no involvement, but that “he” won in an arbitration.  Who was involved, who arbitrated and when, what the arbitration considered, and what Trump “won” she does not disclose.  An odd but typical confection from Ms. Sanders.

Sanders seems to say that Trump was found not to have been a part of this deal.  That would require an arbitration about this NDA, that it concluded there was a binding contract involving specific parties, that Trump was not one of them, that the parties had validly agreed to the exclusive use of binding arbitration to decide disputes.  Only after that could it have reached a decision about the specific item in dispute.

That process, if it took place, would not bind the court in California until it independently considers and decides, whether there is a contract, who is a party to it, who it benefits, whether the arbitration clause is valid, whether some prior arbitration decision is relevant and enforceable and against whom, and whether there was a prior fraud or other reason that might permit setting aside the decision.  None of this done in open court helps Trump.

It gets better.  The “order” was obtained by Cohen from a private arbiter in California, in a private arbitration that only heard Cohen/EC’s side of the argument.  It did not involve Trump or Clifford.  That’s a highly unusual process that makes the so-called “order”, really an arbitral decision, highly suspect.

In the unlikely event this decision is valid – an issue to be decided in court – arbitral decisions are enforced through that same court system, not directly.

Cohen seems to be engaging in a media fight, not a legal one.  Presumably he’s hoping to avoid the courts and to avoid their issuing decisions about this – and indirectly – any other other NDA he’s used to protect Trump.  Clifford’s lawyer Avenatti is right to call bullshit on both Cohen and Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

MSNBC might reconsider its news coverage.  “Michael Cohen” is not a party to this NDA.  If there’s a contract, Cohen signed it as an attorney of record, not as a principal.  EC would be a party.

Trump might claim that he is honoring the agreement and that his claimed performance makes him a party notwithstanding he didn’t sign it.  Tenuous and inconsistent.  Clifford and EC signed the agreement and apparently performed under it.  There’s no information that Trump “performed” under it or claims to be a party or even a beneficiary.  In fact, he’s claimed he has nothing to do with it.

To correct my earlier argument, clause 5.1 claims to allow DD to obtain ex parte injunctive relief, without advance notice to Clifford, from one of the named arbitration panels or a court of competent jurisdiction.  The either/or arrangement is inconsistent with the arbitration only language.  EC chose the arbitration order route.

The mandatory arbitration clause is not relevant, in a court challenge, until the court hearing the challenge finds that there is an enforceable contract and that the binding arbitration language itself is enforceable.

Clause 8.2 of the NDA states that the choice of law provision is at the “election” of “DD”, David Dennison, acknowledged in the side letter (redacted) to be Trump.  If DD is not a party to the agreement, is there a process to make an election?  That should be moot in that EC chose to use a Californian arbitrator (and law?) and Clifford chose Californian jurisdiction and law for its suit.  But it illustrates the mess.

DD is also meant to be the party that “releases” claims against Clifford.  If DD is not a party, has he released claims against Clifford and is that enforceable against a non-party beneficiary?  How does that affect Clifford’s mutual release of claims against DD?  In short, it’s a mess.

^Ding Ding Ding^  Winnah, winnah, chicken dinnah!

They think they are smarter than everyone else because they operated this way for years, without any blow back, or extreme scrutiny. Having Giuliani as a guard for many years, I’m sure, was no small favor either. Not to mention Chris Christie.

I have no real opinion on “Stormy”, but I hope she rakes it in, in no small part as retribution for all of the little guys Trump screwed over.

*Just Des(s)erts* shouldn’t be a beautiful chocolate cake.