On the other hand, Trump is probably stupid enough to think that Melania didn't know about it, or that she would believe his denials.
But the NDA did not have trumps signature on it if I remember correctly. So does stormy get to tell her story now?
Probably not. She accepted the money with knowledge of what it was for. That would represent a binding contract between them even without the signature.
Per Trump's twitter Cohen was repaid from regular monthly retainer payments. Well, if this was a legit activity their out to be bills, receipts, proof of payment. Let's see it. If instead that proof is a series of irregular amounts at irregular intervals paid from various sources under Trump's command conveniently below $10k skirting campaign finance reporting, Trump has shot himself in the foot.
Now, I wouldn't put it past Trump, but I doubt Guiliani would go on TV and set him up for that. So it's possible that they have proof of sufficient payments through legit retainer (not excluding the possibility of additional concealed payments). Or someone out there (perhaps from Cohen's seized records) knows about the payments anyway and they're trying to promote a narrative before that information goes public.
Not true. Trump's full knowledge of the terms of the contract are 100% necessary or it is not binding. Considering Trump's repeated statements that he wasn't aware of the contents of the deal and due to his lack of signature there's a good amount of evidence that says he lacked full knowledge of the terms. Remember, Stormy didn't exchange her silence for $130,000. She exchanged her silence for $130,000 AND promises by Trump not to communicate with her, sue her, speak badly of her, etc. If Trump wasn't aware of those conditions then it would be by definition impossible for Trump's side to fulfill their end of the contract, meaning it doesn't count.
The fact that it is not signed is not in itself enough to void the contract. The contract was made when she accepted money, if not with Trump then at least with Cohen. If Trump broke parts of the agreement he might be in breach of the contract, but that does not necessarily mean that Stormy is free to ignore it either. I imagine that her lawyer has some reason why he thinks that the contract is void, but it is not as simple as Trump failed to sign it.
The fact that it is not signed is not in itself enough to void the contract. The contract was made when she accepted money, if not with Trump then at least with Cohen. If Trump broke parts of the agreement he might be in breach of the contract, but that does not necessarily mean that Stormy is free to ignore it either. I imagine that her lawyer has some reason why he thinks that the contract is void, but it is not as simple as Trump failed to sign it.
The only things truly needed for a contract to be considered legally valid are two components. All parties were in agreement after an offer has been made by one and accepted by the other and something of value has been exchanged. State laws will dictate what kind of contracts absolutely have to be in writing.How do you have a contract between two parties when one party doesn't sign it? Trumps whole career has been screwing people out of money because there was no contract signed, despite work being done by one of the parties.
The only things truly needed for a contract to be considered legally valid are two components. All parties were in agreement after an offer has been made by one and accepted by the other and something of value has been exchanged. State laws will dictate what kind of contracts absolutely have to be in writing.
The only thing that could go against Trump is the requirement that he be in full agreement. Here's the catch. What he has told the American people in sound bites and tweets I don't believe is relevant. If at the time the agreements are entered he was aware and agreed it's all valid.
But does what he said in public amount to anything other than he is, as usual, lying to everyone? As long as it can be established he was aware of the terms at the time of the contract it's likely to be considered valid with or without his signature.I have a hard time believing that Trump wasn't aware of the terms of the agreement but that is in fact the argument he's been making publicly for quite some time now and that will certainly be used against him. I wouldn't be surprised if they try to make the opposite argument in court, but it seems impossible for him to have it both ways. Either he entered into the contract knowingly and he's been lying to the whole country for a year or he didn't know and the contract is invalid.
It's not as simple as he failed to sign it, like I said if Trump was unaware of the terms of the contract it was never made
I don't think it's valid if the other party isn't aware of it. If some guy gave me money and said 'soandso wants you to paint his house', and I show up at soandso's house and he says he has no knowledge of it, I'm under no obligation to either a) paint his house or b) return the money. At least insofar as I understand.She accepted money for something. That constitutes some form of agreement, if not with Trump then with Cohen. What that exact agreement was, and who is in breach of it is something that courts will have to decide.
She accepted money for something. That constitutes some form of agreement, if not with Trump then with Cohen. What that exact agreement was, and who is in breach of it is something that courts will have to decide.
I don't think it's valid if the other party isn't aware of it. If some guy gave me money and said 'soandso wants you to paint his house', and I show up at soandso's house and he says he has no knowledge of it, I'm under no obligation to either a) paint his house or b) return the money. At least insofar as I understand.
But does what he said in public amount to anything other than he is, as usual, lying to everyone? As long as it can be established he was aware of the terms at the time of the contract it's likely to be considered valid with or without his signature.
What he may have done is made the burden of proof on himself harder in establishing that awareness.
Good times eh? Reminds me of all the porn star/playboy model affairs Obama got mixed up in too.Yes, I imagine he is lying to everyone about it and like I said I wouldn't be surprised if he claims the opposite in court. On a personal level it seems highly unlikely to me this was entered into without his consent. For the moment though all arguments that have come from the Trump camp indicate that the contract is invalid.
So, if he has been lying about it, via Twitter (which we've established as official WH communications), does that fall under a Falsification of Official Records charge?Yes, I imagine he is lying to everyone about it and like I said I wouldn't be surprised if he claims the opposite in court. On a personal level it seems highly unlikely to me this was entered into without his consent. For the moment though all arguments that have come from the Trump camp indicate that the contract is invalid.
§ 0.211 Falsification of official records.
Employees shall not intentionally or with willful disregard make false or misleading statements, orally or in writing, in connection with any matter of official interest. Matters of official interest include, but are not limited to, the following: Official reports and any other official information upon which the Department, the Congress, other government agencies, or the public may act or rely; transactions with the public, government agencies or other government employees; application forms and other forms that serve as a basis for any personnel action; vouchers; time and attendance records, including leave records; work reports of any nature or accounts of any kind; affidavits; record of or data concerning any matter relating to or connected with an employee's duties; personnel records; and reports of any moneys or securities received, held or paid to, for or on behalf of the United States.
and Stormy agreed to give the money backI'm pretty sure you would need to give they money back, perhaps minus whatever costs you incurred preparing to paint the house, forgoing other jobs, etc.
So, if he has been lying about it, via Twitter (which we've established as official WH communications), does that fall under a Falsification of Official Records charge?
One can only dream.Haha, not to #bothsides this but I think if we started prosecuting politicians for every time they committed a falsehood to record we would run out of politicians pretty fast.
Good times eh? Reminds me of all the porn star/playboy model affairs Obama got mixed up in too.
#bothsides!