Sjpanky didnât pay her off, well maybe Cohen did it without his permission, well, he knew about it and now he wants it back. This is all about Spankyâs lawyers fear of him making a deposition. I donât understand the legal issues but I hope Avenatti keeps the heat on. However, I do have to wonder at some point whether he is doing it to keep his name in the news or for the benefit of his client.
Clearly, then, the $130K was a payoff in exchange for silence.
Weâve come a long way from the days of âThere was no payoffâ.
If they are now to be believed, Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen never had a good
faith basis to assert that they would be able to enforce the settlement
agreement.â
Avenatti is a better chess player than trumpâs lawyers. Because heâs got them in a position where (if I read the remarks correctly) they either have to admitt to having committed fraud from the beginning or to having attempted to commit extortion during the âenforcementâ phase of the operation. And both of those can be state crimes.
Is Stormy free to talk now?
Weâve been playing chess, theyâve been playing Tic-tac-toe.
Says Avenatti. Still on the table are the claims of defamation, attorneysâ fees, claims of Cohen and the other attorney conspiring to cheat Daniels out of proper legal counsel, and with regards to Trump, setting the whole NDA up in a way to violate campaign finance laws. Cohenâs already pled guilty to that last item, but Trump hasnât. Avenatti is bound and determined to get his depositions and day in court. Go, Avenatti!
And donât get distracted by delusions of candidacy.
The payoff wasnât for silence forever, it was for silence until the election. It was only $130K.
So⌠they paid Stormy $130K for the privilege of having control of her discussion of a particular topic⌠which they got ⌠they can change how they exercise that option & let her know that she can talk -but they are not entitled to a "refund.
They bought a lump-sum âoption to control / buyâ ⌠they got value / benefit from it for a period of time ⌠an now are no longer interested in keeping the âoptionâ in force ⌠fine ⌠walk away
⌠but do not expect the money back.
I canât tell if heâs serious about that or is just pumping up the air balloon. Iâm hoping itâs just hype.
Keep twisting that knife, Mr. AvenattiâŚ
If you look at Ms Danielsâs initial complaint, the only issue that she asks the court to address is declaring the contract with Cohen void. So that complaint might well be moot if Mr Trump and Mr Cohen both certify to the court that they also accept that no contract exists, or ever existed.
But as noted in the article, that leaves them open to possible liability for extortion and for false prosecution (remember, Cohen invoked the arbitration in the contract, so there are actual act on his part harming Ms Daniels in the record), not to mention their issues with campaign finance laws. So itâs not really a very big win. And who knows that ruling might occur with regard to attorneyâs costs if Mr Cohen and Mr Trump now concede, after having run up the tab with Mr Avenatti? That might be up to the judge, but IANAL.
Meanwhile, there also remains the issue of the $130,000. Ms Daniels previously offered to return it, so Mr Trump and Mr Cohen can argue that theyâre now accepting that offer and accepting that the contract was not, in fact, ever valid and in force. But what if she now refuses to return it? Mr Cohen could sue for its return, but that puts all the issues right back on the table, including discovery. If Mr Trump and Mr Cohen donât sue, however, it makes them âlosersâ (painful, as we know, for Mr Trump)⌠and we can be certain Mr Avenatti will rub it in repeatedly on national television. What a dilemma!
Avenatti amended his complaint at least once. Listen to his bit on Last Word from last night.
Avenatti â who is also publicly mulling a run for president in 2020 after he saw his public profile skyrocket in recent months while representing Daniels
Jesus Christ â can we please stop pursuing âgovernment by the famous?â
Youâre leaving out the elephant in the roomâthe threat of bodily harm to the young mother, in front of her bodyâand depending on how you read, to the baby (although harming a mother to a young baby is, ipso facto, harming the baby). Courts donât tend to look kindly upon threats of physical violence. Mr. Cohen, at minimum, still needs to be held to account.