Another Left Tard Fail: Stormy Daniels Crashes and Burns!

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

As a pubic official, ooops, Freudian Slip ... as a Public Official Trump has no more right to sue for defamation then does HRC for being called "Crooked Hillary" by Trump.

Yes he does. The bar is much higher for a public person, but they do still have the right.

 

[Pogo]

Uhhhmmmm..... how exactly can she violate a contract that doesn't even have Rump's name in it?

Oopsie.

And how exactly can Rump have a nondisclosure agreement ---- even if his name were in there --- when he's alleging no such event happened?

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but --- that's impossible. If there were no event, there would be nothing to not-disclose.

Ooopsie again.

How would that matter if she made a legal agreement to not talk about something and was compensated for it?

Once AGAIN --- how can you find a way to not-talk about something you're claiming never happened?

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS --- if you entered into an NDA, you're saying by definition that there's an event to not-talk about. If you simultaneously claim there was no event, then there can be no valid NDA.

This is not that complicimated. It's either one or the other -- can't have both.

If she accepted money to not talk about something, whether it happened or not, and signed a legal agreement to that effect, would she not be bound to not talk about it, and violate the agreement if she did?

Once AGAIN --- what is this, seventh time now? Eighth? ***HOW*** can you be bound to not-talk about something that never happened?

If that's too many words, the question is """"How"""".

Are you not bound to the terms of a contract when you sign it and accept payment?

Shall we go for nine?

The reason you can't answer the question is that there is no answer --- you CAN'T agree to not-talk about an event that does not exist. Because there's uh... nothing there to not-talk about.

Duh?

Either there IS an event *AND* an NDA about it ---- or there is NO event and NO NDA.

If Rump wants to claim there was no event --- and he already has -- then he cannot collect on an NDA, by definition. Even if his name were on it, which it isn't.

Rump fucked up here. And he would have got away with it if Stormy hadn't rained on it. He has himself --- or she has him --- painted into a corner. Consider the whole escapade as if it were, say... a casino. In Atlantic City. A bigly gamble goes down, it fails, and the casino goes down too.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Trump just claimed today he had no knowledge of the NDA and that he did not set up a fund to pay back the lawyer.

So, Stormy and Lawyer have a contract and she has breached it. That's all I am saying.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And Trump could enforce such a contract as an intended beneficiary.




From the Restatement (Second) on Contracts: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4291&context=clr

 

[Reasonable]

But but but Stormy Does this mean Mueller doesn't have the Stormy goods on trump?

Mueller would have to go down a list of about 50 offenses before he'd get to Stormy.

 

[Pogo]

Can you enter into a contract with an entity who does not exist?

At a minimum, under a theory of quantum meruit, if she blabbed, she has to give that money back on equitable grounds.

She/they already offered that actually. I don't think they got a response.

 

[Pogo]

And Trump could enforce such a contract as an intended beneficiary.

His name isn't in there. You or I have just as much standing to be intended beneficiary. Unlike "David Dennison", we actually exist.

Personally I think it should be me, as you obviously have atrocious taste in headgear.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

His name isn't in there. You or I have just as much standing to be intended beneficiary. Unlike "David Dennison", we actually exist.

Again, intended third-parties have a right to enforce contracts. If she is talking shit about Trump after signing a non-disclosure about Trump, I don't give a rat **** who "David Dennison" is, Trump is an intended beneficiary. Trump can enforce it.

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4291&context=clr

 

[The Original Tree]

The NDA covered an appearance and appearance fees.

Stormy Daniels and her idiot agent were running out of money and appearances and appearance fees were drying up. They thought they could leverage this and make improper inferences to drum up a little business.

But If You Sign an NDA you aren’t even allowed to infer anything about it.

Thousands of dicks she sucked and gallons of jizz this chick swallowed to accrue what little money she now has, and she is about to lose it all.

 

[Pogo]

His name isn't in there. You or I have just as much standing to be intended beneficiary. Unlike "David Dennison", we actually exist.

Again, intended third-parties have a right to enforce contracts. If she is talking shit about Trump after signing a non-disclosure about Trump, I don't give a rat **** who "David Dennison" is, Trump is an intended beneficiary. Trump can enforce it.

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4291&context=clr

Again --- HOW is Rump an 'intended beneficiary' if he's not named in there?
Again, you and I aren't named in there either. Why don't we enforce it?

And no, I'm not reading through a 22-page law pdf for the phrase "Rump can enforce it". Quote something germane to the point.

 

[hadit]

Judge denied her attempts at weaseling out of her NDA Penalty she signed over an Appearance Fee, when her and her weaselly attorney tried to depose The President who's name does not even appear on the NDA.

She is closer to having to pay out that $20 Million she owes for violating the contract. Her and her agent are idiots for trying to cash in on a 12 year old NDA for an appearance fee, and agreement she signed with Michael Coehn. They tried to color around the edges, because they knew anything even inferred about President Trump would get attention of The Rabid Foaming at The Mouth Trump Hating Media.

In her own words in numerous public statements, she said:

"I did not sleep with Trump and it's absurd that I would accept a mere $130,000 for something like that."

Trump keeps on winning, and you creeps keep on scheming.

When are you going to learn?

Judge denies Stormy Daniels' request to depose Trump

Stormy Daniels ordered by arbitration judge not to sue, Michael Cohen's lawyer says

Judge denies Stormy Daniels’s bid to expedite case against Trump over confidential agreement

Stormy Daniels Denies She Had an Affair With Donald Trump

Uhhhmmmm..... how exactly can she violate a contract that doesn't even have Rump's name in it?

Oopsie.

And how exactly can Rump have a nondisclosure agreement ---- even if his name were in there --- when he's alleging no such event happened?

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but --- that's impossible. If there were no event, there would be nothing to not-disclose.

Ooopsie again.

How would that matter if she made a legal agreement to not talk about something and was compensated for it?

Once AGAIN --- how can you find a way to not-talk about something you're claiming never happened?

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS --- if you entered into an NDA, you're saying by definition that there's an event to not-talk about. If you simultaneously claim there was no event, then there can be no valid NDA.

This is not that complicimated. It's either one or the other -- can't have both.

If she accepted money to not talk about something, whether it happened or not, and signed a legal agreement to that effect, would she not be bound to not talk about it, and violate the agreement if she did?

But Trump denies ever having sex with her at all. So if what she's saying are lies, he'd have a case for libel or slander. The fact that he himself claims she violated the terms of the NDA means everything she's said is the truth. That's how stupid he and his lawyers are.

Which had nothing to do with the contract.

 

[Pogo]

But If You Sign an NDA you aren’t even allowed to infer anything about it.

One can infer anything one damn well pleases. No legal restriction on that is even possible. That would be thought control.

Hey how come you put up a thread claiming a "crash and burn" and it's still here a week and 300 posts later?
Slow "burn" is it?

Thousands of dicks she sucked and gallons of jizz this chick swallowed

Link?

 

[Doc1]

I think Stormy and Camera Hogg are shacked up. Their 15 minutes are done.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Again --- HOW is Rump an 'intended beneficiary' if he's not named in there?
Again, you and I aren't named in there either. Why don't we enforce it?

He doesn't have to be named. All he has to do is prove that he is an intended beneficiary and he has standing to enforce the contract.

 

[Pogo]

Again --- HOW is Rump an 'intended beneficiary' if he's not named in there?
Again, you and I aren't named in there either. Why don't we enforce it?

He doesn't have to be named. All he has to do is prove that he is an intended beneficiary and he has standing to enforce the contract.

And how will he prove that?

Especially since he's already on record as saying the event didn't happen?

Now me, I never said the event didn't happen. Therefore I have more standing to claim to be the beneficiary. Rump has already ruled himself out.

 

[hadit]

How would that matter if she made a legal agreement to not talk about something and was compensated for it?

Once AGAIN --- how can you find a way to not-talk about something you're claiming never happened?

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS --- if you entered into an NDA, you're saying by definition that there's an event to not-talk about. If you simultaneously claim there was no event, then there can be no valid NDA.

This is not that complicimated. It's either one or the other -- can't have both.

If she accepted money to not talk about something, whether it happened or not, and signed a legal agreement to that effect, would she not be bound to not talk about it, and violate the agreement if she did?

Once AGAIN --- what is this, seventh time now? Eighth? ***HOW*** can you be bound to not-talk about something that never happened?

If that's too many words, the question is """"How"""".

Are you not bound to the terms of a contract when you sign it and accept payment?

Shall we go for nine?

The reason you can't answer the question is that there is no answer --- you CAN'T agree to not-talk about an event that does not exist. Because there's uh... nothing there to not-talk about.

Duh?

Either there IS an event *AND* an NDA about it ---- or there is NO event and NO NDA.

If Rump wants to claim there was no event --- and he already has -- then he cannot collect on an NDA, by definition. Even if his name were on it, which it isn't.

Rump fucked up here. And he would have got away with it if Stormy hadn't rained on it. He has himself --- or she has him --- painted into a corner. Consider the whole escapade as if it were, say... a casino. In Atlantic City. A bigly gamble goes down, it fails, and the casino goes down too.

If you sign a contract and get paid for it, you're legally bound to it and the penalties for breaking it. It doesn't matter if the contract is to not talk about unicorns.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And how will he prove that?

Especially since he's already on record as saying the event didn't happen?

Now me, I never said the event didn't happen. Therefore I have more standing to claim to be the beneficiary. Rump has already ruled himself out.

You're missing the point. Trump doesn't have to prove he knew about the contract when it was entered. He can deny knowledge up until the day he files the law suit. An intended beneficiary is intended by the parties to the contract, not the beneficiary.

 

[Pogo]

Once AGAIN --- how can you find a way to not-talk about something you're claiming never happened?

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS --- if you entered into an NDA, you're saying by definition that there's an event to not-talk about. If you simultaneously claim there was no event, then there can be no valid NDA.

This is not that complicimated. It's either one or the other -- can't have both.

If she accepted money to not talk about something, whether it happened or not, and signed a legal agreement to that effect, would she not be bound to not talk about it, and violate the agreement if she did?

Once AGAIN --- what is this, seventh time now? Eighth? ***HOW*** can you be bound to not-talk about something that never happened?

If that's too many words, the question is """"How"""".

Are you not bound to the terms of a contract when you sign it and accept payment?

Shall we go for nine?

The reason you can't answer the question is that there is no answer --- you CAN'T agree to not-talk about an event that does not exist. Because there's uh... nothing there to not-talk about.

Duh?

Either there IS an event *AND* an NDA about it ---- or there is NO event and NO NDA.

If Rump wants to claim there was no event --- and he already has -- then he cannot collect on an NDA, by definition. Even if his name were on it, which it isn't.

Rump fucked up here. And he would have got away with it if Stormy hadn't rained on it. He has himself --- or she has him --- painted into a corner. Consider the whole escapade as if it were, say... a casino. In Atlantic City. A bigly gamble goes down, it fails, and the casino goes down too.

If you sign a contract and get paid for it, you're legally bound to it and the penalties for breaking it. It doesn't matter if the contract is to not talk about unicorns.

And you CAN'T break that contract if you're describing an event that "did not exist".

You cannot describe what "did not happen". That would be "lying".

If the other party claims no such event happened, then they have ruled themselves out of enforcing any such agreement. Because no such agreement can exist. So basically if you want to claim a penalty on the NDA, you have to admit that the underlying event did happen. If you claim there was no event, then you're also claiming there's no NDA.

 

[Pogo]

And how will he prove that?

Especially since he's already on record as saying the event didn't happen?

Now me, I never said the event didn't happen. Therefore I have more standing to claim to be the beneficiary. Rump has already ruled himself out.

You're missing the point. Trump doesn't have to prove he knew about the contract when it was entered. He can deny knowledge up until the day he files the law suit. An intended beneficiary is intended by the parties to the contract, not the beneficiary.

And again --- he's named as "intended beneficiary" ------- where?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And again --- he's named as "intended beneficiary" ------- where?

I have already discussed this. I feel like I am bashing my head on the wall with you.

He does NOT have to be named to be an intended beneficiary. He doesn't even need to be born yet or have a ******* name to begin with. It is the intent of the parties to the contract that matters. If Trump can prove that he is an intended beneficiary, he will have standing.