Posted on 04/06/2018 4:12:16 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
If this is the kind of lawyer Harvard is turning out, it could be time to close up shop in Cambridge . . .
CNN legal analyst and Harvard Law alum Areva Martin argued this morning that Stormy Daniels is not bound by her agreement with Michael Cohen not to discuss her alleged affair with Donald Trump, because Trump, per his statement of yesterday, was unaware that Cohen had paid Stormy $130,000.
Martin’s reasoning was so transparently flawed that co-host Alisyn Camerota had no trouble demolishing it:
Get the rest of the story and view the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at finkelblogger.com ...
Back in the day, we would have said, where did you get your law degree—in a box of Crackerjacks?
Ping to Liberal Media Criticism list.
“They never said that the agreement was with Donald Trump. I mean, Michael Cohen has said the agreement was just with Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels and the President didn’t know anything about it. So the president saying, I didn’t know anything about it, confirms . . . what Michael Cohen has been saying: he didn’t know anything about it.”
Affirmative Action at its finest. Diversity is our strength!
Knowing 1L legal concepts after a Harvard education is White Privilege.
Stormy is over.
Stop posting nonsense.
I suppose that this analyst lawyer missed the week in any law school’s first year Contracts course that dealt with third party beneficiary contracts.
SMH.
Gwjack
“Stormy is over.”
Tell that to President Trump, who yesterday made his first public statement on the matter.
Heard an attorney who appears to be an honest broker....say that Stormy is going to have to pay up....not 10 mil but probably 1 mil. Confidential agreements are sooooo binding.
As a sofa legal analyst I say cnn owes every non-leftist $3 million for spreading its opinions as factual news.
-—Get the rest of the story and view the video here.-—
No.
It ended the minute her lawyer said they would be open to a settlement. Even most of the left knew it was all about a payday at that point.
This suit is only for his big, fat ego.
As a former trial lawyer before I got wisdom, I’d sure like to have Stormy put under oath in a deposition. Everyone is focused on the dangers for President Trump in a deposition. Those are valid. But even greater is the risk to Stormy and her lawyer if he promotes false testimony. Spoken from my 7 year duration sitting on our state Bar’s Ethics Committee.
She just can’t keep her stories consistent.
Just free advertisement for the ..........
It’s always calm before the storm..y.
Doesn’t really fit but I couldn’t resist.
3PB contracts require some sort of knowledge and reliance for the 3PB to enforce the contract. However, the principals may enforce the contract against each other whether the 3PB knows about it or not. I’m not sure which is being litigated here.
Thanks governsleastgovernsbest. Another attack by the blacKKK, like Obama, she's probably an expert in the Constitution too. /barf
Thanks governsleastgovernsbest. Another attack by the blacKKK, like Obama, she's probably an expert in the Constitution too. /barf
The point behind an NDA is plausible non-deniability.
When Trump said he didn’t know about his lawyer’s payment, there are instances when your lawyer acts on your behalf.
Nothing here invalidates it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.