non-disclosure agreement isn t valid because the lawyer for mr. trump, mr. cohen, signed it on behalf of mr. trump. is that a valid issue or is this a risky move by ms. clifford and her lawyer? that is the crux of the issue here, was the settlement agreement entered into between michael cohen, stormy daniels, signed by both of them but not signed by donald trump, is that agreement valid. and stormy daniels lawyers are taking the position that the absence of trump s signature makes that agreement null and void. and that is what they went into court, they filed an action in court asking the court to basically issue an order saying that they wouere no longer boun by the agreement and essentially saying that the arbitration that was triggered by mr. cohen in fact also isn t valid because of the lack of signature. now, trump s lawyers are claiming that the liquidated damages clause in that non-disclosure agreement which pretty much obligated theory pay
the president just wants to keep daniels from talking? well, i think that the congress of the united states has an oversight responsibility and this clearly is something they need to look in from an election standpoint. is there a nexus there between the lawyer and the payment and was it done through the campaign? and now you have a situation where the president is heretofore denied all of this. first he denied he knew her and there were pictures, then he denied this happened. i ve seen agreements as a lawyer and a liquidated clause is what they re talking about here. she got $130,000. if she talks and breaks the agreement then she s subject to this liquidated damages. i can t imagine anybody signing a $20 million liquidated damages clause on $130,000 payment. so the republicans have got to start standing up. i keep saying this every time i come on your show. where are the republicans, paul ryan, the oversight committees holding the president s feet to the fire on any number of these
an fec claim. they can t have it both ways. she wasn t working for the trump organization, she can t argue i was, i was trying to protect the reputation. what about the canadian trade deficit. you can have that both ways. why not a lawyer? you can say anything these days. let me ask you one other question. it relates to all of this. michael avenatti saying there have been a number of people coming forward saying they ll pay, they ll pay whatever she is fined or charged if she speaks her story. they ll reimburse her for whatever fee she may have to turn over if she breaks the nondisclosure if it comes to that. can she do it and get money for it? no, absolutely not. i mean, the whole idea of a nondiscle suno nondisclosure agreement is you re paid a certain amount of money and you have to remain silent. you don t get to back out of that later on when you decide you want to write a book or submit yourself. what are the consequences then? the consequences are, at least in her ca
i think there is good evidence there and they re doing the right thing by seeking declaratory judgment by a court and that s when one party is unclear about their rights and responsibilities and go into court to get a judge to issue an order about what they can or cannot do. so now once they re into court, the judge basically has two options. he or she can set it for an evidentiary hearing and allow that to go forward or, according to this hush agreement, it calls for a binding arbitration in the event of any dispute. the most critical question in my mind off the bat is who the judge that will be deciding this? that could tell us which way or the other this could lean. and then, of course, what counsel is referring to there in terms of the significant damages, is that the contract does call for a $1 million liquidated damages clause in the event of any kind of disclosure.
so an arbitration and this temporary retraining order and penalties, he just throws them out. are these penalties only the two parties know what they are. no. and the reason we know is because it is attached to the complaint. just read the agreement. it provides for liquidated damages. these are damages that parties could agree to before and say, if one of us breaches, i know it is worth or or damage in the amount of $1 million. so that is what you owe me. so it contains a liquidated damages clause. we can presume that dollar amount may be what cohen went to seek when he went to the arbitrator. now here is where things get dicey for daniels. if you read the agreement attached to the complaint, they have an agreement to arbitrate. this gets tricky, but when you don t want to be in arbitration, who decides the issue of whether you belong in arbitration? is it the court or the arbitrator. and the general rule is if you are attacking the whole contract