Trump's lawyer sues Stormy Daniels for $20M before '60 Minutes' interview......

[NewtonMP2100]

......for breaking NDA.....



Trump’s Lawyer Sues Stormy Daniels For $20M In Advance Of ’60 Minutes’ Interview

.....President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen has filed a claim seeking $20 million in damages from porn star Stormy Daniels for allegedly violating her nondisclosure agreement.

Cohen claims the right to seek $1M per violation which, according to his bookkeeping, comes to $20M in damages from Daniels for allegedly violating a nondisclosure agreement 20 times, WaPo reports.

Daniels previously had said, before she signed that NDA for $130K, that she had an affair with Trump in 2006, pre-presidency, but while he was married to now-First Lady Melania Trump. Daniels previously sued Trump to get out of the NDA, which Stormy claims is invalid because Trump never signed it. It was just before the 2016 election that she got paid the cash to keep a lid on the affair, she has said.

Daniels barn-burner interview with Anderson Cooper is set to air a week from this Sunday on CBS’s 60 Minutes.

Meanwhile, Daniels attorney reacted to Cohen’s lawsuit via Twitter:


Michael Avenatti@MichaelAvenatti
The fact that a sitting president is pursuing over $20M in bogus 'damages' against a private citizen, who is only trying to tell the public what really happened, is remarkable. Likely unprecedented in our history. We are NOT going away and we will NOT be intimidated. #basta


here we go.......?!

[cbelt3]

classic Trump... attack with lawyers. Except..... by suing to claim that she violated the NDA, this means he is stating IN COURT that there IS an NDA. The NDA then becomes a public document.

Please let this start to collapse his house of cards. Congress impeached (unsucessfully) Bill Clinton for FAR LESS.

[sekker]

Our government is so dysfunctional - the POTUS should be dealing with international crises and not haggling over past personal transgressions.

But here we are.

[GGD]

cbelt3 wrote:
classic Trump... attack with lawyers. Except..... by suing to claim that she violated the NDA, this means he is stating IN COURT that there IS an NDA. The NDA then becomes a public document.

Please let this start to collapse his house of cards. Congress impeached (unsucessfully) Bill Clinton for FAR LESS.

The NDA is already public, it was Exhibit 1 in the suit that Stormy filed.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ocvnkwprbs7enj...t.pdf?dl=0

Not sure how the existence NDA will be grounds for impeachment. Clinton was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice.

Getting 45 to testify under oath about just about anything would potentially open him up for perjury.

[deckeda]

It's very weird that the only language used in that agreement regarding "EC, LLC" is regarding payment, but that the reasons to not go public with information (because it's confidential) is for the person's benefit who never signed it. You would think that would matter, yeah?

So ... why didn't her first attorney bring that situation up say, in Oct. 2016?

[cbelt3]

GGD wrote:
Getting 45 to testify under oath about just about anything would potentially open him up for perjury.

yeah, because lying under oath is SO different from lying to.... the American People. The Canadian PM. Every other head of state. His wife. His children.

He gets under oath, he's toast. Mueller will destroy him in about 30 seconds.

[bfd]

…and all of his power brokers know that.

[GGD]

deckeda wrote:
It's very weird that the only language used in that agreement regarding "EC, LLC" is regarding payment, but that the reasons to not go public with information (because it's confidential) is for the person's benefit who never signed it. You would think that would matter, yeah?

So ... why didn't her first attorney bring that situation up say, in Oct. 2016?

She was just trying to get paid what they kept telling her she would get. Just before the election was the time where she had the most leverage to force the issue, and she did. The expectation was that he would lose in Nov. and then nobody would care anymore and she would never get paid if she didn't force the issue before then.

[pdq]

GGD wrote:
Getting 45 to testify under oath about just about anything would potentially open him up for perjury.

Indeed. Fox News favorite "judge" (as well as Roger Stone and others, IIRC) characterizes having Trump testify to anything under oath as a "perjury trap".