Trump

Hank001 · Post by **Hank001** » Fri, 9. Mar 18, 21:14

There's a slight difference here I think people are missing with Cohen. That's the difference between a "Lawyer" and a "Fixer". Cohen's happens to be a "Fixer" and tries to use the law in a manner very close to the manner in which a Loan Shark's "Fixer" might use a baseball bat, lead pipe or other suitably blunt object. The upshot of this affair is that this is probably why Trump has heartburn with the likes of the FBI. They won't pledge their loyalty to him or act as his "fixers". Go back to that incident and put into context with Cohen and his obvious view of "the law" and you sort of get get a scene or two from "The Godfather" popping into you're head.

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Fri, 9. Mar 18, 22:17

felter wrote:The American lawyers all agree with me ...

You know them all?

Here's the agreement (It's below the Complaint, as an inclusion): http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Cre ... plaint.pdf

TLDR at the bottom, but to sum: "The American lawyers all agree with me" means that they are all wrong unless they can site specific law which prohibits individual parties jointly acting together as one party in a legal agreement. (Which.. is ridiculous as anyone who has ever acted as part of a jointly authorized party would know.) There is only one condition that is pertinent, here: Was EC authorized by Trump to include themselves as part of the "and/or" party of the first part?

I'd like to note some very interesting facts:

1) On every page where the participants acknowledge receiving the page of the agreement, it is initialed by the Attorney "E.C."

Every page.

And, it is signed by him.

It is initialed by EC on "DD's" initial line, obviously acting on DD's behalf in acknowledging receipt. Further, "PP's" initials appear on the same page and the document is notorized, implying that all signatory parties were present. (Note: A Notary Public is not an attorney and does not qualify any document as being legal, only that the identities and presence of the signatories have been verified at the time of signing.)

2) The Agreement is listed as being "and/or."

"...between EC,LLC and/or David Dennison (DD, on the one part and...)"

The document contains a party on one side that is "and/or", either singular OR comprising of both parties, together. Clearly, the "or" intends to cover both parties, individually, and the "and" allows them to be considered in concert.

Because of this, it may not be necessary for Trump to sign the agreement, himself, as DD. However, on each page, "EC" singed "for" "DD." Every page. This appears to indicate that "DD" was the principle, having initialing space reserved on every page, but that "EC" was acting in their capacity, under "and/or" as an authorized signatory, further reinforcing that "EC" was participating in a binding agreement for BOTH parties "on the one part" (and/or).

"EC" initialed every page, under "and/or" authorization, and it is presumed that they are empowered under the authorization of "DD." At the very least, it appears that with the restrictions in place and the acceptance of the agreement and its conditions, "PP" also understood this to be the case and that EC was authorized to sign as a part of, but fully empowered by "and/or", the "party of the first part."

IN OTHER WORDS: I don't think there's any question here regarding whether or not this is a legal and binding agreement. (I am not an attorney.) It does not appear that it, in and of itself, required a separate signature by "DD."

Note Section 8.5 on Severability. The "Fair Meaning" clause is clear and demonstrates that the intent of the Agreement is to be preserved, even in the case of any ambiguities.

Also note the "Side Letter" and the signatories. (I am unsure of the legal standing of the Side Letter in defining any conditions in the Agreement other than what it explicitly states as pseudonyms.)

In short, there doesn't appear to be any question here that EC was empowered, at the very least by this document and the "and/or" clause, to sign the agreement on behalf of the "first part" of the agreement.

Suggestions that the agreement is invalid because "DD" did not sign it can not be justified by the contents of the Agreement, itself, which obviously demonstrates that DD is part of the "and/or" party and, thus, empowered to sign. The laws of the State would have to come into play, here, but not to determine whether or not DD is empowered to sign, but whether or not "DD" has agreed to be represented as being an "and/or" part of the "first party."

TLDR - The validity of this agreement doesn't rest on ink-on-a-page, so the "all the American attorneys" you reference are barking up the wrong tree. Unless there is specific State law that says there can be "no and/or" parties of the first part and that neither can ever be empowered as a representative of "and/or" to sign for the other, then the Agreement is legal and binding.

The true legal matter is whether or not EC was empowered by Trump to make this Agreement and to include themselves as a signatory power in it by being attached as an "and/or" party of the first part.

ie: In order for this Agreement to truly be binding, Trump would have to have known about it. There is no other way that this agreement can be validated beyond Trump specifically empowering the attorney to enter into the agreement as an "and/or" party of the first part, empowering him to sign the agreement for both.

Hank001 wrote:There's a slight difference here I think people are missing with Cohen. That's the difference between a "Lawyer" and a "Fixer". Cohen's happens to be a "Fixer" and tries to use the law in a manner very close to the manner in which a Loan Shark's "Fixer" might use a baseball bat, lead pipe or other suitably blunt object. The upshot of this affair is that this is probably why Trump has heartburn with the likes of the FBI. They won't pledge their loyalty to him or act as his "fixers". Go back to that incident and put into context with Cohen and his obvious view of "the law" and you sort of get get a scene or two from "The Godfather" popping into you're head.

Ya know, that's a pretty good point. Trump is acting much like he's probably acted for most of his adult life. People in "power", legal or otherwise, and that are "loyal" to him are to be used like his "fixers."

So, Trump wants something to happen. He doesn't do it, himself. Instead, he calls a "fixer" to do it, even if whatever it is that he wants to occur is unrealistic or ridiculous, he expects someone else to "make it happen."

And, when they tell him "I'm sorry, but there is a power bigger than you are in the land and I can't act against that" he doesn't understand. That's never happened before and, when it does, it must be because they aren't "loyal" because they didn't "make it do." Trump does something some "peon" considers "bad," he calls a "fixer" and it's fixered. "President Trump" does something some citizen-peons consider bad and tries to call a "fixer" and... suddenly he thinks he's surrounded by disloyal people who won't fix stuffs for him anymore.

It fits in perfectly with a lot of his statements and actions. He doesn't acknowledge that stupid things like "Law" or "Regulations" or "Ethical" standards exist now that he's President. It's all about loyalty and people who don't "do" or "fix", no matter how absurd his demands, are simply "disloyal."

So, he jumps on Twitter and bashes them or even fires them, like Comey, because they're "disloyal," not because they're obeying the law or ethics or just plain can't fix whatever it was that he broke... (He called out Sanders the other day for fumbling around with questions related to Stormy Daniels, as if anyone should be able to "fix" him having a sexual affair with a pornstar....

Hank001 · Post by **Hank001** » Fri, 9. Mar 18, 22:27

Wow. A true historical document. Thanks M.
Reads better rhan any one of my divorce decrees.

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Fri, 9. Mar 18, 22:33

Hank001 wrote:Wow. A true historical document. Thanks M.
Reads better rhan any one of my divorce decrees.

Reads better than mine, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV0d_5GES0A

felter · Post by **felter** » Sat, 10. Mar 18, 00:23

Point 21 answers all the questions.

21. Importantly, the hush agreement imposed various conditions and obligations not only on Ms. Clifford, but also on Mr. trump. The agreement also required the signature of all parties to the agreement, including that of Mr. Trump. Moreover, as is customary, it is widely understood at all times that unless all of the parties signed the document as required, the hush agreement, together with all of it's terms and conditions was null and void.

There is nothing else to really say as Trump has not signed the document. The lawyer could only sign it on his own behalf and on behalf of the fake company E.C. that was set up to try and hide the deal.

One other thing you do realise that EC was the initials for the fake company, you sound like you think that EC is a person.

Anyway enough of that, we will see what happens but I still don't think she has a leg to stand on as she took the cash.

Here's one they are all talking about, this so called meeting between Trump and Kim Jong-un (latest news, it's not going to happen). one thing that I have not heard any mention of but maybe I've just missed it, where are they going to have the meeting. Think on it, Trump wouldn't go to DPRK for the meeting as there is no mcdonalds, where would he get his food. More importantly Kim has not left DPRK since he went to school in Switzerland and I doubt he wants to leave DPRK for a couple of reason. Firstly he is scared of assassination and secondly he is scared that if he leaves DPRK there will be a coup while he is gone. It's like the saying, when the cats away the mice will play. So if this meeting is ever to happen, where do you think they would hold the meeting.

Hank001 · Post by **Hank001** » Sat, 10. Mar 18, 01:27

Eventually it come down to Trump pulling out, which would please Kim to no end. Which I think was the whole point. That and Trump asking nobody and doing and saying whatever pops into his head. Of course I'm beginning to believe that anything that does manage to pop in up there will find plenty of room.

Here's a musical tribute to the man that that sums it up:

https://youtu.be/ALGkQq3RJ7k

Now as for Trump thinking a chat with Kim is a good idea, maybe he should get a clue or two:

Welcome to "The Hermit Kingdom" Mr. Trump:

https://youtu.be/Z5OLzDmWWJ4

https://youtu.be/dEPfHDNLahk

...On second thought...Sure, PLEASE go right ahead and go.

brucewarren · Post by **brucewarren** » Sun, 11. Mar 18, 03:00

I was hoping that Trump and Kimmy would be wearing name tags so I could tell the two men apart.

I almost typed Fatso but then I realised it applied to both of them.

Hank001 · Post by **Hank001** » Sun, 11. Mar 18, 03:04

Ouch! Did it to me again!

Twin sons of different mothers perhaps?

Post by **Santi** » Sun, 11. Mar 18, 03:40

@Felter

The demilitarized zone (DMZ) in the border between North Korea and South Korea, and it is going to look like a Quentin Tarantino movie gun standoff.

Point is, Trump is going to North Korea and speak and try to sort things out, or at least try and build a rapport. Something that previous presidents did not even considered because they didn't want to risk their approval ratings if they did not get a result. So they did nothing, giving time to North Korea to build and test their nuclear arsenal.

Hank001 · Post by **Hank001** » Sun, 11. Mar 18, 03:57

And as anyone in the Pentigon or the NSC could tell Trump if he'd care to listen, both Moon and Kim need a victory right now. I'm sure first on Kim's mind was that if made the offer it would never come to pass, he's made the offer before and always capitalized on it when it was rebuffed. Moon has to show he's lowering tensions and negotiating. Yes it would be great if if this were for real and we all met somewhere like Zurich on neutral ground, but that won't happen.
That's not why Kim, his father or grandfather made these gestures. Check the history.

Observe · Post by **Observe** » Sun, 11. Mar 18, 04:05

If it sounds too good to be true.....
On the other hand, eternity lasts as long as it takes for everything to happen. Meaning, this may be the time for this.

Post by **Santi** » Sun, 11. Mar 18, 04:16

Hank001 wrote:And as anyone in the Pentigon or the NSC could tell Trump if he'd care to listen, both Moon and Kim need a victory right now. I'm sure first on Kim's mind was that if made the offer it would never come to pass, he's made the offer before and always capitalized on it when it was rebuffed. Moon has to show he's lowering tensions and negotiating. Yes it would be great if if this were for real and we all met somewhere like Zurich on neutral ground, but that won't happen.
That's not why Kim, his father or grandfather made these gestures. Check the history.

Why they need a victory right now?

Hank001 · Post by **Hank001** » Sun, 11. Mar 18, 04:27

Maybe I should point out that the US and North Korea are still in the same state of war they were in in the 1950's. We have an armistice and that's all. In fact, only a cease fire. I've served two tours in Korea. My father served during the Korean war. Only a continuing border war between Peru and Equidor has lasted longer without a settlement. Will Trump settle it? Watch. North Korea CANNOT put forth a treaty. Their counrty would collapse overnight. South Korea knows this as well if not better than anyone else. So one of two things are going to happen. The status quo or if his position appears to sag in the least, back to theats from North Korea. That's simply the nature of situation I'm sorry to say.

Observe · Post by **Observe** » Sun, 11. Mar 18, 18:52

I see Trump is calling for the death penalty for drug dealers. I assume he's including pharmaceutical companies and doctors too? After all, a large proportion of the drugs involved in our drug epidemic are created by big pharma and prescribed by doctors (drug dealers) who really don't have a clue what they are administering.

Hank001 · Post by **Hank001** » Sun, 11. Mar 18, 19:07

He's stroking his "base" again because most of them are in places hard hit my opiod abuse. And no, it won't include the drug manufactures. Most contributed the conservative side. Doctors are another matter. Still it all down to him ranting again.

I mean if you're in no real position to do anything about a problem then nothing is better than a good rant at it! Makes his handfull of supporters think he's doing something.

mrbadger · Post by **mrbadger** » Sun, 11. Mar 18, 20:18

Isn't this all about 'just ignore the porn star behind the curtain' though?

It's pure delusion to imagine that drug dealers created the opiod abuse problems in the US.

But them so many americans are willing to beleive that global warming is a lie and the earth is flat, so I guess this is no different.

The solution is to start shooting at bottles of aspirin you see....

Hank001 · Post by **Hank001** » Sun, 11. Mar 18, 20:26

If you've ever read L. F. B. as an adult and realized how sarcastic he was, yes. I think Donald J. Trump would fit perfectly in Oz. Squeeze him between the Wizard and H. M. Wogglebug T. E. Nothing but a Humbug if you ask me.

JSDD · Post by **JSDD** » Sun, 11. Mar 18, 23:57

mrbadger wrote:It's pure delusion to imagine that drug dealers created the opiod abuse problems in the US.

they didnt create the problem, they just threw gasoline on that already burning fire ...

mrbadger wrote:But them so many americans are willing to beleive that global warming is a lie and the earth is flat, so I guess this is no different.

on the other hand, there are much more who just dont care if god did create the earth about 6K years ago or if global warming does exist, just because these questions/facts dont affect their immediate life ... whats more important is: where/how can I make a few dollars more today/tomorrow ??

Hank001 · Post by **Hank001** » Mon, 12. Mar 18, 00:05

Ssshhhh.... Don't tell DJT that the world is round, that things are heating up, that we really did land on the moon and he's not God's gift to to the USA. Why he's got all the proof he needs from Brightbart and Fox News that it all that is just "Fake News!".

Right?

felter · Post by **felter** » Mon, 12. Mar 18, 03:22

They are saying that Trump knows of the risks on having a meeting with Kim, I don't think he does as if he did he would be running (lol Trump running) a mile from the idea. If the meeting does happen, I do think Kim will run circles around him as he has been taught on these sort of things all of his life and Trump has never done anything like it in his life, he has no idea what he is doing and that's dangerous. He will probably walk out of the meeting having sold Nuclear weapons to Kim, on the promise that he would not use them.

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

Trump