Stormy Daniels Sues Donald Trump, Claiming “Hush Agreement” Is Invalid

Posted March 6, 2018 by with 10 comments

stormyPorn star Stormy Daniels apparently wants to share all the details about the sexual relationship she says she had with Donald Trump from 2006 to 2007, and now she’s suing the philandering game show host turned disgraceful United States President in order to discuss their affair publicly.

According to Daniels, Trump never signed the nondisclosure agreement that his lawyer set up with her just prior to the 2016 election (which subsequently led to that $130,000 payment to Daniels), and because he didn’t sign, the agreement to remain quiet about their affair is null and void. Presumably, this would also mean that Daniels would have to give back the $130,000, but that’s obviously not mentioned in her civil suit, which was filed today in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The complaint includes several details about the 2016 hush agreement, which refers to Trump as “David Dennison,” and Daniels (whose real name is Stephanie Clifford) as “Peggy Peterson.” In part of the agreement, the true identity of David Dennison (a.k.a. “DD”) is blacked out, but Daniels’ attorney says the individual is Trump. Each document of the hush agreement includes a blank space where “DD” is supposed to sign, but neither of them is signed.

If Daniels’ suit is successful, she’ll be able to start talking, which will no doubt earn her a lot of money from media outlets, book publishers, and anyone else willing to pay for details about her sexual relationship with Trump. Here’s the full complaint:

  • MiloŇ° Del Rey

    I can hear Jacob Porter and Colby Keller crying from here.

  • n24rc

    There is no way he wanted to be president, he thought he was going to lose. I have to believe that now, with all the cracks forming in his election team and the persons arriving and leaving; plus those that were using the campaign to earn money from foreign banks and governments.

    Orange Julius Cesar wanted it close enough to contest, but not to win, since he was hoping to be a fox news commentator. His brand is now going to be tarnished by this.

    Let this be a lesson everyone, don’t run for president UNLESS you want to be president.

    • Zealot

      I had a close friend once who had applied for several job openings (which would have been for leadership promotions) within our agency. When I asked her why, she said, “I know I’m not ready to promote, but I do want the experience with interviewing”. While a valid point, I told her there were any number of ways to meet that goal without applying for positions willy-nilly in the company– which were better options. When she asked why do it another way, I told her…”because you may be selected for one or more of those positions, and if you don’t take any of the jobs offered, it’ll tarnish your brand here, and you won’t recover from it”. She pulled out of all the interviews and was later told by someone on the interview panel of one that they were disappointed that she didn’t interview because they felt she was the strongest candidate. So, she dodged a real bullet there, because she wasn’t ready for a leadership role at that time, and it would have ended up a disaster.

      When I read the last portion of your comment, it reminded me of that situation. It’s good advice, but unfortunately Cheeto Jesus doesn’t take anyone’s advice but his own…and maybe Tucker Carlson. And the voice in his head that whispers how great he is after a fap.

  • Scrapple

    As if experiencing the encounter wasn’t traumatizing enough, she now wants to talk about it? In graphic detail? This sounds like a great idea. What could possibly go wrong with talking about the sexual relations you had with a rich, powerful man who has friends in low places and is the sitting President of the United States?
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a35153121dd25b8566ed01f70b1e0085c54ad111c2935e8d1aa022754f9c1a8c.gif

    Also, alliteration aliases always achieve an A+.

  • Hereweare

    I actually think I can forgive my favorite gay site for flashing me lady parts just for the sheer amusement of seeing those photos side by side.

    • nick

      I would rather look at her lady parts than Trump

  • TheThom

    Bless that poor girl’s heart. I assume she did it for money There’s no way anyone would have sex with Trump because they actually *wanted* to.

  • A.C.

    This particular case highlights an interesting point of contract law, specifically, is a contract enforceable if both parties do not sign the agreement? The answer to that question turns on an understanding of the facts surrounding the contract and the import of a signature.

    A contract is a legally binding agreement between at least two parties for the breach of which the law provides a remedy or specific performance. To form a contract their must be consideration, offer, mutual assent as to the intent to contract, mutual assent as to the material terms of the contract, and of course acceptance. If all of those elements have been met then the contract is valid.

    Ms. Daniels argues through her attorney that the contract is not valid because the President did not sign the document. In the past Courts have been rather amenable to arguments of this type, but not without exception. In recent years the exception has steadily become the rule. As recent as 2015, the 8th Circuit court of appeal ruled that despite the lack of signature from one of the parties the contract between them was valid. The Court held that as long as both parties discharged their respective obligations under the contract then the contract was valid despite the lack of a signature. This conclusion seems rather logical and persuasive when one considers the purpose of a signature to a contract. A signature to a contract is meant to evince both parties’ assent to the material terms of the contract and their intent to enter into contract with one another. If both parties are performing under the contract per the material terms of the contract, then the court would be loathe to invalidate the contract due to a mere formality. It will be interesting to see the court’s decision in this case considering that Ms. Daniels denied the affair and avoided discussing the matter until the Wall Street Journal story emerged and by all accounts Mr. Cohen paid the $130,000.00 as was his contractual obligation. Any Judge worth their salt can see what this suit is about, Ms. Daniel’s attempt to reap benefits from sharing her story as the resistance to the President suggests that there is money to be made from doing so. That adds to the dubiousness of the claim being made and I suggests makes her a less sympathetic figure.

    As a matter of shrewdness, the President was quite wise not to sign the document as the lack of signature could very well be argued as evidence that a lack of assent to the terms of the agreement and or to contract altogether. Further, she alleges that the contract is between her and the President’s attorney. Establishing a cut out in this matter is also a rather shrewd move on the President’s part as he could reasonably claim that there is no privity of contract between the parties and therefore the President cannot be said to be in breach of a contract to which he was not a party. I will be interested to see the outcome of this case though, it should be at least great for academic conversation.

  • Alan Song

    Just pay the girl. She works so hard for the money.