Is Stormy Daniels' anti-non-disclosure strategy — more interesting than the alleged skin tingle that Donnie Little Boy Trump seeks to hide?

© 2018 Peter Free

 

26 March 2018

 

 

Disclaimer — with a but

 

(Forgive the contextual butt pun.)

 

I am not especially interested in the sexual peccadillos of power-mongers. Right out of the gate, these folk are historically inclined to do whatever they "whim".

 

And being of partial French heritage extraction, I have difficulty getting wound up about politicians "banging" whomever they can. That maritally lamentable trait seems to go with politicized tumescence, so to speak.

 

C'est la vie and move on.

 

But . . .

 

 

Would you let your legal client blab like Stormy Daniels has?

 

Voyeurism aside, the strategy underlying Stormy Daniels' 60 Minutes tell-all — supposedly in violation of Donnie Little Boy's purported non-disclosure agreement — is professionally and psychologically interesting.

 

I had hoped to come away from Anderson Cooper's Daniels interview with a better idea as to what she and her attorney, Michael Avenatti, are thinking. But that did not happen. He seems to approve of Ms. Daniels' aggressive disclosures.

 

As an attorney myself, such a strategy (if it be such) seems legally risky and client-straining.

 

Donnie Little Boy's claim that Daniels owes him $1 million per disclosure would daunt most people. Especially, given the possibility that Daniels might lose her claim that the contract is invalid. Its argued invalidity being due to Little Boy's failure to scratch his then assumed name on it.

 

If the Agreement is nevertheless legally upheld, Daniels has possibly dug herself a financial hole of substantial size. Litigation alone, even aside from paying the asserted damages, would be costly. Details of how much those purported damages (to Little Boy) are actually worth might take years to resolve.

 

That is a very long time for an "ordinary" person to be at the mercy of the United States' erratic and obviously power-influenced legal system.

 

Perhaps Daniels and Avenatti are thinking that public contributions might help her out of any hole that she digs herself.

 

Certainly, there are many people, presumably especially women, who would like to see the Pussy Grabber in Chief visibly coated with his own filth.

 

 

None of the foregoing is intended to deride or question Michael Avenatti's legal skill

 

On 60 Minutes, he impressed me as an accomplished legal argument-maker. Which is what makes the professional side of these Stormy Daniels circumstances so interesting.

 

 

The moral? — Have Daniels and Avenatti decided to "reality show" (a verb) the legal system?

 

On one hand, we have contract law (which is usually fairly clearly cut) to contend with.

 

On the other, we have the United States' modern penchant for turning everything into Reality-defying, profitable theater.

 

Perhaps Ms. Daniels' out-in-the-open run is mostly about seeing who can outpoint whom, with regard to gaining audience portion and preference. In other words, a page torn from Donnie Little Boy's own book of system-defying provocations.

 

Poetic justice, that would be.