ecllc and/or david denison dd. doesn t the and/or mean that ec was capable in and of itselfc a. doesn t the and/or mean that ec was capable in and of itselfec lc and/or david denison dd. doesn t the and/or mean that ec was capable in and of itselflc . doesn t the and/or mean that ec was capable in and of itself at settles this action? no, because and/or is a ternlg of art in the legal profession and under california law, it is found to be a plural use of the term. it is in the conjunction difference. furthermore, if you look at paragraph 8.6 of the agreement, it specifies if the agreement is not signed by all parties, it is invalid. therefore i come back to where i began which is shouldn t she refuse to have taken the 130 k until there was full execution? well, i mean that certainly was an option. that is not what happened. and so we look at where we stand now and where we stand now is that we ve got an agreement that was never signed by all parties
that are opining on this document and its enforce ability. and unfortunately, a lot of people aren t actually reading the document before they appear on television. i agree. and that is a real problem. you have to actually read the docume document. so look at my copy. i ve read it. it is all tabbed. excellent. so let s go through it. let s go to the signature page to begin with. this is at the tail end. and folks can see david denison s line aka presumably would have been filled in donald trump not signed. and you believe that it is because he did not sign it that the whole document should be held null and void, true? absolutely. okay. so now let me take you to the settlement agreement paragraph 1.1 that identifies the parties. because i noted something and i ve circled it on the screen. the settlement agreement and mutual release by and between
which is required under california law and expressry required under paragraph 8.66 the agreement. we are highly confident that this agreement is going to be tossed out.agreement. we are highly confident that this agreement is going to be tossed out. and if so she is prepared to return the money. it seems like the question is offer, acceptance, consideration. i think you have all three. let me show you something. go to exhibit number three. each page of this agreement needed to be initialed. and on the initials line, i m putting it up on the screen, instead of david denison, it is ec. which is that other entity that was created by michael cohen presumably to settle this case. in other words, all throughout the document, ec signed, not david denison. i think by virtue of that language that said that it could be either of them. and/or. i disagree. and we ll have the court decide. but i want to address something you just said. offer, acceptance, consideration. there was no acceptance b
saying, look, the president didn t know about this. it s hard to believe that 11 days before the election, the president did not know what his close friend and personal attorney was doing on his behalf. and if the president or his attorney did, indeed, laura, break the law here, that is really the important question. some people may not care about a tawdry affair with a porn star. that s their business. others will. but if someone, especially someone who s running for president and his personal attorney broke the law, that is indeed the big question. that s the scope here. it s huge here. and remember, not only did sarah huckabee sanders expose the arbitration happening in court, she also confirmed for the first time that david denison was donald trump, and he was actually a party to all this. that s why it s trending about president denison. but you re right, don, the large issue here is not about the salacious details, be it s not
question the validity of a contract? there is either an offer, acceptance and consideration. how that plays out here would be, i m going to offer you some money to not talk about the alleged sexual encounter with then-private citizen donald trump. okay, i accept your offer. what are you going to give me for it? here s the consideration. i m going to give you $130,000. put it in the account, it s been cashed, and we both operate as if this is a valid contract. she was aware back in october of 2016, 11 days before the election, that wolf, it wasn t signed by david denison or the purported aka donald trump. so why did you wait a year and a half, act as if it was valid and accept the funds now? the next question would be, is there any evidence that donald trump or the campaign aide intended to silence you? why is that important? because we re talking about campaign finance laws. remember, it s illegal to make a campaign contribution or expenditure that you haven t