binding agreement enforceable in accordance with its terms. dd did not sign the agreement. this is the argument that stormy daniels lawyer says that s why it s not legitimate under that provision. jeffrey, it s an argument. but it s not a valid argument. it s a frivolous argument. because dd is not a party. it said and/or. that or is a key distinction. it s a valid contract, as long as ec, llc signed that contract. these non-disclosure agreements are signed every single day. they re signed by ceos, by legisla legislators, doctors, lawyers, tv personalities. i m not here as stormy daniels lawyer. what we have here obviously is a disagreement about the terms of a contract which happens all the
who don t know, i have sat down with stormy daniels for an upcoming 60 minutes interview. cohen s arguments according to schwartz is the nondisclosure agreement is valid and binding because of the use of the word and/or that donald trump, aka, denison, didn t have to sign it, as long as michael cohen signed it for the llc. explain to people who aren t lawyers why you think that s not true. well, there s a number of reasons why that s not true, anderson. first of all, there are a number of portions of that contract, if wasn t just about the money, there are a number of portions of that contract that required donald trump and only donald trump to provide what s called consideration beyond the $130,000. for instance, donald trump had to release my client from certain liabilities, claims, et cetera, in connection with that agreement. the only we that that could happen would be for him to sign the document. so that s number one.
he was representing the llc. it was a valid agreement. and donald trump why have david denison s name in there at all? because it s third party beneficiary that nobody s talking about. there could be a third party beneficiary to every contract. so michael cohen was act beiing the best interest of his client. doesn t he have to tell the third party, his beneficiary that he s entering into an agreement for their benefit? he doesn t have to. because he s inside counsel. he was general counsel to that organization. so he could enter so you re saying, but wait, right, but you re saying he s general counsel for the trump organization, so he s therefore representing donald trump. well, he was representing ec,
david dennison, didn t have to sign it, as long as michael cohen signed it for the llc. explain to people who aren t lawyers why you think that s not true. well, there s a number of reasons why that s not true, anderson. first of all, there are a number of portions of that contract, if wasn t just about the money, there are a number of portions of that contract that required donald trump and only donald trump to provide what s called consideration beyond the $130,000. for instance, donald trump had to release my client from certain liabilities, claims, et cetera, in connection with that agreement. the only we that that could happen would be for him to sign the document. so that s number one. number two, the and/or under california law, i don t think mr. schwartz is licensed in the state of california, he may be a very fine lawyer here in new york but our case isn t in new york. our case is in california. i am licensed in california, and
the election. in a statement the trump organization says it does not have any involvement in the matter except for this one lawyer who was working in her individual capacity facilitating the initial filing. joining me now an attorney on a separate manner. jeff toobin. i want to ask you a couple of things. michael cohen says he did this all on his own and he entered through an agreement through the llc. that he set up for donald trump under the na is it unet for michael cohen to enter an agreement on behalf of president trump without informing president trump? well, let s get to the agreement itself. the agreement is between