Seth Abramson

@SethAbramson ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked March 12, 2019

Created

Wed Mar 07 16:12:40 +0000 2018

Likes

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web Client

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

18/ The problem with an "and/or" for one of the parties to a contract is obvious: which is it? That "or" means that Cohen might be bound, or not. Trump might be bound, or not. (And remember, Cohen wrote the contract, so its content constitutes formal representations on his part.) — PolitiTweet.org

Posted March 7, 2018 Hibernated

Preceded By

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

17/ First things first: Cohen, to obscure—or perhaps to hedge his bets about—whether he'd decide to (or had) told Trump about the "Hush Agreement," writes that the parties bound are Daniels on the one hand and, on the other, his shell corporation "and/or" Donald Trump. "And/or"? — PolitiTweet.org

Posted March 7, 2018 Hibernated

Followed By

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

19/ So did Daniels contract with Trump? Maybe not, per the contract. Did she contract with "EC, LLC," Cohen's shell corp? Maybe not. Should a court encourage parties to so word their contracts that there's no clarity whatsoever—indeed no force of law—as to who the contract binds? — PolitiTweet.org

Posted March 7, 2018 Hibernated