Seth Abramson

@SethAbramson ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked March 12, 2019

Created

Wed Mar 07 16:20:41 +0000 2018

Likes

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web Client

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

21/ The counter-argument is that the contract had three signature lines—Daniels, "EC, LLC," and Trump—and by "EC, LLC" signing but not Trump, it means that the "and/or" in paragraph 1.1 is automatically nullified, such that the contract is formally between "EC, LLC" and Daniels. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted March 7, 2018 Hibernated

Preceded By

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

20/ Take a look at paragraph 1.1 ("Parties") in the "Confidential Settlement Agreement" (https://t.co/ItiA7hZdhU) and tell me, if you're Trump's attorney, don't you claim that "and/or" means you're *not* bound? And if you're Cohen's attorney, wouldn't you make that same argument? — PolitiTweet.org

Posted March 7, 2018 Hibernated

Followed By

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

22/ The alternative explanation is the one Avenatti takes: the "and/or" can't be nullified, and that it requires all three parties sign the contract for it to be valid. But let's say he's wrong: let's say for a moment that this is a valid contract between "EC, LLC" and Daniels. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted March 7, 2018 Hibernated