Seth Abramson

@SethAbramson ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked March 12, 2019

Created

Wed Mar 07 16:26:21 +0000 2018

Likes

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web Client

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

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

Preceded By

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

Followed By

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

23/ Does "EC, LLC" have the legal authority to make representations on Trump's behalf within the body of the contract? Does "EC, LLC" have authority to legally bind Donald Trump in any fashion within the contract's four corners? Is "EC, LLC" a valid "third party" in this sense? — PolitiTweet.org

Posted March 7, 2018 Hibernated