Tuesday, July 03, 2018

A Bizarro Update On The Story Of Donald Trump As A Playboy Model's Baby Daddy

When fat-cat Republican donor Elliott Broidy failed on Monday to make the third of eight quarterly payments in a $1.6 million deal with Shera BéchardPlayboy's Miss November 2010 centerfold, to buy her silence after he allegedly got her pregnant, the red flags surrounding the deal started flapping furiously.  This is because the reason Broidy gives for backing out of the nondisclosure agreement is nonsensical and adds ammunition to the view that the baby daddy actually is Donald Trump, who among other things is the president of the United States. 
The long-story-short version of what may be the Mother of All Sex Scandals is that Broidy, a billionaire venture capitalist and former Republican National Committee co-chair, entered into the NDA to silence Béchard as a favor to Trump, who repaid Broidy by agreeing to at least two Oval Office meetings at which Broidy lobbied for the interests of the United Arab Emirates against its gulf state rival Qatar.  The UAE then rewarded Broidy's firm with a $600 million defense security contract.   
Broidy claims that the NDA is now "null and void" because Béchard's former lawyer, Keith Davidson (who also represented objects of Trump's desire Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal and was fired by all three women because they concluded that he was colluding with Michael Cohen, Trump's notorious lawyer and fixer) improperly disclosed aspects of the NDA to Daniels' current lawyer, Michael Avenatti. 
But that makes zero sense because even if it was true, and Davidson says it is not, such a disclosure would not be legal grounds for voiding the agreement because it was between Broidy and Béchard.  
(Meanwhile, Béchard sued Broidy on Friday in Los Angeles over his decision to end the hush-money agreement.  The complaint also names Davidson and Avenatti.  Cohen is not a defendant.  And HuffPost reported that two sources familiar with the matter say that Béchard never met Trump.) 
Broidy's remedy, as law professor Paul Campos explains in New York magazine, would be to sue Davidson for damages, not to unilaterally cancel his agreement with Béchard since there not only is no allegation that she violated the agreement, Davidson was no longer her lawyer when he allegedly did so. 
What can we conclude from this turn of events? 
By claiming that their agreement is void, Broidy is now allowing Béchard to tell her story. 
And as Campos suggests, Broidy may have concluded, as so many others have, that Trump is a bad business partner. 

Click HERE for my earlier story on Broidy, Béchard and Trump. 

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Campos got a threatening letter from a lawyer over his latest article: