{"id":484,"date":"2018-03-07T08:25:31","date_gmt":"2018-03-07T13:25:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.gopplaybook.com\/?p=484"},"modified":"2018-03-08T08:29:44","modified_gmt":"2018-03-08T13:29:44","slug":"trump-lawyer-obtained-restraining-order-to-silence-stormy-daniels","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.gopplaybook.com\/?p=484","title":{"rendered":"Trump Lawyer Obtained Restraining Order to Silence Stormy Daniels"},"content":{"rendered":"
By\u00a0JIM RUTENBERG<\/span><\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<\/span>PETER BAKER<\/span><\/a><\/span>
\u00a0President Trump\u2019s lawyer secretly obtained a temporary restraining order last week to prevent a pornographic film star from speaking out about her alleged affair with Mr. Trump, according to legal documents and interviews.<\/div>\n

(Read the\u00a0restraining order<\/a>.)<\/em><\/p>\n

The order, issued by an arbitrator in California and reviewed by The New York Times, pertained to the actress Stephanie Clifford, who had been paid $130,000 shortly before the 2016 election in what she calls a \u201chush agreement.\u201d In recent weeks, she had\u00a0prepared to\u00a0<\/a>speak publicly<\/a>\u00a0about Mr. Trump, claiming his lawyer,\u00a0Michael D. Cohen<\/a>, had broken the agreement.<\/p>\n

The details of the order emerged on Wednesday after the White House\u2019s spokeswoman, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said that Mr. Trump\u2019s lawyer had won an arbitration proceeding against Ms. Clifford, who goes by the name of Stormy Daniels.<\/p>\n

Ms. Sanders\u2019s statement put the White House in the middle of a story that Mr. Trump and his lawyer had been trying to keep quiet for well over a year. The turn of events created the spectacle of a sitting president using legal maneuvers to avoid further scrutiny of salacious accusations of an affair and a payoff involving the porn star.<\/p>\n

Although Ms. Clifford said their relationship was consensual, the issue is particularly sensitive to Mr. Trump, whose campaign was dogged by allegations of groping and his boast of grabbing women\u2019s crotches.<\/p>\n

Ms. Clifford\u00a0filed a lawsuit<\/a>\u00a0in Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday asserting that the nondisclosure agreement that accompanied the $130,000 payment was void because Mr. Trump never signed it.<\/p>\n

Ms. Sanders said that the president had denied having an affair with Ms. Clifford or making the payment himself. She added that she was not aware of whether Mr. Trump knew about the payment to Ms. Clifford at the time.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019ve had conversations with the president about this,\u201d Ms. Sanders said. \u201cThis case has already been won in arbitration, and there was no knowledge of any payments from the president, and he has denied all these allegations.\u201d<\/p>\n

Lawrence S. Rosen, a lawyer representing Mr. Cohen, said in a statement on Wednesday that an arbitrator, who \u201cfound that Ms. Clifford had violated the agreement,\u201d barred her from filing her lawsuit and making other disclosures of confidential information.<\/p>\n

Ms. Clifford\u2019s lawyer, Michael Avenatti, said that he did not consider the restraining order, dated Feb. 27, valid, and that his client would proceed with her lawsuit in open court. \u201cThis should be decided publicly,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Photo<\/span><\/p>\n
\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>
The White House\u2019s spokeswoman, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said on Wednesday that the president\u2019s lawyer had won an arbitration proceeding against the actress.<\/span>\u00a0Credit<\/span>Doug Mills\/The New York Times<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Ms. Clifford\u2019s nondisclosure contract, made public through her lawsuit, calls for disagreements to be settled through confidential, binding arbitration. The lawsuit was filed a week after Mr. Cohen initiated arbitration proceedings, but the court papers did not say what was at issue or refer to the restraining order.<\/p>\n

The contract gives Mr. Trump the right to seek financial penalties of more than $1 million in arbitration should Ms. Clifford break or threaten to break her agreement to stay silent. It also gives him the right to obtain an injunction barring her from speaking while disputes are considered in arbitration or open court. Those terms prompted Ms. Clifford to change her plans about going public, according to two people familiar with the situation who were not authorized to speak about it.<\/p>\n

Ms. Clifford had suggested she was free to speak out after Mr. Cohen disclosed last month that he had arranged the payment, prompting her to claim that the contract had been breached.<\/p>\n

The restraining order took her by surprise. A close friend of Ms. Clifford\u2019s, J. D. Barrale, said in an interview that she learned Mr. Cohen initiated arbitration proceedings when she landed on a flight from Los Angeles to Texas. \u201cShe was shocked,\u201d Mr. Barrale said.<\/p>\n

Mr. Avenatti said Ms. Clifford had \u201cnever even been provided an opportunity to respond\u201d to Mr. Cohen\u2019s action in arbitration.<\/p>\n

A copy of the restraining order, obtained by The Times and first reported by NBC News, left open the possibility that it could be modified in the future. But Mr. Avenatti said he questioned its validity because it was brought on behalf of Mr. Cohen, not Mr. Trump.<\/p>\n

Asked if Ms. Clifford would drop her court case if Mr. Cohen provided her with more money, he said she would not. \u201cAt this point, we are well beyond that \u2014 this is a search for the truth,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

The lawsuit by Ms. Clifford adds weight to allegations in a separate legal complaint brought by Common Cause, a public interest group that has asked the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department to investigate the\u00a0$130,000 payment<\/a>\u00a0by Mr. Cohen. Common Cause argues that the payment amounted to an undeclared in-kind contribution to Mr. Trump\u2019s presidential campaign.<\/p>\n

Federal election law requires contributions and expenditures for a campaign to be promptly disclosed, and prohibits a candidate from dipping into campaign funds to cover personal expenses. There is no evidence that campaign money was used to make the payment.<\/p>\n

Common Cause filed a similar complaint about a $150,000 payment made shortly before the election by American Media Inc., owner of The National Enquirer, to Karen McDougal, a former Playboy Playmate who has said she had an affair with a married Mr. Trump about a decade ago. The company dismissed the complaint as meritless.<\/p>\n

The Enquirer never published a story about the alleged affair, and Common Cause asserts that if the payment was intended to keep Ms. McDougal quiet, it would be an illegal coordinated expenditure by a company on behalf of the Trump campaign.<\/p>\n