In some respects, McDougal’s story is similar to Daniels’. Like Daniels, she met Trump at a 2006 golf tournament in Lake Tahoe. Trump later wined and dined both women at the Beverly Hills Hotel. He promised them both apartments. And then, as election day approached, both women were paid to keep quiet. They were both represented by the same lawyer, Keith Davidson.
Now, Daniels and McDougal have sued, asking the court to formally invalidate their agreements and let them speak freely.
But the nature of the agreements signed by Daniels and McDougal are quite different. From a legal perspective, the structure of McDougal’s contract appears to be worse for Trump and his associates.
Daniels was paid by Trump’s lawyer, while McDougal was paid by a corporation
Daniels was paid $130,000 through a shell corporation set up by Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen. Cohen says he was not reimbursed by the campaign or the Trump Organization and it was something he decided to do on his own — and not to influence the election. Cohen’s story strains credulity, and he has not ruled out the possibility of being reimbursed by Trump personally.
If it turns out Trump reimbursed Cohen for the payment in an effort to help his election campaign, it would violate election law because it was not reported. But the underlying contribution — $130,000 from Trump to his campaign — is not illegal. Trump is allowed to donate unlimited sums of money to his own campaign. In fact, Trump repeatedly promised to self-fund his entire campaign but ended up raising millions from other sources.
Daniels argues, among other things, that the contract is invalid because Trump was named as a party and did not sign the agreement.
McDougal, on the other hand, was paid by a corporation. She was paid $150,000 in August 2016 by American Media Inc., the parent company of the National Enquirer. Direct corporate donations to a campaign are illegal whether they are reported or not. McDougal argues that her contract was invaild for that reason — the purpose of the contract, a corporate donation to benefit the Trump campaign — was illegal.
Oh, but it gets worse for Trump besides the obvious campaign finance issues:
McDougal’s contract, however, was purportedly to give her a platform to speak. It grants the rights for her story about any affairs with married men to A.M.I. and contemplates a number of publicity opportunities for McDougal, including columns and magazine covers. Further, after the agreement was signed, a different attorney was able to negotiate an amendment to McDougal’s contract that allows her to respond to “legitimate press inquires regarding the facts of her relationship with Donald Trump.”
In other words, McDougal most likely can and probably will openly speak about what Donald Trump did to her, more than Daniels will be able to legally say.
If that happens, all bets are off. Clinton got impeached over a blowjob for Christ's sake, and so help me God if there are pictures of Trump's penis out there that show up in the news, I think we'll get rid of him out of nausea.