Carl Hagelin Charging Penalty – Stars @ Rangers – 12/13/2011

Donald Trump's use of a pseudonym in a non-disclosure agreement with adult movie actress Stormy Daniels has left legal experts bewildered.

The fact that he’s identified by the name David Dennison in the paperwork has confused lawyers, particularly as everything in an NDA is confidential — including the identities of those involved.

Daniels is named in the agreement as Peggy Peterson.

The NDA secured the silence of Daniels over a sexual relationship the pair allegedly had. Trump is currently on trial over business fraud allegations concerning a payment he’s accused of making to Daniels to buy her silence.

"It is unusual for a non-disclosure agreement to use pseudonyms as the agreement itself would be subject to the confidentiality clauses within it," New York lawyer Colleen Kerwick told Newsweek.

The NDA lists the fake names throughout, Newsweek reported. The two were only identified by their real names in a section that was meant only for their lawyers to see.

ALSO READ: A criminologist explains how Americans achieve a post-Trump democracy

Daniels’ lawyer, Keith Davidson, gave evidence in Trump’s trial earlier this week that he drafted the agreement, in which he said his client used the name Peggy Peterson, taking P for plaintiff, and he chose Trump's moniker using D for defendant.

The Dennison name came from a high school colleague of Davidson’s, he said.

"Using a John Doe name isn't a crime, but it's a building block for a case about a cover-up,” Kerwick told Newsweek.

“It was never a crime to purchase the intellectual property rights in someone's story. The alleged crime is the falsification of records to cover it up."

The use of the fake name also got attention from MSNBC correspondent Katie Phang, who wrote on X, "Why would Trump use a pseudonym in a confidential settlement agreement unless he was trying to HIDE something?"

Trump has denied all 34 charges against him.

The regulator set to hear a campaign finance complaint about Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has a yard sign for the senator's campaign at his house, reported the San Antonio Current on Wednesday.

"Trey Trainor, an attorney serving on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) — the panel scheduled to hear the complaint — recently retweeted a photo his wife Lucy Trainor shared of a yard sign outside their Austin-area home promoting the Texas Republican's campaign for a third term in the U.S. Senate," said the report. "'Got my new ⁦@tedcruz⁩ yard sign installed today,' Lucy Trainor tweeted April 19, 10 days after a pair of campaign-finance watchdogs filed their FEC complaint against Cruz. Trey Trainor retweeted the image the same day his wife posted it."

Per federal contribution records, Trainor also made three contributions to Cruz in 2013, totaling to $325.

ALSO READ: Revealed: What government officials privately shared about Trump not disclosing finances

"Trainor's retweet follows last month's report by the Current that FEC Chairman Sean J. Cooksey served as Cruz's deputy chief counsel in 2018. From 2019 until joining the FEC in 2020, Cooksey served as general counsel for Missouri U.S. Senator Josh Hawley, a GOP hardliner frequently aligned with Cruz," noted the report. "Both Trainor and Cooksey are Trump appointees to the six-member FEC, which is comprised of equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats."

The complaint in question stems from iHeartMedia, which hosts Cruz's podcast, making a $630,000 payment to Truth and Courage PAC, which supports Cruz. Senate rules prohibit senators from accepting greater than "nominal value" gifts from companies that employ lobbyists, as iHeartMedia does.

Cruz, for his part, denies that anything about this arrangement is unlawful.

The senator has personally challenged campaign finance laws in the past. For instance, in 2022, after he ran afoul of a law that limited how much he could pay himself back with campaign contributions for money he loaned to his own campaign, he got the Supreme Court to toss out the law altogether.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) took another stab at defending her decision to shoot and kill a 14-month old puppy years ago that attacked some chickens, by citing a South Dakota law that allows animals that kill "livestock" to be put down.

Taking to X, formerly known as Twitter, the embattled Republican attempted to put out the firestorm she created by writing in her new book that she "hated" the puppy named Cricket and after an incident took it to a gravel pit and shot it while also claiming it was "worthless" as a hunting dog despite its young age.

On Sunday, she wrote, "I can understand why some people are upset about a 20 year old story of Cricket, one of the working dogs at our ranch, in my upcoming book — No Going Back. The book is filled with many honest stories of my life, good and bad days, challenges, painful decisions, and lessons learned."

ALSO READ: ‘Fraudulent’: Trump tormentor Lincoln Project loses big money in cybertheft scheme

She then continued:

"What I learned from my years of public service, especially leading South Dakota through COVID, is people are looking for leaders who are authentic, willing to learn from the past, and don’t shy away from tough challenges. My hope is anyone reading this book will have an understanding that I always work to make the best decisions I can for the people in my life. The fact is, South Dakota law states that dogs who attack and kill livestock can be put down. Given that Cricket had shown aggressive behavior toward people by biting them, I decided what I did. Whether running the ranch or in politics, I have never passed on my responsibilities to anyone else to handle. Even if it’s hard and painful. I followed the law and was being a responsible parent, dog owner, and neighbor. As I explained in the book, it wasn't easy. But often the easy way isn't the right way."

That did not satisfy Noem's many internet critics.

As one put it, she seemed more invested in selling her book, writing, "Stop using you murdering your dog in cold blood to try to sell copies of your book you sicko."

That was one of the nicer responses she received.

Former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa said, "It sounds like out of at least three options 1) train the dog; 2) drive any distance to a shelter; or 3) shoot it on the spot, you literally took the easiest one."

Former Trump campaign aide A.J. Delgado called Noem a "liar."

"BTW, liar, he never 'killed' livestock -- only attacked, which every dog does (i.e., runs after them). Quit changing your story. Your career is OVER."

@OurShallowState said, "The dog frustrated you. You killed it. That wasn't a tough decision by an empathetic person. That was a weak and lazy decision by a sociopathic person. Leading in government is making the right choices. You are insensitive and impatient. Your choices suck."

Democrat Harry Sisson also weighed in.

"There is no justifying your actions. What you did was disgusting and unforgivable. Also, nobody is going to buy your damn book," he said.

Noem even lost the support of some commenting users.

@colin_fendley said, "I have been a farm owner, I have been a K9 Handler, and I have trained thousands of dogs; you can not justify this, my dear. I'm a conservative, and you lost my support."