Something that fell through the cracks on Saturday as the country was momentarily distracted by a false alarm involving a nuclear attack on Hawaii.

I don’t know why I’m calling this a “claim,” really. “Claim” implies that it’s some publication alleging that the NDA exists based on a shadowy anonymous source. That’s not what this is. It’s the spokesman for the porn star herself, Jessica Drake, who’s alleging it — or who was alleging it, I should say.

“Jessica’s NDA blankets any and every mention of Trump, so she’s legally unable to comment,” her publicist, Josh Ortiz, informed The Daily Beast. “Jessica signed a non-disclosure agreement after her allegations of misconduct, and she can’t do as much as peep his name publicly.”

Shortly after the Daily Beast published that, a panicky Ortiz contacted them again. NDA? Who said anything about a NDA?

“I made an incorrect assumption due to a grave misunderstanding regarding Jessica Drake’s ability to speak or comment about matters relating to President Trump,” Ortiz said in a statement supplied by Drake’s lawyer, Gloria Allred. “I have never been told directly, or indirectly, Jessica Drake signed a Non Disclosure Agreement or reached any settlement in regards to any interactions with President Trump. My misunderstanding resulted in incorrect information being provided to The Daily Beast and undue stress to Jessica Drake, for which I am truly sorry.”

He erroneously thought his client, an adult film star, had a nondisclosure agreement with the president of the United States. Simple mistake, could happen to anyone. Let me gently offer an alternate possibility: There’s an NDA, the NDA explicitly says that Drake and her spokesmen aren’t allowed to acknowledge the existence of the NDA, and Ortiz accidentally breached the agreement when he confirmed its existence in his first comment to the Daily Beast. Then he tried to put the genie back in the bottle.

Jessica Drake is one of the women who accused Trump of misconduct before the 2016 election, although the misconduct in this case involved neither harassment nor assault. She claims she met Trump in 2006, the same year he allegedly met Stephanie “Stormy Daniels” Clifford. He invited her to his room (she went, but with two friends), they spent some time chatting, and eventually he contacted her by phone to offer her $10,000 for sex, or so she said at a press conference in October 2016. Today, curiously, she’s completely unwilling to discuss anything having to do with Trump — although it’s certainly not because of any nondisclosure agreement, no sir.

As for Clifford, after this post was published on Friday about an alleged $130,000 payout to her from Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, a bunch of people tweeted at me to note that she’d issued a statement denying that anything had happened between her and the president. Right, it’s possible that the Wall Street Journal’s story about her and Trump is completely wrong. But it’s also possible that … that’s the point of the hush money. It might buy silence, or it might buy an outright denial from an alleged mistress. An interesting detail of Clifford’s statement is that it was dated two days *before* the WSJ’s story about her and Trump was published, and that somehow Trump lawyer Michael Cohen already had a copy. He’s the one who provided it to NBC., in fact. Why didn’t she just hand it to the media herself on Friday after the Journal story came out? Why did he have it?

The editor of Slate.com says he was in contact with Clifford in October 2016, around the time she was telling reporters that she’d had an affair with Trump. Via the NYT:

Jacob Weisberg, editor in chief of the Slate Group, said on Friday that in a series of interviews with Ms. Clifford in August and October 2016, she told him she had an affair with Mr. Trump after meeting him at a 2006 celebrity golf tournament. She told him that Michael D. Cohen, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, had agreed during the presidential campaign to pay her the $130,000 if she kept the relationship secret, Mr. Weisberg said, adding that Ms. Clifford had told him she was tempted to go public because the lawyer was late in making the payment and she feared he might back out of their agreement…

She forwarded Mr. Weisberg a draft amendment to the original agreement in which the parties were referred to by pseudonyms. Mr. Weisberg shared it with The Times.

According to the draft, Ms. Clifford was referred to as “Peggy Peterson” and was represented by a lawyer named Keith Davidson. On the other end of the negotiations were other parties referred to as “David Dennison” and “David Delucia.” Ms. Clifford promised to send Mr. Weisberg the original paperwork. But shortly after the text message exchange, Ms. Clifford stopped responding. Mr. Weisberg said that his conversations with the actress were on the record but that he was not prepared to write the story without her consent.

The Times says it saw a text exchange between Weisberg and Clifford from 2016 in which Weisberg asked her if Michael Cohen was the middleman on the NDA and Clifford replied “Yep!” She doesn’t appear to have kept her supposed relationship with Trump a tightly held secret: A friend of hers claims that Clifford told her about meeting Trump in 2006 and that she called her from Trump’s room, with Trump on the other line at times encouraging her to join them. Although Clifford never told the friend explicitly that there was an affair, she strongly implied it. (“Picture him chasing me around his hotel room in his tighty-whities.”) A gossip site claimed an affair between Trump and Clifford all the way back in 2011, long before she had any politically motivated reason to accuse Trump of anything. The allegations didn’t emerge out of nowhere the day before the election.

And then there’s this:

If Steve Bannon ever reaches the point where he’s as willing and able to treat Trump as a political enemy as Trump is willing and able to treat him as one, he could make a lot of trouble for him. But that quote also shows you the slippery ethics of Michael Wolff’s book. There’s no earthly way that Bannon would imply *on the record* that Trump’s lawyers were paying out hush money to women left and right during the campaign. The only way he’d make an admission as explosive as that would be if he’d been led to believe he was speaking off the record. He bet his career on Michael Wolff’s willingness to be an ethical journalist. Oops.

By the way, if you count the National Enquirer’s alleged “catch and kill” payout to Karen McDougal on Trump’s behalf, that makes three NDAs that have now been alleged. Exit question via Kevin Williamson: Does it fit with what we know of Trump that he’d pay gorgeous women to deny knowing him? “It is difficult to imagine Donald Trump paying a porn star to keep quiet about having sex with him,” writes Williamson. “Putting her on a billboard would be more in keeping with his character.”