You say NDAs are binding as though merely stating it makes it true.
In many cases, a properly drafted NDA may be binding. However there is plenty of case law regarding NDAs that were found not to be binding - and even more regarding unenforceable contracts in general. And NDAs are nothing more than contracts.
First, a contract has to actually be an agreement between parties. It's not clear that Daniels' NDA was an agreement because one of the parties who supposedly "agreed" didn't actually ever sign it.
Second, a contract can only specify damages that actually approximate how much the individual might be hurt. The Daniels NDA just blithely stated a figure of $1 million for each and every instance of a breach by Daniels. So, even if we agree that Trump would actually suffer a million dollars in damages the first time she spoke to the media, how could he suffer another million the second time she spoke? Or the thirty-fifth? In fact, there's a pretty good argument to be made that Trump would actually have made more money if he'd lost the election and just gone on with his various money-making schemes. Otherwise, one is forced to agree that becoming President actually enriches Trump and puts money in his pocket. And being enriched by holding public office is, at best, illegal.
Last, while NDAs may be enforceable in matters of business, there are good public policy reasons why they should be unenforceable regarding elected officials. The public does have an interest in knowing about the person they're entrusting their government to. That issue remains largely unlitigated, so it can't be said for certain whether such an NDA made before a person took office would be enforceable. But it's unlitigated for a very good reason - it's blindingly stupid. I would not want to be the lawyer who has to argue that my client's right to cheat on his wife overrides the public's right to know he's a cheater.
Also, since the NDA actually depended upon a criminal act (an illegal campaign contribution), that might weigh against its enforceability. That's a more tenuous argument, though, because the NDA might not have actually required anyone to commit a crime. Of course, had Cohen and Trump reported the campaign contribution (as they were required by law to do), then they would have basically told the public the Daniels story themselves. That would have rendered the entire point of the NDA moot. So, the NDA sort of did contemplate the commission of a crime.
The point is that NDAs have been found unenforceable and there are plenty of reasons to think this one would have been as well.
Who would you like to talk about? Homosexuals? They were the subject of the excellent, award-winning documentary "Paragraph 175".
Catholic Church? Try the 1999 documentary 'Burning Questions."
The Romani? Get a copy of "'Porraimos: Europe's Gypsies in the Holocaust."
I'm Jewish and I know all about them. I know about the original holocaust - the Armenian genocide of WWI. I also know that there are at least a few passages in the Bible requiring heathens to be slaughtered and the other passages that require one to be charitable and hospitable to heathens.
Um ... she can't be in breach of contract because there was no contract. Only she signed it. The place for Trump to sign was left completely blank.
In any case, a non-disclosure agreement with a person who was running for the presidency (and who won and is now a public servant) is probably void as against public policy. The public's right to know about their elected leaders probably overrides any contract to keep the information from the public.
As to whether a court would consider her testimony reliable, that's really up to a jury to decide after hearing her testimony. And, considering the fact that the man she negotiated the contract with (Cohen) has corroborated her entire story*, the reliability of her testimony is probably pretty high,
*Cohen hasn't, to public knowledge, corroborated anything about the man she says threatened her.
It appears that Trump, Cohen, and the head of the National Enquirer met to discuss strategies to buy off women whose revelations might interfere with his bid for the Presidency. You aren't allowed to form a criminal conspiracy even if one party is a lawyer. And, when meeting with a person who isn't a client of the lawyer (even if your lawyer is present), you're no longer protected by attorney-client privilege.
Trump didn't pay out of his own pocket. Cohen paid Daniels and the Nat'l Enquirer paid the other woman. They made those payments to help Trump get elected in the last days before the election. Those were campaign contributions and they had be to declared. In fact, even if Trump paid them personally from his own bank account, they'd still be campaign contributions. Failure to declare such a contribution is a felony (of which Cohen has already been convicted.)
My question is why the heck you care about the Clinton Foundation and not the Mueller investigation? Bill Clinton left office at the end of 2000. Hillary Clinton is completely retired. When we talk about the Mueller investigation, we're talking about the people who are currently leading our country and who we will have to decide about in less than 2 years. Those are pressing current issues.
Perhaps you're just happy whenever anything bad happens to a Democrat. FDR didn't actually have polio. Would you be as overjoyed if the FBI investigated that?