Posted on 05/10/2018 6:20:21 AM PDT by sickoflibs
Despite a lack of evidence and fabrications Avenatti is hailed by the press as a Trump foe.
This morning once again Morning Joe was joined by the perpetual cathode litigator Michael Avenatti, legal counsel for porn star Stormy Daniels. He was presenting his latest piece of “evidence”, purportedly connected to his case. This time he had a document that President Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen had received payments from a variety of companies, including one nefariously alluded to have the always dreaded “Russian Ties”.
What wrongdoing was exposed, and what does this have to do with a skin-star’s NDA settlement? Those are questions to be asked by pragmatic-thinking citizens. Our media complex meanwhile is not so bothered by these fact-based queries. Why delve into the tall weeds of verification when a pit-bull litigant can hurl accusations at The President in the court of public opinion?
Another question unasked: How did Avenatti obtain these documents? His trial is not even in its discovery phase, so how did he come into possession of what are private business forms? That itself may be a legal problem.
venatti has been such a regular presence on the MSNBC morning show that he could be deemed a co-host at this stage. (In fact…more on that in a bit.) CNN is no less slavish, turning over their cameras to Avenatti 59 times between the dates of March 7, through April 30.
The press loves the man, despite his repeated blunders, and even when his stories blow up in their faces they warmly embrace him back. Little surprise for this affection however exists, given the lawyer has a lengthy career working on Democratic campaigns, and was essentially reared in the business by Obama right-hand man Rahm Emanuel.
It was just last week when media outlets had to sheepishly correct their breathless stories of Cohen’s phones being wiretapped and supposedly leading to slam-dunk interrogation of Trump. It was later revealed there had been no phone taps at all and the media, which decry “fake news” at every chance, had to once again walk-back their verified-as-fake reports. That embarrassing debunked information had been trough-fed to reporters by Michael Avenatti. Not surprising coming from the lawyer claiming Daniels “Only wants the truth,” when her career was spent faking it, in front of cameras.
Now today, not having learned their lesson, the press once again presents themselves prostrate, willing to be defiled by the lawyer in a manner similar to his famous client’s profession. Avenatti’s latest bombshell accusation is that Michael Cohen received a number of payments from companies. That is essentially it. A lawyer, collected fees. There is no direct charge of illegality, but in Avenatti’s trademark fashion he presents a story with the implication of darkly evil attachments.
All you get from Avenatti is heavy implication. Looking over the companies involved he derisively suggests Cohen was hired under false pretenses. When Novartis issued a statement that they hired Cohen for healthcare matters, Avenatti states, “Wow – he’s a doctor as well!” Companies with other focuses have snide remarks that Cohen is also an “accountant”, or “real estate baron”, etc. This is infantile alluding, for the sake of implying wrongdoing. In this vein, since his main client is an adult film star can we not therefore announce, “Oh, so Avenatti is also a Porn Director!”
One other name listed in Avenatti’s report is Viktor Vekselberg. While all concerned are very excited by that name, they should curb their hysteria. This name becomes emblematic of how the most tenuous connecting fiber to anything that can be called “Russian” is presented as “proof” in the press — of something. It underscores the desperation in the media to attach Russian collusion — or the now accepted modifier “Russian Meddling” — to any story with the administration.
Vekselberg is mentioned in this fashion. One of the payments to Cohen came from the company Columbus Nova. They are based in New York. One of it clients is The Renova Group. Renova Group is owned by Vekselberg. Thus, because Trump’s lawyer was hired by a company that does business with a Russian company this proves…the press can invoke Russia. Except Avenatti, and the press, are avoiding two very crucial details regarding this connection.
First, how can there be a claim this proves Russian interests in the White House when this past April Vekselberg, and The Renova Group, were included among the Kremlin-connected oligarchs who had sanctions imposed upon them? If Trump was in Viktor’s back pocket he surely would have been excluded from sanctions. Secondly, do not expect any investigation into Renova business activities to be undertaken with any gusto. Doing so is very likely to gather up the niggling detail that Hillary Clinton has a deep financial tie with that very same group.
If his lawyer dealing with Renova is said to be problematic for Trump, then surely Hillary’s working with the company directly as Secretary of State must be considered an issue. Also the Clinton Foundation accepting numerous donations exceeding one hundred thousand dollars from Renova has to be a curiosity. Additionally, Hillary helped pave the way for her husband to receive $500,000 for a speech to a Russian investment bank, and this led to a meeting with Vekselberg. Dastardly stuff — you know, if any Renova connection is deemed problematic.
The questions that go unasked towards Stormy’s lawyer by the supplicant news panels is telling. For instance, what does any of this financial smoke have to do with Avenatti’s case and Stormy Daniels wanting to be freed of her Non-Disclosure Agreement? He stated on Morning Joe that the money Cohen collected constituted a “slush fund”. Sure does sound like nefarious intentions.
Except the monies listed out total a far greater sum than the $130,000 Stormy was paid. Also of note is the use of the past tense in that sentence. The vast majority of the payments that Avenatti is breathlessly detailing here were made to Cohen well after the election, and well after his client had already received her payout. How then is there any connection to her?
This has routinely been the case in the Daniels case. Note how frequently Avenatti’s focus has shifted regarding his client’s suit. She initially incorrectly claimed to be excused from the NDA due to a magazine interview. Then it was the fact that Trump never signed the NDA that would be her exit clause (except the agreement was created by Cohen’s firm, and his signature kept it binding.) Now Avenatti is targeting that Cohen company. Tenuous claims of campaign finance have been floated. Now Cohen himself is accused of wrongly accepting fees. Or, is he?
Avenatti declared repeatedly throughout his morning visits that his financial release was “confirmed and verified” by the New York Times. This only means though, they confirmed the financial documents were seemingly accurate. What the data amount to is not at all confirmed. As The Times meekly wrote in its exhaustive article on Avenatti’s report, “It is unclear whether that or any of the other transactions were improper, but Mr. Avenatti has asserted that Mr. Cohen’s use of Essential Consultants potentially violated banking laws.”
Translation: “We can find no evidence of wrongdoing, but we are content to repeat all of the accusations made by a porn star lawyer/media-hound.”
That snippet alone underscores all of the activities on TV screens with Avenatti. He is given free rein, and his charges repeated unchallenged, because his crusade helps inflict any damage desired on The President. Little surprise that another detail has been reported in much lighter fashion by the press. Michael Avenatti reportedly has been leaning heavily on network executives to get his own talk show.
This should be surprising to exactly nobody.
Stormy is stupid if she think Avenatti gives a cr** about her.
Mueller team has given Avenatti info on Cohen’s bank accounts and the media is fueling it. The guy should be disbarred and the Trump should aggressively go after them both for a breech in the non disclosure agreement filed.
Furthermore, Trump at some point should confront these people head on directly by addressing the American people about what is going on here.
If he did nothing with this porn star, then go before the public and say so.
“The guy should be disbarred . . .”
The legal profession is self regulating and disbarments are rare. The esteemed bar disciplinary committees are tolerant of all kind of corruption within the profession.
I once hired an attorney who was a senior partner in one of my town at the time’s most prestigious firms. I gave him a $3000 retainer and provided him with the papers he requested related to the issue for which he was being hired. For two weeks after the meeting I heard nothing from him. I called his office and for the next four weeks he would not return my calls. I also wrote letters requesting a response.
After making some inquiries I found he was connected with the developer I was planning to sue, a conflict he had not apprised me of when he was hired. I then surmised he had taken my “evidence” and shared it with his friend or friends legal team. His unwillingness to talk to his actual client, or do any work on his client’s case despite having accepted advance payment for work, was a clear indication he wasn’t going to take any action on my behalf.
I contacted two other well regarded attorneys in town, neither of whom would take my case as they would not cross the first attorney. Both advised me strongly not to take any action against the attorney as he was extremely well connected across the state political circles and business community. I asked about filing a complaint with the bar association. Both advised me not to. One even laughed and said the bar association complaint process was a joke. I would be completely wasting my time. There was no way the bar committee would take action against this attorney, no matter what evidence of misconduct was presented.
I have subsequently casually asked every attorney I’ve worked with about the bar complaint process. To a man and woman they all agree the bar association is extremely reluctant to take any action unless the attorney as already been convicted of a felony in court. The bar disciplinary committees are dismissive of citizen client complaints about malfeasance or incompetence. The club protects its own which is one reason the profession is held in low esteem by the public.
Such is the situation when a profession is both self regulating and highly controlling of entry into the profession. The chances of Avenatti ever being disciplined by the bar are less than the odds Hillary Clinton will go on national television this week and praise Donald Trump as the greatest president in American history.
It’s plain as the nose on your face Trump paid this prostitute for services rendered, and until this furor I doubt he even remembered her name. It was more on the order of a one night stand, which she now claims was an affair. She got paid handsomely at $130K but with her new found notoriety is getting “engagements” at various nightclubs now for “dancing” and breathing new life into a “career” which demanded youth and beauty, and which for Stormy nowadays is fading fast. Prez. Trump should fall back on the previously used phrase...publish and be damned.
the only thing Avenatti has left to do is star in his own...uh hum...”film”.
btt
Trump said he didn’t have sex with her. Plus, anyone who knows the history of this man, and his germaphobia would know that he probably didn’t dip his stick in her.
Did he do anything else? Foreplay, foddle her etc. Probably, would make sense esp if she was scantily dress at the golf meet.
There’s also a letter signed by her stating they didn’t have sex, and a girl friend said the same thing.
She did not get paid. In 2016 she came forth looking for money to keep quiet. Pure black mail.
I’m confused as to why Trump doesn’t come out now, and look to the AG to prosecute them for extortion. The attorney is in cahoots with Mueller, he’s spreading rumors, he’s making threats and defamatory remarks. Why does Trump have to put up with that?
He’s a token liberal as opposed to a token black person. All the token libs they put on there, white, black, man or woman are the same. Not one brings any enlightened thought to the table.
Exception of late is this guy Mark Penn. I thought he was 100% Hillary. He makes sense when he talks esp against the special counsel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.