Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, May 10, 2018

So exactly who is paying Michael Avenatti? And is he a lawyer, an opposition researcher, a journalist or a campaign operative? He wants to make the discussion all about where Michael Cohen, President Trump's personal attorney, got his money but, to have clean hands, Avenatti needs to come forward with exactly who is financing his operation, who his sources were for detailed banking information, and whether he really is an attorney solely representing Stormy Daniels or just using her as cover to wage a political operation. From the beginning, this has been fishy. Daniels's previous lawyer advised her to stick to her agreements. In contrast, Avenatti OK'd her violating with impunity her nondisclosure agreement on "60 Minutes" despite a binding arbitration judgment against her. She has acknowledged on Twitter that she is not paying for her lawyer. So who is? And did he indemnify her against all multimillion-dollar penalties?

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

It took a long time and even a court battle to find out that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid for the Fusion GPS dossier, a fact that was disclosed only after the damage was done, as former British spy and the dossier's compiler, Christopher Steele, had already created a vast echo chamber as though the material he was peddling had been verified in some way -- which, of course, it never was. Now Avenatti is being allowed to repeat this same process, mixing truths with half-truths and evading accountability.

Avenatti has been given a free, unfettered media perch on TV to spread his stuff without the networks forcing him to meet any disclosure requirements -- saying that he is Stormy Daniels's attorney when someone else entirely is paying for this operation is not true disclosure that allows the viewer to evaluate the source and potential conflicts. And now he is being given deference as though he was a journalist with an interest in protecting unverified sources while he makes the most headline grabbing pronouncements he can. Lawyers need to disclose the source of their evidence.

The more you peel back the onion, the more Cohen and Avenatti seem alike -- both fixers, bending every rule they can get away with. Fairly or unfairly, Cohen is being put under the microscope, and we can rest assured that every payment in or out will be fully scrutinized by law enforcement. But Avenatti can't be given a pass on these issues. Americans are entitled to know just who this guy is, who is writing his checks and whether he legally obtained his information.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

To head off the inevitable "right wing attack piece" screams of faux outrage, look at who the author is:

"Mark Penn (@Mark_Penn) served as pollster and adviser to former President Clinton from 1995 to 2000, including during his impeachment. He is chairman of the Harris Poll and author of "Microtrends Squared.""

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-05-10 12:12 PM | Reply

The important question is, and has been from the start, who is paying Donald Trump?

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2018-05-10 12:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 4

How about article containing half truths is not worth addressing?

#4 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-05-10 12:30 PM | Reply

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-05

This thread is a deflection. Fascists are worried because Avenatti has a good shot at bringing the current criminal occupant of the White House to heel.

Cry-Me-A-River.

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2018-05-10 12:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

"And if this is all a paid donor strategy to discredit Trump,..."

Like the Steele Dossier, the funding source for the information is irrelevent when the assertions are proven facts damning the president.

But keep wishing on that star.

Oh and btw, I have actually reduced the number of people I wish ass cancer on to just Trump. When the mood hits me and I am especially angry over something destructive I reserve the right to wish ass cancer on more people including all trumptilians and trumptilian-adjacent people.

#7 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-05-10 12:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Michael Avenatti is being supported by Jesus. He is doing God's work.

In the New Testament Michael leads God's armies against Satan's forces in the Book of Revelation, where during the war in heaven he defeats Satan. In the Epistle of Jude Michael is specifically referred to as "the archangel Michael". Christian sanctuaries to Michael appeared in the 4th century, when he was first seen as a healing angel, and then over time as a protector and the leader of the army of God against the forces of evil.

.ps lets see Trumps tax returns.

#8 | Posted by bored at 2018-05-10 12:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Who is paying Michael Avenatti?

Duh....George Soros

~ The Deplorables ~

#9 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2018-05-10 12:54 PM | Reply

Client confidentiality, Client confidentiality , Client confidentiality

Sincerely

rightoecentre of the past

#11 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-05-10 01:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

When the information released by Avenatti are proven FACTS that damn the POTUS for criminal and seriously unethical behavior. The funding source for the information pales in comparison.

It is nothing but a distraction.

#12 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-05-10 01:08 PM | Reply

"So exactly who is paying Michael Avenatti"

what is he being investigated for?

Maybe the next time you are getting your shoelaces tied in WLA you can ask someone

#13 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-05-10 01:08 PM | Reply

proven facts damning the president. - #7 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-05-10 12:41 PM
Any
Day
Now
But keep wishing on that star.

#15 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-05-10 01:18 PM | Reply

Turn the question around. So what? Assume all your assertions are correct. Some rabid anti-trump has created a human sock puppet in Avennati.
If the assertions of criminal and seriously unethical behavior are proven TRUE, isnt that in and of itself critically important?

distractions.

#16 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-05-10 01:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

proven facts damning the president. - #7 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-05-10 12:41 PM
Any
Day
Now
But keep wishing on that star.
#15 | Posted by Avigdore

Steele Dossier proving true

Cohen finances proving correct within days of releasing them

23 indictments and counting.

Keep wishing on that star.

#17 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-05-10 01:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Let me quote you again:
proven facts damning the president
Why did you list a bunch of crap NOT about the president?

#18 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-05-10 01:43 PM | Reply

who is paying rightoecentre and avigdore?

#19 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-05-10 01:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

who is paying avigdore? - #19 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-05-10 01:47 PM

Can't speak for RoC, but the US Government via the Dept of Defense pays me (My CAC says Agency/Department Navy).
Good times.

#20 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-05-10 02:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

So the deep state is paying avigdore

#21 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-05-10 02:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

Al right. You got me. I'm paying Michael Avenatti.

#22 | Posted by Zed at 2018-05-10 02:58 PM | Reply

"proven facts damning the president"
Why did you list a bunch of crap NOT about the president?

#18 | Posted by Avigdore

Everyone around the President is in trouble. The President is in trouble.

And you want us to believe that everyone around Donald J Trump is a money laundering crook or a spy but not Donald J Trump?? He is completely innocent?

Riiiiight.

#23 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-05-10 03:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I heard there is a PAC setup to anonymously fund Avenatti, so we will never know who is paying. The PAC name is FCUKTRUMP.

#24 | Posted by bored at 2018-05-10 03:35 PM | Reply

What does it matter who is paying Avenatti?

#25 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-05-10 04:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Doesn't surprise me that our resident know-everythings don't know what's been public and fully disclosed for months. Who's paying Avenatti?

www.crowdjustice.com

#26 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-05-10 04:48 PM | Reply

#26

Stormy Daniels is soliciting donations ostensibly to pay her legal fees. That does NOT prove that is how Avenatti is being paid.

Does your link show how much she's raised so far? I didn't see anything to that effect, but I could have missed it.

Does your link show how much Avenatti's legal fees to Ms. Clifford are? I didn't see that either.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-05-10 04:52 PM | Reply

Hold on, if you moronic hypocrites think he should reveal who is funding his efforts, where the ---- were you when conservative inbred Peter Thiel was secretly funding Hulk Hogan's case?

#28 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-05-10 05:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What does I matter who is paying him?

Distraction

#29 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-05-10 05:08 PM | Reply

Avenatti told the story himself last night on Rachel Maddow's show. The ONLY funding he receives for the "Stormy Daniels Case" (which this is) comes from the crowdfunding site listed. He unequivocally stated there are no wealthy individuals or unknown political entities funding these efforts. If you want to see it yourself, google the podcast.

#30 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-05-10 05:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And the story about Avenatti's funding was told in a Washington Post story in March.

www.washingtonpost.com

#31 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-05-10 05:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Avenatti might just want to be famous.
Or use his fame to launch a bid for POTUS.
We have done worse.

#32 | Posted by bored at 2018-05-10 05:49 PM | Reply

This is a stupid question. Michael Avenatti's funding is irrelevant. What he has spent filing motions for Stormy Daniels has to be far smaller than the millions in free publicity this suit is getting him.

Newsflash: It doesn't cost any money for a lawyer to be on TV and Twitter a lot.

#33 | Posted by rcade at 2018-05-10 06:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

This is a stupid question. Michael Avenatti's funding is irrelevant.

Actually, in a civil matter it is relevant, since if Stormy, who holds the privilege but isn't funding the litigation (and Avenatti isn't doing this on a contingency), then whoever is paying for it could arguably be subpoenaed for their communications with Avenatti and Stormy during the course of the litigation.

In my experience, if someone is going to great lengths to pay someones legal bills but is also trying to hide that fact, their agenda becomes not only relevant, but could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Most Judges would agree with me on that.

#34 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-05-10 07:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Michael Avenatti @MichaelAvenatti

Who is paying my legal bills? Yet again, here is the answer (in Dropbox). The next time you see a "journalist" ask this same question, please join me in mocking them for their inability to do basic research. #basta

www.dropbox.com

10:22 AM - 10 May 2018

#35 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-05-10 08:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Actually, in a civil matter it is relevant, since if Stormy, who holds the privilege but isn't funding the litigation (and Avenatti isn't doing this on a contingency), then whoever is paying for it could arguably be subpoenaed for their communications with Avenatti and Stormy during the course of the litigation.

Yeah, we can all tell THAT'S the reason you're concerned about this. You don't want a mythical person to be subpoenaed.

Just like how Ken Starr's main concern was Monica Lewinsky's dry cleaning bill.

#36 | Posted by rcade at 2018-05-10 08:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Michael Avenatti @MichaelAvenatti

Too bad @Mark_Penn didn't do any basic research for his ridiculous piece in The Hill. Had he merely bothered to review google or this feed, he would know exactly who is paying me. And we did nothing wrong re the release of the financial info. #basta
8:55 AM - 10 May 2018

#37 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-05-10 08:11 PM | Reply

I have a feeling we will only find out the answer after Stormy is sued for everything she didn't snort and finds out that they got terrible legal advice on breaking a valid NDA in the way that she did. But as the article points out, by then the damage is done and the Dem funding the smear campaign will slide back into the shadows. I remember outrage over "Truthboaters for Truth"...yet, Dems now have taken that and gave it a healthy dose of steroids. The Dems of 2018 truly are the GOP of 2004. Anti-free speech, pro-police state, pro-illegal immigration, pro-war, pro-wall street, billionaire/special interest funded, pro-shipping jobs overseas, anti-union...the list goes on and on.

#38 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-05-10 09:45 PM | Reply

Donald Trump is going to prison, quiker than I first thought.

#39 | Posted by Zed at 2018-05-10 10:08 PM | Reply

Donald Trump is going to prison, quiker than I first thought.
#39 | POSTED BY ZED
=================
You 'thinking' was your first mistake. Tell me, by what month/year will Trump go to jail? Get yourself on record and show your brilliance.

#40 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-05-10 10:12 PM | Reply

Going on record that Trump is a criminal who is in process of getting his comeuppance isn't enough for you?

Anyone paying attention can smell Donald's desperation.

#41 | Posted by Zed at 2018-05-10 10:15 PM | Reply

By clicking on this link - www.drudge.com - it's obvious the poster is obsessed with Trump.

#42 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-10 10:17 PM | Reply

I've made this prediction before: Trump blows out his own brains, 20 percent chance and rising.

#43 | Posted by Zed at 2018-05-10 10:19 PM | Reply

I've made this prediction before: Trump blows out his own brains, 20 percent chance and rising.
#43 | POSTED BY ZED
===================
My advice to you: when you post something really, really dumb - don't re-post it.

#44 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-05-10 10:28 PM | Reply

It's not a valid NDA if trump didn't sign it.
Are you really delusional enough to believe that stormy is going
to be paying donald trump? He's already tweeted himself to oblivion on that case.

#45 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-05-10 10:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#44

It's only 20 percent because narcissists avoid killing themselves unless personal humiliation becomes unavoidable.

#46 | Posted by Zed at 2018-05-10 10:32 PM | Reply

It's not a valid NDA if trump didn't sign it.
Are you really delusional enough to believe that stormy is going
to be paying donald trump? He's already tweeted himself to oblivion on that case.
#45 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE
-----------------
Judges and her prior lawyers all disagree with you. Trump denying anything will not change that fact. He can simply say he was trying to mitigate damages as is his legal duty.

#47 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-05-10 10:37 PM | Reply

It's only 20 percent because narcissists avoid killing themselves unless personal humiliation becomes unavoidable.
#46 | POSTED BY ZED
-----------------
Then I am 20% worried for you when you look back on this nonsense in a few years when your TDS passes.

#48 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-05-10 10:39 PM | Reply

I will ask you directly, again:

Do you really think trump is gonna sue stormy for 20 million dollars and actually win?

Yes or No.

#49 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-05-10 10:40 PM | Reply

"when you post something really, really dumb - don't re-post it."

Why should anyone take advice from someone who doesn't take his own?

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-05-10 10:43 PM | Reply

Do you really think trump is gonna sue stormy for 20 million dollars and actually win?
Yes or No.
#49 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE
================
She does not have $20M. He will sue her, and he will win.

#51 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-05-10 10:43 PM | Reply

Why should anyone take advice from someone who doesn't take his own?
#50 | POSTED BY DANFORTH
===================

Great rhetorical question Danforth...and the reason no one takes advice from you.

#52 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-05-10 10:44 PM | Reply

No, he won't win.

You really need to step away from foxnews and breitbart if you think the potus is going to sue a porn star he ------ and win.

#53 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-05-10 10:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You really need to step away from foxnews and breitbart if you think the potus is going to sue a porn star he ------ and win.
#53 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE
==============
He is not suing for sex. He will sue because there is a valid contract for her not to talk about it. Whether he had sex with her or not is irrelevant to the validity of the contract.

#54 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-05-10 10:46 PM | Reply

the million dollars per breach, even if agreed to by both parties, fails because it is not a reasonable forecast of harm to trump. maybe the first million is, but the following ones would not. It's an "impermissible" penalty. There's no judge that's going to give him 20 million (1 million per breach) AFTER the election.

But

Trump also didn't sign the non disclosure agreement, even with his assumed name on it ( david dennison? i forget)

#55 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-05-10 10:52 PM | Reply

its not valid to assign a million dollar penalty per breach. sorry.

#56 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-05-10 10:53 PM | Reply

"Whether he had sex with her or not is irrelevant to the validity of the contract."

Wrong. No services rendered means the NDA is invalid, so trump would have to admit he lied before, which he can't do because of pride.

#57 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-05-10 10:54 PM | Reply

the million dollars per breach, even if agreed to by both parties, fails because it is not a reasonable forecast of harm to trump. maybe the first million is, but the following ones would not.
#55 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE
===============
Stormy does not have $20M so it is irrelevant. Stormy doesn't have $1M and will probably be down to $100K or less by the time this goes to trial. Strippers and cash don't get along very well. She will be sued into bankruptcy.

#58 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-05-10 10:56 PM | Reply

No services rendered means the NDA is invalid, so trump would have to admit he lied before, which he can't do because of pride.
#57 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE
==============
Again, the truthfulness is immaterial to the validity of the contract. This is not a slander suit. It is no different from any NDA anyone else signs. Unless there is an underlying criminal act it is hiding, it is 100% enforceable. The fact that she accepted the $130K (consideration), sealed the deal.

#59 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-05-10 10:58 PM | Reply

A former attorney and adviser of Donald Trump stunned "Fox & Friends" anchors on Wednesday with a revelation about a lawsuit filed Tuesday by Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels).

Jay Goldberg, who represented the president in both of his divorces, told show hosts that Clifford may have a point that her nondisclosure agreement with Trump is invalid if he didn't sign it.

"It's true. An agreement, you need the signature of both parties," he said. "And if there's no signature by him, it's not valid."

Goldberg added that courts tend to look at "nondisclosure agreements" skeptically "because it impairs negatively on the right of free speech."

#60 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-05-10 11:01 PM | Reply

www.google.com

#61 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-05-10 11:03 PM | Reply

"It's true. An agreement, you need the signature of both parties," he said. "And if there's no signature by him, it's not valid."
#60 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE
=============
There is a signature at the end of the page. It was signed by someone. It does not have to say Donald Trump in perfect cursive matching other Trump samples to be valid. The contract is signed and valid so this is a false premise.

#62 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-05-10 11:06 PM | Reply

That was his divorce lawyer saying there's no signature there.

Prove me wrong. Link to the NDA with a signature.

#63 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-05-10 11:39 PM | Reply

"Under the agreement, which uses the pseudonyms "David Dennison" and "Peggy Peterson" to identify Trump and Clifford respectively, Clifford would be required to pay Trump $1 million for each breach. Clifford signed the agreement on the allotted line for "PP" on Oct. 28, 2016. But the space over "DD" remains blank.

And even if the absence of a signature by the president isn't enough to void the contract, Clifford argues that Cohen has violated the terms of the deal by making multiple statements to the media. It specifically references a Feb. 13 statement to The New York Times as evidence that there was "no binding agreement in place.""

www.npr.org

#64 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-05-10 11:46 PM | Reply

I have a feeling we will only find out the answer
#38 | POSTED BY REX_BUYT

Except we already found the answer.

#65 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2018-05-11 04:19 AM | Reply

Something tells me Trump lovers are worried about where this case is going. There is great irony in a ----- grabbing liar conning Evangelicals into voting for him. But Evangelicals have been taken to the cleaners by a long line of con artists who speak of Jesus while dropping their pants. The reality of their existence is simply too hard to take.

The bills coming due because a dotard was elected President of the United States, who behaves like a blind bull in a China shop are what Americans should really be worried about.

#66 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-05-11 05:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

My son, a graduate of George Washington Law school, was given a litigation award after a mock trial. The sponsor of the award is Michael Avenatti.

#67 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-05-11 06:02 AM | Reply

"Great rhetorical question Danforth...and the reason no one takes advice from you."

Except I take my own advice, so your stupid retort simply looks stupid.

#68 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-05-11 08:42 AM | Reply

"It's not a valid NDA if trump didn't sign it."

I don't know much about NDAs but I've signed plenty over the years.

I do know that most employment contracts that come with a covenant to not compete and non-piracy provisions are subject to the state where it's being enforced....and many of these provisions, if enforceable, have a time limit on them.

it's 2 years or 5 years, etc.

I imagine NDAs have no time limit....it's forever but I imagine they are difficult to enforce.

#69 | Posted by eberly at 2018-05-11 09:07 AM | Reply

There is a signature at the end of the page. It was signed by someone. It does not have to say Donald Trump in perfect cursive matching other Trump samples to be valid. The contract is signed and valid so this is a false premise.

#62 | POSTED BY REX_BUYT

As per usual, you're not even close to accurate. The document was not signed by Donald Trump. This is a fact. And under California law, that would make it on enforceable.

In addition, nondisclosure agreements cannot have penalty clauses. They can have damages clauses. Even if it were enforceable, Trump would have to show that he suffered $20 million in damages for the violation of the non-disclosure agreement. Unfortunately, that's not possible, because the incident had already been widely reported before Stormy Daniels spoke about it.

Would you like to try again?

#70 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-05-11 10:41 AM | Reply

Stormy's his client so of course she is paying him [reason she must continue to strip to earn his shyster fees] ;)

As to his real real income source, one must wonder as for five years he worked at a political opposition research and media firm run by Rahm Emanuel, where he served in an opposition research capacity on a Joe Biden Senate campaign..... That's two political dem affiliations we are aware of [how many degrees of separation from obama?].

Fun side note: Shen she made a decision to try the waters here in LA against Vitter for Senate we all chuckled at her campaign slogan: "Stormy Daniels: Screwing People Honestly."

#71 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-05-11 03:54 PM | Reply

Who is paying Michael Avenatti?

I am ... what's it to ya, Bub ?

#72 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-05-11 07:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#72 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF AT 2018-05-11 07:50 PM | FLAG: FUNNY FLAG because U B a funny guy [sorta].

#73 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-05-11 11:23 PM | Reply

Just have Mueller raid his office and take all his files. Then the name(s) can be leaked.

#74 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-05-12 07:35 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort