• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michael Avenatti under fire

F

FreeWits

Banned
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
279
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Anti-Trumpers have cited Michael Avenatti quite a bit in their quest to take down President Trump. I suspect, none of them knew who Avenatti was. I know I didn't. But recently, we've been finding more and more out about Avenatti, and Avenatti seems to be a very shady character.

Previously, we found out that Avenatti was not being paid by Stormy Daniels. This put motive into question. His actions of allowing Stormy Daniels to break her Hush Agreement went against the advice of Stormy Daniels's previous lawyer's advice as well, and given she is not paying him, this put into question whether he really had the best interest of Stormy Daniels in mind, and continued to make this whole situation look more political and less legal. There is a great article about this and more in an article written by Mark Penn and published in The Hill: http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/387088-who-is-paying-michael-avenatti

Now recently, more information has come out, to not only question the motives of Avenatti, but paint him as a pretty shady character that people should be careful about trusting. According to Raw Story and originally published by TMZ, Jason Frank, Avenatti's ex-partner, is suing Avenatti. Frank alleges that Avenatti did not turn over their law firm's tax returns, which are necessary to determine how much Frank is owed. This lawsuit went into arbitration, where Avenatti and Frank came to an agreement that Frank would be paid $4.85M, but Frank also alleges that he has not been paid $2M of that money. Avenatti has gone with a denial strategy. https://www.rawstory.com/2018/05/michael-avenatti-sued-ex-law-partner-report/

Now this ties into an article published by Fox News and originally reported on by The Seattle Times, claiming a complaint has been filed against Avenatti with the State Bar of California regarding unpaid taxes, who launched an investigation. According to Fox News, the State Bar of California's website claims that an investigation is launched only if the State Bar of California's attorney "sees evidence of a serious violation". In fact, "Global Baristas US LLC" and "Michael Avenatti MBR [member]" face a federal tax lien for unpaid taxes never paid to the government, which were allegedly collected from employees. Of course, Avenatti denies everything claiming he has never even been a "member" Global Baristas US LLC, only the mother company Global Baristas LLC, but a 2017 court document shows Avenatti acknowledging he is the "principal" of Global Baristas US LLC. Also in the Fox News article, Avenatti had faced another lawsuit in 2013 by his former partner Patrick Dempsey (of Grey's Anatomy) for not fully financing the agreed upon amount for this coffee shop deal. Michael Avenatti being investigated by California State Bar | Fox News

The evidence seems to be mounting with multiple lawsuits by multiple former partners, a federal tax lien, an investigation by the State Bar of California, and many, many media outlets reporting on this. Michael Avenatti seems to be a man in serious financial troubles. He seems to be a man with a history of screwing people over. And finally, he seems to be a man going after President Trump with ulterior motives. Anti-Trumpers criticized Trump supporters like myself for supporting President Trump, claiming Trump was too shady to support, but it seems the Anti-Trumpers have been supporting a pretty shady character all along. I hope anti-Trumpers reconsider their position on the importance of the Stormy Daniels case.
 
I took note of New Republic calling him out:

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/148410/michael-avenatti-isnt-liberal-hero-hes-lawyer
 
Stormy being used again. I wonder how she feels about Avenatti, since she'll be on the hook for a lawsuit in breaking the agreement.
 
Good point, IMO, fron the opinion piece:

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 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. He is now being given deference as though he is a journalist interested in protecting unverified sources while he makes headline-grabbing pronouncements. Lawyers need to disclose the source of their evidence.
 

The above line of reasoning is:
  1. Avenatti has financial debts and/or poorly manages money.
  2. Therefore, Avenatti's assertions about (1) the nature of Trump's involvement in the Daniels NDA and (2) about the veracity of Trump's remarks about same and (3) about the legal merit of the case he's making on Daniels' behalf are inaccurate.
Truly, you think that line actually "holds water?"
 
Last edited:

He's a lawyer, not a money manager.

Trump was a lousy money manager too. People have claimed for years that he doesn't pay them. He lost lawsuits for causing people to lose money in his schemes. I guess he should be impeached or something?
 

This is a mischaracterization of my argument. The money problems speak to motive and add to shadiness factor, but there are other reasons to be concerned. For instance, Stormy Daniels had a lawyer before Avenatti that recommended she abide by the Hush Agreement. The Avenatti comes in and recommends she breaks it, which may put her in legal jeopardy. She's also not paying him, so who is? Again, a motive issue. What we've seen out of Avenatti seems much more political than legal. If you want to continue to beat Avenatti's, tha'ts up to you, but the evidence is mounting that he is more of a political operative rather than a legal operative. But hey, if you want to continue to stand behind Avenatti, feel free.
 
tres borrachos said:
He's a lawyer, not a money manager.

Trump was a lousy money manager too. People have claimed for years that he doesn't pay them. He lost lawsuits for causing people to lose money in his schemes. I guess he should be impeached or something?
Click to expand...

If Avenatti's money problems don't worry you about his motives, his legal advice to Stormy Daniels to break the agreement despite what her previous lawyer said she do, the State Bar of California investigation, Avenatti's funding coming from not Stormy Daniels, and all of the other shady stuff with Avenati doesn't bother you, that's really up to you. I can't make you take that information into account, but it gives me great worries about his motives, credibility, strategy, etc. Time will tell so sticking your head in the sand isn't a very good strategy.
 

Avenatti is kicking Trump's every day and the Trump supporters are going bonkers..........)
 

Why would I worry about the motives of someone's personal attorney? Why would I care?

Better question - why do you care about the advice that Michael Avenatti gives to another adult? Do you plan to confer with Stormy Daniels next time you need an attorney so she can give you her opinion on your selection?
 
holbritter said:
Stormy being used again. I wonder how she feels about Avenatti, since she'll be on the hook for a lawsuit in breaking the agreement.
Click to expand...

Well, when you build a career based on getting ****ed....
 

All quite interesting.... I'm glad you dove down deep in the muck to get the real scoop from "Raw Story" as smut like that you just can't find in a legitimate newspapers. Without speaking to the specific allegations, they may or may not be true, but lets assume that are as written. Let's check the consistency of our outrage gauge, shall we?

So, you are bothered by a couple of lawsuits that Avenetti is involved with, suggesting that speak to his character. Well, do you know the Donald is/has been involved in over 3,500 lawsuits?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump

Then you worry that he has come under scrutiny of the State Bar, a professional organization with pretty standards (higher than legal standards) over a tax issue (oh yes, who doesn't pay taxes and settled with the IRS for miss using money in his foundation?).

So, you have a couple of quips about Avenatti's character. Did you know that allegations against the Donald were so vast and so egregious that the Justice Department actually appointed a TEAM of investigators and prosecutors to look into them? Seems a bit more involved and more serious than a California State Bar inquiry. Oh yes, remember just before the election, he settled actions initiated by the Attorney General's in three states: New York, California and Texas.

So then you are worried by Avenatti not paying his bills? I seem to recall the Donald declaring bankruptcy not once, not twice, but four times... with a vast reputation of stiffing the little guy....

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

The legal credentials of one Michael Avenatti are blue chip. He appears to be a very good lawyer. (The Presidential credentials of the Donald are not blue chip .. he appears to be a very ....... well, that is another discussion).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Avenatti

But, he is a lawyer, a private citizen. Now, the integrity issues you seem to be getting at might concern me if he were running for public office. But he is not. Even so, the allegations you set forth above pale (and I mean very pale) by comparison to those of Donald Trump, who did you know, actually ran for public office and got elected?

Remember, Michael Avenatti is being paid by a porn star to talk, not paying one off to keep quiet.

I don't know about you, but I sure most of the readers of this thread will agree, it seems your outrage meter needs major adjustment as its delivering very inconsistent readings.
 
Nobody needs a good or bad reason to tell the truth or to make accurate statements. In matters such as Daniels' case against Trump, that a remark/statement about a material point of fact accurate is alone reason enough to utter it. Indeed, having been presented with a material point of fact, the question of motive is relevant not with regard to the person(s) who utter those facts, but with regard to the person(s) who deny their verity.

Avenatti's/Daniels' motive(s)...Who's paying Avenatti's fees...That is nothing but deflection. Quite simply the first concern is this: are the assertions factually accurate?
  • Is the nature of Trump's involvement in the Daniels NDA as asserted by Avenatti made more or less accurate by his motive or who's paying his fees? No.
  • Are Avenatti's assertions about the veracity of Trump's remarks made more or less accurate by his motive or who's paying his fees? No.
  • Are Avenatti's assertions about the legal merit of the case he's making on Daniels' behalf made more or less accurate by his motive or who's paying his fees? No.
Accuracy is existential. One need not even know whether Daniels' above genre of remarks, made by way of Avenatti in his capacity as her attorney, are accurate to know that motive and who's paying the bills has nothing to do with the remarks' accuracy.

If the man's remarks are accurate, they are. Period. If one can show the Daniels' assertions (made by way of her attorney, Avenatti) with regard to the above are inaccurate, fine; then I'd be of a different mind. But you haven't shown the inaccuracy of any of the above three classes of assertions the man/Daniels has made. You merely keep saying "but what about this" and "what about that," yet you don't show that any of the above genre of claims Daniels made are inaccurate or legally illegitimate under the CA civil code. You're merely trying to engender dislike of Avenatti by pointing to a host of things that have nothing to do with factual and contextual accuracy of his/Daniels' statements themselves.

Furthermore, you've suggested that Avenatti put his client in legal jeopardy, yet that is a bald supposition that you've supported with reference to not one statute and set of actions and the burden of proof associated with whatever code provision. That speculative remark is nothing other than another non-sequitur that has nothing to do with the accuracy of the above noted genre of remarks.


Let me be clear. My remarks about Avenatti/Daniels (or Trump, for that matter) aren't about me. Too, my remarks are not about my standing behind anything or anyone other than the existential truth.
  • The man's got money issues. Fine; I'm not even attempting to refute that. That he does doesn't alter the factual/contextual accuracy and/or legal merit of the three above noted genre of his assertions.
  • The man may have given Daniels bad advice. Fine; I don't need to refute that either, for it too has nothing to do with the accuracy and/or legal merit of the three above noted genre of assertions.
The fact of the matter is that I have no "skin" in the Avenatti-Trump-Daniels matter. I'm merely an observer who's looking at what you've written and remarking that all you've engaged in is essentially character disparagement offered, in lieu of addressing the veracity of the man's/woman's statements pertaining to the three above bulleted topics, as a basis for the "peanut gallery" taking Trump's side in what is a matter of tort law and thus must be decided on the merits of the assertions and support for them, not on the motives of the plaintiff or her attorney.
 

Your post illustrates well why, as a debater, it's strategically imprudent to, as the OP-er has done in his/her OP, engage in unsound/incogent lines of support for one's position. There is no ethical/moral solid ground on which to stand when one would asperse the character and motive(s) of the opponents of a reprobate. With regard to such curs, neither tu quoque nor relative privation "holds water" for either approach tacitly impugns the character of the person pursuing such a path.


Straw men can't withstand the storm of logical scrutiny, and red herrings rot rapidly in the rays of fact and context.
-- My philosophy professor​


Aside:
[You know, I can't remember that humble man's name, yet I recall the alliterative stuff he said. Funny how durable such diction is.]​
 
So we are worrying about people's motives being guided by their money woes?

I demand Avenatti release his damn tax returns....now!!!!
 

Do you care about the truth?
 

1) Raw Story is not the only source. Everyone from TMZ to Fox News to The Seattle Times and many others - I can get you more if you like - have all weighed in on this. And some of these reports are citing government documents as well, so spare me the attack on Raw Story.

2) I'm bothered by more than just the lawsuits, but the lawsuits do add to it. This comparison between Avenatti and Trump is not a similar one at all. Avenatti is a lawyer being investigated by the California State Bar. That's pretty rare. Simply being involved in a lawsuit itself is not enough to damage someone's credibility. The fact that there seems to be legitimacy to these lawsuits, the possibility for Avenatti to be paid as a political operative pretending to be a lawyer is there, and the strategy was significantly different, which may have opened Stormy Daniels up to lawsuits. All of this hurts the credibility of Avenatti. Heck, the media outlets weren't even confirming that he was in fact representing Stormy Daniels. I'd be surprised if none of this worried you.

3) More on the California State Bar, you say they have pretty high standards as if to imply they investigate a lot of people. This is not true. Because they have such high standards, they do not investigate lawyers unless they see evidence of something significantly wrong. To be investigated by a State Bar is a serious matter, and it means a pretty high standard of evidence has already been met.

4) Trump declaring bankruptcy is not similar to and has nothing to do with a business Avenatti is responsible for collecting taxes from employees and then not paying those taxes to the government. One is a legal procedure and the other is illegal activity that can get one disbarred.

5) Blue chips - Why does Avenatti appear to be a good lawyer and President Trump appear to be a bad President? Is it the California State Bar investigation into Avenatti and the Nobel Peace Prize nomination for President Donald Trump that have you feeling these ways?

6) I find it very strange that you would be concerned about the credibility of someone running for public office but not a lawyer attacking the President. Typically people would have a higher standard for lawyers than public officials. You seem to be trusting in Avenatti as a legal authority, yet you don't care about his credibility issues. That is very strange.

7) You said Avenatti is being paid by a porn star to talk. This is not true. Stormy Daniels specifically stated she is not paying Avenatti. Her tweet and I quote, "Except I'm not paying him. Haha!" Who is paying Michael Avenatti, Stormy Daniels lawyer? - Business Insider

8) Of course you have to say I have an "outrage meter" to make me look more emotional than I am. Anytime you actually want to deal with the substance, feel free to. So far all you have done is compare Avenatti to Trump in laughable fashion.
 


The Art Of the Con is to attribute to opponents the very thing the conman is guilty of. Tsk tsk, this is to be expected.

Daniels does not have the resources to afford a high powered attorney like Avenatti. He is being paid from a crowd funding site, which as raised some $400k thus far.

People get into tax disputes all of the time, it doesn't make them a "shady character". Anyone can experience financial problems. As for shady, Fox news is a shady operation, for allowing the bogus stories on Uranium one to propagate for so long. I wouldn't trust any reportage from that outfit, unless is it being done by Shep Myers.

Naturally, fox news, Trump's legal team, et al, are going to paint him as shady. Anyone who is not favorable to Trump is shady. In fact, if someone on the Trump team called me shady, I'd wear it like a badge of honor, for Trump & Co is the shadyist presidency in history.
 
Last edited:

Hypothetically, lets say the DNC is paying Avenatti to go after Trump politically rather than to represent Stormy Daniels legally. That makes the DNC his client, not Stormy Daniels, and it changes his argument from legal to political. This changes his goals from trying to protect Stormy Daniels to trying to damage President Trump for the benefit of the DNC. This changes a lot, as he could then potentially give Stormy Daniels bad advice that opens her up to a lawsuit for the gain of the DNC, and because he's not hypothetically operating as the attorney of Stormy Daniels, he's not technically giving her legal advice. I'm honestly surprised I have to explain this.
 

This is more about your bias than anything else. Let me guess: You trust the New York Times, right? Even though they got so much wrong on the election that they had to release a statement that they were rededicating themselves to the truth, I'm sure you still support them. Stop pretending you choose one media outlet over another based on facts, you do so based on bias. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, The Huffington Post, Salon, and basically any Left-leaning media outlet you can think of, has been wrong on a significant amount of information, especially regarding Trump, starting from the election. I don't trust everything Fox News puts out, but they certainly get quite a bit right. Typically, the side that has the President tends to be more accurate because it's usually easier to defend the President than to attack them. The side that doesn't have the President jumps to conclusions and becomes a little more inaccurate. So when Obama was in office, a Democrat, Fox News was horrendous and places like CNN and MSNBC were better. Now that Trump is in office, a Republican, Fox News has gotten better and CNN and MSNBC have gotten quite a bit worse.
 


Yet again, you've attempted to sidestep the central questions:
  • Is the nature of Trump's involvement in the Daniels NDA as asserted by Avenatti made more or less accurate by his motive or who's paying his fees? No.
  • Are Avenatti's assertions about the veracity of Trump's remarks made more or less accurate by his motive or who's paying his fees? No.
  • Are Avenatti's assertions about the legal merit of the case he's making on Daniels' behalf made more or less accurate by his motive or who's paying his fees? No.
Any given leaf on a tree or two don't alter the central fact that there's a forest at issue. That "forest" in this case is the veracity of the above genre of claims that Avenatti/Daniels have made.


Furthermore:

  1. The one thing it doesn't change is the accuracy of the remarks Avenatti/Daniels made/make, and that is the sole topic I addressed in the post (post 19) to which your remarks above are your reply.
  2. Hypothesis contrary to fact
  3. For your claim about who in fact is Avenatti's client to have any hope of "holding water," you'd need to show:
    • that the money flow is DNC --> Avenatti and not DNC --> Clifford (Daniels) --> Avenatti
    • that the terms of the engagement contract between Avenatti don't stipulate an agreement whereby Clifford/Daniels is the client and that his bills will be paid by a third party, DNC or otherwise.
 

It is quite amusing that in the process of shooting the messenger they use pathos for a porn star. Poor Stormy is getting bad advice LOL. I think she is quite happy with her representation. Trump is the unhappy one. He must have the worst lawyers in Washington or he wouldn't keep firing them.
 


The election is a poor example of wrongness given that no one was able to predict that Trump would take the white house due to a fluke of he electoral college system, after all, she did win the popular vote.

I find it amusing that when disagreeing with right wingers, their common retort is "bias".

I remember saying to someone who had a British accent, I said to her " I love your accent ".

She told me, "That's funny, if you came to England, I would be saying the same thing to you".

Meditate on that, maybe it will sink in, but I won't be holding my breath.

actually, I do listen to Fox news, I find it a good thing to listen to the opposition. I find persons like Maddow far more compelling in her research, though. I listen to Alan Dershowitz who is one of the least biased pundits on TV, but I don't always agree with him. Hannity, people like him make me want to vomit, he's like a scab oozing with misleading information, blatant falsehoods and lies

There are many viewpoints floating about, and I go with those that appeal to my sensibilities.

That's what every one does. So, to call someone 'biased" as an argument against that person, is like saying the sky is blue as an argument.

in other words, it's a non-argument, and meaningless.

Everyone is biased and those that are not are wishy washy and unable to take a stand.


One thing is certain, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, etc. would never propagate the bogus conspiracy theories that were all over fox news prime time, like the seth richards story, like the uranium one story. I listen to fox, and I'm amazed at how often they get it wrong, from Hannity, to Pirro, etc.
Now they are impugning the integrity of Mueller, and there is nothing correct about it, but I'm sure you're lapping it up like the good right winger you are.

Right?

right.
 
FreeWits said:
Do you care about the truth?
Click to expand...

What truth? I don't care who hires whom for a lawyer. I have a life. Why would I worry about why someone hires a lawyer, or what a lawyer that another adult hires does?

You want to obsess about her lawyer, then feel free. I sincerely doubt she knows you're alive, let alone cares that her choice in lawyers is so important to you.
 

I have not sidestepped anything, it's that you don't understand how evidence works. Avenatti's claims are being mostly considered because he is considered to be an authority on the law, as a lawyer. If he is operating as a political operative over a legal advisor, that changes everything. That even changes the laws he has to abide by. If he is working for an organization like the DNC over Stormy Daniels, that changes everything as well, and I've already explained why. He doesn't care if she gets sued if she is not his client. One of your questions even asks about the legal merit. If he is not operating as a lawyer then yes, that changes the legal merit of what he says. Again, I'm shocked I have to explain this to you. You have been assuming that Avenatti is operating as a lawyer for Stormy Daniels but you have no evidence of that.

These questions you ask me seem to be coming at the claims made by Avenatti as if they were formal evidence. They are not. Avenatti never gave formal evidence. He gave informal evidence only if you assume he's an authority on the law and assume he's operating under the capacity of a legal opinion. Even then, you have to sift through the informal evidence of other lawyers disagreeing with him, but this is the absolute most I can give you in terms of evidence, which is basically him stating his opinion. And now that his credibility, motives, and even whether he is giving a legal opinion, this even brings the informal evidence into question because we now have to question if he's actually operating as a legal authority. Tell me: What formal evidence do you have of Trump wrongdoing on the Stormy Daniels claims? Even if I granted the situation that Trump had sex with Stormy Daniels, which is a big grant given we don't have evidence of that, that still doesn't mean Trump did anything illegal. You have quite the road ahead of you to prove your case.

On the last part, that was a hypothetical, I wasn't making the case that the DNC paid Avenatti. We don't know who is paying Avenatti, but we know it's not Stormy Daniels. We don't even know that Stormy Daniels is Michael Avenatti's client. Again, to prove Trump wrongdoing here you have a long road ahead of you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…