I can't lie. I like Michael Avenatti's way of doing things.

Xelor said:

The part of your remark I emboldened is the relative privation part.

Click to expand...

So why not ignore that part and address the rest? Probably because you can't.

FreeWits said:

So why not ignore that part and address the rest? Probably because you can't.

Click to expand...

It's not that he can't. It's that he doesn't want to.

FreeWits said:

So why not ignore that part and address the rest? Probably because you can't.

Mycroft said:

It's not that he can't. It's that he doesn't want to.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Look at what he wrote.

The rest of his remarks are every bit as lame as was the relative privation portion.

• Ad hominem -- I figured this is such a hackneyed tactic that I didn't need to note it.
  • "I don't think those extra Cohens who found their financial transactions and themselves in the news would agree with you."
    • That's Mycroft's opinion about what folks other than Avenatti may think. It doesn't address the key point of the thread, which is the preponderant accuracy of Avenatti's remarks made in public.
  • "Avenatti was extremely sloppy....he has shown a callous disregard for people's privacy"
    • Again, non-sequitur. That has nothing to do with Avenatti's remarks' accuracy.
• Appeal to motive -- This is yet another specious and banal line that attempts to discredit my assertion about Avenatti's accuracy (or perhaps Avenatti himself or his assertions) by appealing to what may be his motive.
  • "And what's his motivation? He want to help a porn star, hurt a President and anyone he associates with (and feather his own nest)."
    • Does any of that make Avenatti's assertions/attestations inaccurate? No, not by any stretch of reasoning.
• Relative privation -- This is the part I already addressed.
  • "In my opinion, he's no better than Cohen."

So there you go. I've now addressed the rest of his remark. Quite frankly, the whole of his remarks were puerile; I shouldn't have dignified the post by responding to any of it, but I did remark upon the relative privation portion of it...mainly because it was subtle enough that I figured it worth doing so.

Xelor said:

Look at what he wrote.

​

The rest of his remarks are every bit as lame as was the relative privation portion.

• Ad hominem -- I figured this is such a hackneyed tactic that I didn't need to note it.
  • "I don't think those extra Cohens who found their financial transactions and themselves in the news would agree with you."
    • That's Mycroft's opinion about what folks other than Avenatti may think. It doesn't address the key point of the thread, which is the preponderant accuracy of Avenatti's remarks made in public.
  • "Avenatti was extremely sloppy....he has shown a callous disregard for people's privacy"
    • Again, non-sequitur. That has nothing to do with Avenatti's remarks' accuracy.
• Appeal to motive -- This is yet another specious and banal line that attempts to discredit my assertion about Avenatti's accuracy (or perhaps Avenatti himself or his assertions) by appealing to what may be his motive.
  • "And what's his motivation? He want to help a porn star, hurt a President and anyone he associates with (and feather his own nest)."
    • Does any of that make Avenatti's assertions/attestations inaccurate? No, not by any stretch of reasoning.
• Relative privation -- This is the part I already addressed.
  • "In my opinion, he's no better than Cohen."

So there you go. I've now addressed the rest of his remark. Quite frankly, the whole of his remarks were puerile; I shouldn't have dignified the post by responding to any of it, but I did remark upon the relative privation portion of it...mainly because it was subtle enough that I figured it worth doing so.

Click to expand...

I directly disputed your opinion about Avenatti by pointing out the effects of his sloppy/callous tactics...the tactics you profess to like...and all you can do is cry.

So it goes...

Xelor said:

Avenatti's goal:
His goal is to achieve the outcome his client has engaged him to achieve. AFAIK, that goal is to establish that the NDA is invalid and thus not legally binding on his client.

Click to expand...

That should be his primary purpose, but I don't think that's the case.

I'm confident that Daniels mostly wants publicity, and is getting it. Avenatti is also using this case to elevate his profile. I don't think he is compromising his clients' case or needs, but I don't like it.

"Bottom of things": You do realize the matter with which Avenatti is involved is not a criminal investigation, but rather a civil litigation?

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that his conduct is now interfering with the investigation into Cohen, and that the public isn't paying all that close attention to the intricacies of the various cases and investigations.

Simply put, Avenatti, like any good lawyer, understands well that the trick and genius of jurisprudence and legal representation lies in finding the epistemological balance of principle, intellect, tolerance, and understanding, and some sweetness of heart.

Click to expand...

Please. Avenatti is not motivated by principle or "sweetness of heart." I will say (again) that I don't think he is harming his clients' interests, but it's pretty clear that his main goal is to raise his own profile, and that type of egotism does not fill me with admiration.

Xelor said:

Avenatti's goal:

• His goal is to achieve the outcome his client has engaged him to achieve. AFAIK, that goal is to establish that the NDA is invalid and thus not legally binding on his client.

Visbek said:

That should be his primary purpose, but I don't think that's the case.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

1. I think Daniels engaged Avenatti to "establish that the NDA is invalid and thus not legally binding" on her.
2. I may be wrong about that or I may be right about that.
3. Regardless of whether I'm right or wrong, what should be Avenatti's goal remains achieving the outcome Daniels engaged him to achieve.

Visbek said:

I'm confident that Daniels mostly wants publicity, and is getting it. Avenatti is also using this case to elevate his profile. I don't think he is compromising his clients' case or needs, but I don't like it.

Click to expand...

Obtaining publicity for Daniels is conceivably an or the outcome Daniels engaged Avenatti to obtain. If indeed publicity is or is among the goals of her having engaged Avenatti, the man is doing his job and doing it rather well, I'd say insofar as Daniels is the only porn personality whose name is nationally known among watchers and non-watchers of porn.

Going with your proposition of what be Avenatti's charge given by his client, you are essentially objecting to the fact that he's doing so by playing to his strengths, which apparently is civil litigation. Applying your "it's for publicity" theory, Avenatti examined the NDA and found within it a legally debatable element of ambiguity with regard to the requirements of tort law -- the fact that Trump's name appears on the document and Trump didn't sign it -- and parlayed it into a vehicle whereby he can refute the legal legitimacy of the NDA as well as obtain publicity for his client. It makes sense that he'd choose that tack because he's an attorney not a press agent or PR professional, yet, by your proposition, Daniels engaged him to obtain publicity for her.

Well, I have news for you, playing to one's strengths is what all successful professionals do, and do unrelentingly.

• Does a football team win by playing "their game" or "their opponent's" game?
• Does a chessmaster win by playing his strategy or his opponent's strategy?
• I and consultants like me sell services by playing to our strength at managing change.
• Clerics advocate for "whatever" by playing to the strength of a moral position.
• Economists play to the strength of empiricism.

Playing to one's strength is how one succeeds in any competitive situation.

Might it be that Avenatti obtain renown of his own in the course of achieving his client's ends? Yes. As noted in the linked document from my last reply to you, "Perceptions influence, evenshape, behavior." Avenatti knows that and he's availing his client of that fact.

You don't like that he's building his professional range of capabilities. Okay, well, that is what it is. Most importantly, however, the question with regard to Avenatti is this: Is he achieving what he's been engaged to achieve, regardless of what that is? To the extent achieving publicity for Daniels be a part of what he's been engaged to achieve, the answer must be "yes," and for him as an attorney, that's all that matters. He's been engaged to "git 'er done," and that's exactly what he's doing. I find that admirable. Would that more folks were so goal-driven, perhaps some of them wouldn't be griping about not having a job and wanting a "savior" to do something on their behalf to give them one in industries that have moved past needing the skills they have to offer.

Visbek said:

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that his conduct is now interfering with the investigation into Cohen, and that the public isn't paying all that close attention to the intricacies of the various cases and investigations.

Click to expand...

1. How is "his conduct is now interfering with the investigation into Cohen?" Please identify the specific impediments investigators in the SDNY U.S. Attorney's office face as a result of Avenatti's actions/words.
2. Really? I'm part of "the public," and I'm paying attention to them. How can I not? It's on the news nightly. I'm surely not the sole member of "the public" who's paying attention.

Visbek said:

Please. Avenatti is not motivated by principle or "sweetness of heart." I will say (again) that I don't think he is harming his clients' interests, but it's pretty clear that his main goal is to raise his own profile, and that type of egotism does not fill me with admiration.

Click to expand...

My prior remarks in this post notwithstanding, the fact of the matter is that his motivations -- other than that of achieving his client's objective(s) because that's what he's supposed to do -- are irrelevant.

Xelor said:

I think Daniels engaged Avenatti to "establish that the NDA is invalid and thus not legally binding" on her.

Click to expand...

That's the nominal reason. That hardly means that is the real goal. Your read on the issue is rather superficial.

Going with your proposition of what be Avenatti's charge given by his client, you are essentially objecting to the fact that he's doing so by playing to his strengths....

Click to expand...

I'm saying that I don't like lawyers who are more interested in publicity than in the law, who are apparently more interested in the court of public opinion than the actual courts, and who are happy to cause issues for federal investigations so he can embarrass the target of a lawsuit. Nothing you're saying here is even remotely changing my mind on that point.

Does a football team win by playing "their game" or "their opponent's" game?

Click to expand...

Does a football team win by talking smack about their opponents in the press?

I and consultants like me sell services by playing to our strength at managing change.

Click to expand...

That's nice. However, that certainly doesn't give me any reason to start liking publicity hounds who happen to have law degrees.

Playing to one's strength is how one succeeds in any competitive situation.

Click to expand...

He's not going to win in court by going on CNN every night, and doing things that look an awful lot like the release of illegally obtained information.

How is "his conduct is now interfering with the investigation into Cohen?" Please identify the specific impediments investigators in the SDNY U.S. Attorney's office face as a result of Avenatti's actions/words.

Click to expand...

Avenatti apparently released information that is not supposed to be publicly available. While I am sure that neither Mueller's team nor USAO-SDNY leaked it, they're almost certainly going to have to deal with an investigation into the leak, such as the one already started by the Treasury Department.

Prosecutors also need to be discreet about their investigations -- and here we are, finding out that Mueller interviewed Novartis and AT&T. I cannot imagine that any of the prosecutors involved are happy that Avenatti running around blowing the lid off of privileged information like this.

Really? I'm part of "the public," and I'm paying attention to them. How can I not?

Click to expand...

Yes, really. The vast majority of the public ignores politics.

trouble13 said:

Your crazy

He over promises and under delivers so far.

He males bold predictions, which the media eat up but he has not produced anything yet. The only thing he has going for him is that he knows he has trump boxed in. If Trump fights back it means he would have to take the stand and he knows trump isn't going to do that. It gives him a free pass to say just about anything he likes. His 15 minutes of fame will come and go.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Remember when we thought the Stormy Daniels saga was just some story about a bimbo lying about sleeping with Trump??

Safe to say that claim was over-promised so to speak :roll:

Mycroft said:

I directly disputed your opinion about Avenatti by pointing out the effects of his sloppy/callous tactics...the tactics you profess to like...and all you can do is cry.

So it goes...

Click to expand...

...So far, let's at least concede that over 75% of what Avenatti has claimed has been borne out by the facts, and yes, he does it in a brash, callous, NY attitude kind of style.

So are you saying you don't really like when someone is callous, sloppy with how things are handled, not always 100% truthful?? Or you don't like them if they aren't Trump?

biff_poindexter said:

...So far, let's at least concede that over 75% of what Avenatti has claimed has been borne out by the facts, and yes, he does it in a brash, callous, NY attitude kind of style.

So are you saying you don't really like when someone is callous, sloppy with how things are handled, not always 100% truthful?? Or you don't like them if they aren't Trump?

Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying that.

All I've done is question the OP liking the way Avenatti does things by pointing out the sloppy and/or callous way he does things. I also pointed out his motives, as I see them, and made a judgment that Avenatti is no better than Cohen.

Other than that, I have no opinion on the issue.

Visbek said:

That's the nominal reason. That hardly means that is the real goal. Your read on the issue is rather superficial.



I'm saying that I don't like lawyers who are more interested in publicity than in the law, who are apparently more interested in the court of public opinion than the actual courts, and who are happy to cause issues for federal investigations so he can embarrass the target of a lawsuit. Nothing you're saying here is even remotely changing my mind on that point.



Does a football team win by talking smack about their opponents in the press?



That's nice. However, that certainly doesn't give me any reason to start liking publicity hounds who happen to have law degrees.



He's not going to win in court by going on CNN every night, and doing things that look an awful lot like the release of illegally obtained information.



Avenatti apparently released information that is not supposed to be publicly available. While I am sure that neither Mueller's team nor USAO-SDNY leaked it, they're almost certainly going to have to deal with an investigation into the leak, such as the one already started by the Treasury Department.

Prosecutors also need to be discreet about their investigations -- and here we are, finding out that Mueller interviewed Novartis and AT&T. I cannot imagine that any of the prosecutors involved are happy that Avenatti running around blowing the lid off of privileged information like this.



Yes, really. The vast majority of the public ignores politics.

Click to expand...

Let me be clear: My goal is not and was not to change your mind. I don't know you; you are a stranger to me. Accordingly, what be or be not in your mind is of no matter to me.

Coco's remark personalizes something that, for me has a thoroughly impersonal object. Not only am I indifferent to what you think of me, I'm indifferent to whatever it be you think and that you think it.

trouble13 said:

1. Isn't exactly some great revelation. I don't think anyone believed trump didn't know
2. Partly right and partly wrong. Either case what difference does it make and what dies it have to do with his NDC?
3. Does it matter to his case where the money came from? She signed a contract and accepted payment. Now she wants to break the contract.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Each of those were big reveals when they happened. They aren't big deal now because the topics have moved on to newer targets.

Visbek said:

I for one am not a fan. His primary goal appears to be making a name for himself by embarrassing Cohen and Trump. While I'm sure that's what his client wants, it also perpetuates the feel that the proceedings are a circus rather than an attempt to get to the bottom of things (whatever that bottom may be).

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not hitching my wagon to this guy at this point for sure. I get the OP's point of how he likes the show but I think trouble has a point in that there is a lot more noise than production at this point.

And his ultimate goal I think of course is to try and make the money rain for his client. That's what the noise is for. To rattle the cage and such. But I won't deny that he's had some serious scoops so far.

biff_poindexter said:

Remember when we thought the Stormy Daniels saga was just some story about a bimbo lying about sleeping with Trump??

Safe to say that claim was over-promised so to speak :roll:

Click to expand...

I never thought she was lying or telling the truth. Both were plausible. Can't say I ever really cared.

I do think it's fowl of her and her attorney go do what they are doing. She agreed to have her silence bought and then violated the agreement. I won't pity her if Trump takes her court and he takes all of her money.

The lawyer does not really seem to be protecting his clients interests as much as he is using her to make himself a celebrity with the left. I don't see him found anything to protect her from being sued.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

trouble13 said:

I never thought she was lying or telling the truth. Both were plausible. Can't say I ever really cared.

I do think it's fowl of her and her attorney go do what they are doing. She agreed to have her silence bought and then violated the agreement. I won't pity her if Trump takes her court and he takes all of her money.

The lawyer does not really seem to be protecting his clients interests as much as he is using her to make himself a celebrity with the left. I don't see him found anything to protect her from being sued.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Yea her lawyer and his antics would be praised by the right if he was a Trump guy, but since he isn't, he is a slimeball of the highest order who would most definitely be trying to sell access to the President just like Cohen.

As for Stormy....

https://www.insideedition.com/storm...he-was-center-alleged-trump-sex-scandal-41895


If she was ever considering running for political office again, like she did in the past, she may not fare so well running as a Republican. Although she claimed she was "sort of" a Republican, adding, “I don't know, I’m like half and half. I go both ways.”

Her chances of winning any Republican support is zero now, so maybe she has a shot at hitching onto the MeToo movement to gain political notoriety -- It's a far more noble cause than gaining your political bona fides off the racism of the Birther Movement.

Barnacle said:

You are crazy.

Avenatti will be "shopping" for a lawyer for himself soon. He published info that he had no legal right to have.

Click to expand...

This is wishful/confused Trumpian thinking.

Depending on how the information was originally obtained, it might have been illegal for the source to give the information to Avenatti, but it wasn't illegal for Avenatti to disclose it.

Nice try. But so far, Avenatti has embarrassed every single person who has attempted to confront him in this case. Clearly, Avenatti's self-condifence is what bothers the Trump crowd.

ultmd said:

This is wishful/confused Trumpian thinking.

Depending on how the information was originally obtained, it might have been illegal for the source to give the information to Avenatti, but it wasn't illegal for Avenatti to disclose it.

Nice try. But so far, Avenatti has embarrassed every single person who has attempted to confront him in this case. Clearly, Avenatti's self-condifence is what bothers the Trump crowd.

Click to expand...

Avanatti doesn't bother me. In fact, I can't find anyone who is bothered by him ... :lol:

biff_poindexter said:

Yea her lawyer and his antics would be praised by the right if he was a Trump guy, but since he isn't, he is a slimeball of the highest order who would most definitely be trying to sell access to the President just like Cohen.

As for Stormy....

https://www.insideedition.com/storm...he-was-center-alleged-trump-sex-scandal-41895


If she was ever considering running for political office again, like she did in the past, she may not fare so well running as a Republican. Although she claimed she was "sort of" a Republican, adding, “I don't know, I’m like half and half. I go both ways.”

Her chances of winning any Republican support is zero now, so maybe she has a shot at hitching onto the MeToo movement to gain political notoriety -- It's a far more noble cause than gaining your political bona fides off the racism of the Birther Movement.

Click to expand...

The majority of conservatives that I have heard all think cohen is a slimey guy for trying to sell himself as an acess point to trump.
I think he has been a very effective PR guy and I don't fault him for that. I do view him as a bit of a paper tiger. If he faced critical scrutiny most of his stuff is more fluff than substance. My biggest criticism of him is that none of his bluster really enhances his clients legal position. His priority seems to be more about embarassing trump than anything else. He comes across as being bitter and like there's something personal between him and trump.

Stormy is kinda hard to read in this. I guess she is making money with her making america horny again tour. She is playing with fire in the process. Just because Trump has not gone after her yet, does not mean that he wont. If he wins, all the money she has gotten, he may end up with.

And as you point out, I'm not sure what this will do to any future political aspirations she may have. But on that note, if a reality TV star can win, why not a porn star? I would not have a problem sending the right porn star to Washington.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Gosh for those folks who like how Avenatti does business then I guess you love a shyster.

Stormy Daniels' lawyer, Michael Avenatti, Tully's Coffee lawsuits - Business Insider

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...ced-allegations-of-dubious-business-dealings/

This dude owes a lot of people a lot of money over a coffee chain called Tully's. In the Business Insider piece Pursuing Avenatti as a representative for Tully’s suppliers and landlords is Seattle lawyer David Nold.
It was Nold who filed a complaint with the California Bar Association officially questioning Avenatti’s “fitness to practice law.”
Nold also doesn’t believe Avenatti is no longer the owner of Global Baristas, the company at the heart of the back taxes and business lawsuits.
“Michael Avenatti’s actions in connection with Global Baristas US, LLC, have caused significant damage to the State of Washington, the federal government and numerous private entities,” Nold’s complaint to the Bar states. “They subject him to personal and criminal liability. And they implicate his fitness to practice law.”

Xelor said:

Say what you want about Micheal Avenatti, but I truly like that among the persons who presently feature prominently in the news, I like that Avenatti seems to "dot his eyes and cross his tees" before he opens his mouth about things! It's clear that he's not perfect (nobody is) and makes some minor mistakes, but in the main, one can rely on the veracity of the specific claims he publicly makes. That he doesn't "overtax" his facts is what every man, woman and child is expected to do, do so damn near 24/7. Doing so builds trust.

Call me crazy, but my notion of being respectful depends more on whether when one speaks to me, one does so without, by dint of one's misrepresentations of fact, insinuating that I'm too stupid to tell or discern that one has lied to me. How it is that anyone might think otherwise and condone, expressly by way of approbation or tacitly by way of acquiescence, a public personality or official's doing so is beyond me, yet millions do. That they do is the real shame of where we politically and culturally today find ourselves.

Click to expand...

You like corruption?

Visbek said:

I for one am not a fan. His primary goal appears to be making a name for himself by embarrassing Cohen and Trump. While I'm sure that's what his client wants, it also perpetuates the feel that the proceedings are a circus rather than an attempt to get to the bottom of things (whatever that bottom may be).

Click to expand...

It was much harder for Trump, that he had to resort to fake conspiracy theories about a sitting president to get publicity. That Trump for example made this 14 crazy birther claims about Obama.

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-birther/index.html

While it much easier for Avenatti and others because of all the shady stuff Trump is involved in and all the shady people Trump is associated with. On top of that you have the fact that Trump is willing to engage in Twitter feuds with anyone critizing him, leading to even more free publicity.

Xelor said:

Say what you want about Micheal Avenatti, but I truly like that among the persons who presently feature prominently in the news, I like that Avenatti seems to "dot his eyes and cross his tees" before he opens his mouth about things! It's clear that he's not perfect (nobody is) and makes some minor mistakes, but in the main, one can rely on the veracity of the specific claims he publicly makes. That he doesn't "overtax" his facts is what every man, woman and child is expected to do, do so damn near 24/7. Doing so builds trust.

Call me crazy, but my notion of being respectful depends more on whether when one speaks to me, one does so without, by dint of one's misrepresentations of fact, insinuating that I'm too stupid to tell or discern that one has lied to me. How it is that anyone might think otherwise and condone, expressly by way of approbation or tacitly by way of acquiescence, a public personality or official's doing so is beyond me, yet millions do. That they do is the real shame of where we politically and culturally today find ourselves.

Click to expand...

jmotivator said:

Click to expand...

Meh, only a 36-count indictment, one of which was embezzling from a mental patient. What's not to like?

Put a fork in this dude. He's done.