Michael Avenatti under fire

[FreeWits]

It's no surprise that I make what case? I'm sorry, but I thought everyone over the age of 5 in the free world knows that Michael Avenatti is Stormy Daniels' attorney. Everyone who posts on here knows it too. Apparently, except you. Listen, please don't troll me. You need to open any one of about 11 million links in the internet that explains to you that Michael Avenatti is her attorney. I can't do it for you. Good luck.

If it's so obvious Michael Avenatti is the lawyer of Stormy Daniels then why can't you prove that to me?

 

[OscarLevant]

This is quite amusing to me. I was able to predict that Trump would win. The LA Times polled for months that Trump was ahead. I know of others that predicted a Trump victory. This is the problem when you live in your little echo chamber and consider everyone who disagrees with you to lack credibility. Then when your echo chamber is all wrong, you don't blame them, because you think that literally everybody credible was wrong. Well, sorry, but no, not everybody was wrong. I'm a perfect example of someone credible that was correct, so is the LA Times, and so are many others.

You say that when disagreeing with Right Wingers, their common retort is bias. I am not a Right Winger. See, again, anybody who disagrees with you gets painted as not credible or a Right Winger or whatever. Your reality must be quite strange indeed.

You say Hannity is like a scab oozing with misleading information. The same could be said for the NYT, CNN, etc. These outlets don't even try to hide that they are anti-Trump. If Trump does something good, you can bet your butt they are going to have a problem with it, and many of these outlets can be found to have previously backed the position they disagree with, many times even the same exact writer. You don't seem to have a problem with that, though, and you don't want to explain it with bias, so what's your excuse?

Everybody is biased, but some more than others. I could easily turn this around and say everybody is wrong sometimes, so it's meaningless to talk about when Hannity is wrong. See how stupid that sounds? Furthermore, anti-Trump media isn't just biased, it's been objectively wrong many, many times. Bias just explains why they were wrong. If bias doesn't matter to you, the fact that they were wrong still should.

You say MSNBC, CNN, NPR, etc. would never propagate a bogus conspiracy like Seth Rich. How do you know that is a bogus story? You say you listen to Fox and you are amazed at how often they get it wrong, but do you realize how many Conservatives and Right Wingers would say the same thing about MSNBC, CNN, NPR, etc.? Because you interpreting facts a certain way, and you can be wrong on your interpretation. So when you say you view them as wrong on something, that doesn't mean they actually were. Now when we have something like MSNBC predicting Trump is going to lose by like 200+ Electoral Votes and then he wins, we know they were objectively wrong because that's not really open to much interpretation, but most topics aren't that clear.

You complain that Mueller's credibility is being attacked. What did you know about Mueller's credibility before he was assigned to investigate the Russia stuff? If nothing, how can you determine Mueller actually is credible? That is something that is very subjective, but you speak as if it's objective, and that shows exactly my point about why you hate Fox News. Even when they get it right, you're going to view them as getting it wrong.

You have a habit of asking me a question and then answering it yourself. That speaks volumes. It's extremely pretentious. Stop thinking you are better than me.

The right nominated and elected Trump

Nothing more needs to be said, really.

 

[haymarket]

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?

Exactly.

If they discovered that Avenatti never bathes, is a hoarder, is a cad and has other personality flaws which make him less than somebody you would want as a friend - how does that negate all that he has discovered with Trump and Cohen?

 

[washunut]

Exactly.

If they discovered that Avenatti never bathes, is a hoarder, is a cad and has other personality flaws which make him less than somebody you would want as a friend - how does that negate all that he has discovered with Trump and Cohen?

Some might wonder why the FBI would take risk the of leaking bank records to the attorney of a porn star.

 

[haymarket]

Some might wonder why the FBI would take risk the of leaking bank records to the attorney of a porn star.

I must have missed that development. Can you please provide a link confirming that claim?

 

[tres borrachos]

Exactly.

If they discovered that Avenatti never bathes, is a hoarder, is a cad and has other personality flaws which make him less than somebody you would want as a friend - how does that negate all that he has discovered with Trump and Cohen?

Keep in mind that the poster i posted that to, as it turns out, has no idea that Michael Avenatti is Stormy Daniels' attorney. He's either trolling up the thread, or is underage for posting on here since I assumed everyone over the age of 13 knows that Avenatti is her attorney. Weird.

Since 99% of the adults know he's her attorney, I'll totally agree with your post. Who cares about him? He isn't our attorney. It's between him and his clients, and maybe my life is too full to be worrying about a porn star's attorney.

 

[haymarket]

Keep in mind that the poster i posted that to, as it turns out, has no idea that Michael Avenatti is Stormy Daniels' attorney. He's either trolling up the thread, or is underage for posting on here since I assumed everyone over the age of 13 knows that Avenatti is her attorney. Weird.

Since 99% of the adults know he's her attorney, I'll totally agree with your post. Who cares about him? He isn't our attorney. It's between him and his clients, and maybe my life is too full to be worrying about a porn star's attorney.

your last three words are not without humor. I have heard that when Mao took over China in 1949, he outlawed two professions - the first being lawyers and the second being prostitutes. They say his reasoning was both make their money on the misery of the average person.

I personally think it was unfair of him to lump hookers in with the lawyers.

 

[washunut]

I must have missed that development. Can you please provide a link confirming that claim?

Here you go. You might to do more than watch Don Lemon to get your news.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/michael-cohen-michael-avenatti-financial-statements

 

[veritas1]

It's interesting that Avenatti has appeared on CNN & MSNBC 147 times but refuses to appear on Fox News. One has to wonder what he's afraid of. That being said, Stormy Daniels is small potatoes and a manifest statement of the desperation the get Trumpers have sunk to in light of the total failure of the Russia collusion fairy tale.

 

[FreeWits]

The right nominated and elected Trump

Nothing more needs to be said, really.

That was part of the group. I was also a part of that. Many AfterBerners were, too, as were many of the silent majority on both sides. The fact that Trump won by winning states Republicans don't normally win shows that many on the Left/Center were a part of Trump getting into office.

 

[veritas1]

That was part of the group. I was also a part of that. Many AfterBerners were, too, as were many of the silent majority on both sides. The fact that Trump won by winning states Republicans don't normally win shows that many on the Left/Center were a part of Trump getting into office.

Absolutely. Plenty of blue collar Dems in PA, WI, MI and other states, voted for Trump.

 

[haymarket]

Here you go. You might to do more than watch Don Lemon to get your news.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/michael-cohen-michael-avenatti-financial-statements

Where in that article does it say that a member of the FBI gave this information to Avenatti?

 

[ultmd]

Why does me voting for Trump mean that I don't care about the truth?

:lamo

Ok, now I'm wondering if you have just been trolling the whole time.

There are plenty of legitimate explanations for why you voted for Trump. But when you vote for the most consistently dishonest major-party presidential candidate in modern American history........and man whose public statements have been found to be "truthful" or "mostly truthful" only 17% of the time (compared to 69% lies).......you CANNOT pretend to be someone who "cares about the truth".

Simply put, anyone who claimed to be "slightly liberal" and who cared about honesty in the last election voted for Hillary Clinton.

The problem with Trump acolytes like you is that you are clearly motivated by a political agenda that does not require honesty or integrity. It only requires dedication to the cause, not to honesty, integrity, morality, ethics, accountability, or facts. In their hearts, Pro-Trumpers are basically just culture warriors who embrace tax cuts and "limited government" the means by which to win their culture war.

 

[ultmd]

1) I don't pretend to be impartial. I'm pro-Trump. I come at it from a different perspective because most people who are pro-Trump are Conservatives, but I am not. I make it clear that I am not, and the standard arguments of attacking a Conservative for being Conservative don't work on me.

You might be the only person who believes this nonsense. And THAT would be an appropriate example of being"delusional" that you were searching for earlier. The content of your arguments is the same as every other Trump supporter. It's a toxic mix of fake news, lies, half-truths and crazy right wing conspiracy theories.

2) On the previous lawyer, we'll see what happens, but how ironic is it that Avenatti is also under investigation by the State Bar of California? lol

It's only "ironic" to those who are desperate for a reason to deflect from what he is doing to expose the corruption of their dear leader. To most rational people, it's an irrelevant aside. There have been no credible allegations of professional misconduct in his handling of the Daniels v. Trump case, and most people can see that. So these attempts to deflect by Trumpians are not working.

3) You talk about the facts of the case. I have asked multiple people to state the argument and provide the evidence. There are no facts of the case that prove any sort of wrongdoing of Trump. If there are, provide it. I cannot get anybody to even attempt to provide the facts, yet all of you guys want to cite the "facts" vaguely. Then you weirdly state I'm providing Right Wing conspiracies. I didn't realize asking you to meet the burden of proof was a Right Wing conspiracy. lol

1. Well, first....the facts proving "wrongdoing of Trump" (as candidate and/or president) are too numerous to list. And anyone who claims otherwise is either a blind ideologue, or just a very dishonest person.

2. You have posted nothing but a series of right wing myths, lies and conspiracy theories in this thread.

• You have stated as fact, that Stormy Daniels is not paying Avenatti. And you based that LIE upon a baseless allegation/rumor from a pro-Trump OP/ED piece.
• You have stated that "money problems" are Avenatti's motive for this case, again based upon nothing more than an opinion piece and a FOXNEWS segment. In REALITY, we don't know anything about Avenatti's current financial state; nor need we. All we know is that he's a very high profile and successful personal attorney and that he has never filed for bankruptcy. Any assertions that he has "money problems" based upon his debts are irresponsible.
• You said there is "mounting evidence" that Avenatti is a "political operative rather than a legal operative"....which is silly. He's a Democrat, apparently. But that's irrelevant to the FACTS that he has revealed in this case so far. The FACTS are the only thing that matters. And the FACTS are increasingly devastating to the Trump side. He's been caught in lie after lie, already
• You have repeatedly suggested that Daniels should have followed the abvice of her previous attorney, yet you failed to mention that her previous attorney was found to have been secretly working WITH Trump's attorney (Cohen).

So, again.....you have not provided ANY facts in this thread. The only REAL FACTS we've seen have been those provided by me and others in this thread. So you and your Trump supporting buddies don't get to demand proof of anything, until you learn how to post some REAL FACTS, yourselves.

 

[Fearandloathing]

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


[Edited for space]

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.

Desperate times a hundred.

One, your whole post is opinion, unverified claims which immediately become questionable.

Second, what ever compensation a lawyer seeks from a client is part of attorney-client privilege so you can't possibly know. It's a lie and not your last.

Character assassination is the last resort of the desperate. You can't shake off this scandal so you have to try to undermine the character of those involve...except the character of the main character is the problem.

Donald Trump is the one who had sex with a sex trade worker while married and days after his child was born. That's character.

We know and after having denied it 19 times admits he paid, through his lawyer, "hush money" to a sex trade worker.

So what...you are surprised that the sex trade worker would hire a rattlesnake who wants to make a name for himself?

What a shock!

But have you for a moment or two thought that maybe, if Trump had kept it in is pants like a man of good character, none of this would be happening? You guys are always blaming the results of his actions instead of wearing the fact the man is a disgusting con man.

So, continue to attack the character of his opponents, it would work if your boy was eligible to cast the first stone...but down call into question the question the character of others when you own home is a whorehouse...you merely remind people Trump went to the whore

 

[FreeWits]

:lamo

Ok, now I'm wondering if you have just been trolling the whole time.

There are plenty of legitimate explanations for why you voted for Trump. But when you vote for the most consistently dishonest major-party presidential candidate in modern American history........and man whose public statements have been found to be "truthful" or "mostly truthful" only 17% of the time (compared to 69% lies).......you CANNOT pretend to be someone who "cares about the truth".

Simply put, anyone who claimed to be "slightly liberal" and who cared about honesty in the last election voted for Hillary Clinton.

The problem with Trump acolytes like you is that you are clearly motivated by a political agenda that does not require honesty or integrity. It only requires dedication to the cause, not to honesty, integrity, morality, ethics, accountability, or facts. In their hearts, Pro-Trumpers are basically just culture warriors who embrace tax cuts and "limited government" the means by which to win their culture war.

But as someone who falls on the Left, I am not in favor of limited government. I can deal with some tax cuts, but I usually don't advocate for them and I think Trump's were a bit broader than they needed to be, but I knew I was going to get that when I voted for him, and that's okay. You literally picked two of the worst issues to plant your stake on. I don't agree with you that Trump is overly dishonest or that kind of stuff. He exaggerates a lot, but I don't consider that dishonesty. I also don't think Trump lacks accountability, either. He has fired many staffers over failures or disagreements, and that is accountability. You should really consider the fact that I don't view the world the way you do, and you have the potential to be wrong on your judgments.

 

[FreeWits]

Desperate times a hundred.

One, your whole post is opinion, unverified claims which immediately become questionable.

Second, what ever compensation a lawyer seeks from a client is part of attorney-client privilege so you can't possibly know. It's a lie and not your last.

Character assassination is the last resort of the desperate. You can't shake off this scandal so you have to try to undermine the character of those involve...except the character of the main character is the problem.

Donald Trump is the one who had sex with a sex trade worker while married and days after his child was born. That's character.

We know and after having denied it 19 times admits he paid, through his lawyer, "hush money" to a sex trade worker.

So what...you are surprised that the sex trade worker would hire a rattlesnake who wants to make a name for himself?

What a shock!

But have you for a moment or two thought that maybe, if Trump had kept it in is pants like a man of good character, none of this would be happening? You guys are always blaming the results of his actions instead of wearing the fact the man is a disgusting con man.

So, continue to attack the character of his opponents, it would work if your boy was eligible to cast the first stone...but down call into question the question the character of others when you own home is a whorehouse...you merely remind people Trump went to the whore

1) Is it an opinion that Michael Avenatti is under investigation by the State Bar of California?

2) A client can choose to disclose whatever information they want to, and Stormy Daniels specifically stated she is not paying Avenatti.

3) You say that character assassination is the last resort of the desperate, and then you attack Trump's character, so what does that say about you?

4) I frankly don't care if Trump had sex with a porn star or not. Doing so isn't illegal.

5) You say that Trump is a man of bad character for having sex with a porn star, so what are you saying about Stormy Daniels? It sounds like you are saying she is trash for being a porn star.

 

[FreeWits]

You might be the only person who believes this nonsense. And THAT would be an appropriate example of being"delusional" that you were searching for earlier. The content of your arguments is the same as every other Trump supporter. It's a toxic mix of fake news, lies, half-truths and crazy right wing conspiracy theories.



It's only "ironic" to those who are desperate for a reason to deflect from what he is doing to expose the corruption of their dear leader. To most rational people, it's an irrelevant aside. There have been no credible allegations of professional misconduct in his handling of the Daniels v. Trump case, and most people can see that. So these attempts to deflect by Trumpians are not working.



1. Well, first....the facts proving "wrongdoing of Trump" (as candidate and/or president) are too numerous to list. And anyone who claims otherwise is either a blind ideologue, or just a very dishonest person.

2. You have posted nothing but a series of right wing myths, lies and conspiracy theories in this thread.

• You have stated as fact, that Stormy Daniels is not paying Avenatti. And you based that LIE upon a baseless allegation/rumor from a pro-Trump OP/ED piece.
• You have stated that "money problems" are Avenatti's motive for this case, again based upon nothing more than an opinion piece and a FOXNEWS segment. In REALITY, we don't know anything about Avenatti's current financial state; nor need we. All we know is that he's a very high profile and successful personal attorney and that he has never filed for bankruptcy. Any assertions that he has "money problems" based upon his debts are irresponsible.
• You said there is "mounting evidence" that Avenatti is a "political operative rather than a legal operative"....which is silly. He's a Democrat, apparently. But that's irrelevant to the FACTS that he has revealed in this case so far. The FACTS are the only thing that matters. And the FACTS are increasingly devastating to the Trump side. He's been caught in lie after lie, already
• You have repeatedly suggested that Daniels should have followed the abvice of her previous attorney, yet you failed to mention that her previous attorney was found to have been secretly working WITH Trump's attorney (Cohen).

So, again.....you have not provided ANY facts in this thread. The only REAL FACTS we've seen have been those provided by me and others in this thread. So you and your Trump supporting buddies don't get to demand proof of anything, until you learn how to post some REAL FACTS, yourselves.

I gave you ample opportunity to respond with the facts. I asked for them specifically. You will not give them to me. I am done here, because you refuse to give any sort of evidence to establish a case against Trump. That's your fault, and you have not even come close to meeting any sort of Burden of Proof.

 

[Removable Mind]

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.

Sometimes it take a shady person to take out an even shader person. Trump’s fate will be in the voters’ hands - not in Stormy’s panties.

Stormy and Avenatti are going to be least of Trump’s worries.

 

[ultmd]

I don't agree with you that Trump is overly dishonest or that kind of stuff. He exaggerates a lot, but I don't consider that dishonesty. I also don't think Trump lacks accountability, either. He has fired many staffers over failures or disagreements, and that is accountability.

Objective facts and verifiable truths are not subject to personal opinions. So it's not a matter of us "agreeing to disagree" on the issue of Trump's historic level of dishonesty. It's a matter or record. That's the good news. The bad news is that your idea of honesty (or "dishonesty") and "accountability" lacks BOTH honesty and accountability.

You should really consider the fact that I don't view the world the way you do

Clearly. You think facts are a subjective measure. I know that they are not. You offer unsubstantiated opinions while asking others for objective facts, and then complain when they refuse to accept your opinions as equal to their facts. That explains our respective "world views".

and you have the potential to be wrong on your judgments.

I always consider that, when confronted with objective FACTS which conflict with my arguments. In this case, however, it wasn't a tough call.

I gave you ample opportunity to respond with the facts. I asked for them specifically. You will not give them to me. I am done here, because you refuse to give any sort of evidence to establish a case against Trump. That's your fault, and you have not even come close to meeting any sort of Burden of Proof.

:lamo You were "done here" a long time ago. When you present some facts (and if you could, you would have done so by now), I am MORE than ready and happy to discuss the laundry list of examples and/or evidence of Trump corruption, collusion and lies related to the Daniels case and his entire campaign/presidency.

Or, you can just admit that you have ZERO "proof" that (for example) Avenatti is being paid by a "secret source" rather than by Daniels and the crowd-sourcing website that she started, as you claimed.......and we can begin discussing the laundry list of evidence against Trump right now. Your choice. Either way, we agree on one thing: you are "done here".

 

[Fearandloathing]

1) Is it an opinion that Michael Avenatti is under investigation by the State Bar of California?

2) A client can choose to disclose whatever information they want to, and Stormy Daniels specifically stated she is not paying Avenatti.

3) You say that character assassination is the last resort of the desperate, and then you attack Trump's character, so what does that say about you?

4) I frankly don't care if Trump had sex with a porn star or not. Doing so isn't illegal.

5) You say that Trump is a man of bad character for having sex with a porn star, so what are you saying about Stormy Daniels? It sounds like you are saying she is trash for being a porn star.

'

I say Trump is a man of bad character because he lies, cheats and steals. I have clearly stated that Stormy Daniels is a sex trade worker, make your own moral judgements; a year ago you would not be defending her

 

[ultmd]

A client can choose to disclose whatever information they want to, and Stormy Daniels specifically stated she is not paying Avenatti.

Sorry, but you're lying again. Daniels did NOT "specifically state she is not paying Avenatti". That is NOT what she said. She said that she could not afford her attorney fees alone, so she started a crowdfunding site to defray the costs. She never........NEVER........stated (specifically, or otherwise) that she was not paying Avenatti. Every time you repeat a documented LIE..........it's called "lying". Simple as that.

you say that character assassination is the last resort of the desperate, and then you attack Trump's character, so what does that about you?

You should look up the meaning of the term "character assassination". It's not "assassination" of his character if it's true. And I haven't seen anyone say anything about Trump that is not accurate, so far.

I frankly don't care if Trump had sex with a porn star or not. Doing so isn't illegal.

Strawman. No one has implied that it was illegal to have an affair with a porn star. What very well might be illegal is sending a goon to follow her and confront her at her car with threats to leave Trump alone. But more importantly, Trump is the ONLY one who has lied so far. He lied about knowing her. He lied about having an affair with her. He lied about paying her. He lied about KNOWING about a payment to her. He lied about signing a NDA with her. He lied about knowing his lawyer had paid Daniels. etc. etc. etc. And those are just Trump's lies about Storny Daniels. We haven't even talked about REAL issues.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I hope anti-Trumpers reconsider their position on the importance of the Stormy Daniels case.

Whatever faults Mr. Avenatti has, he is an archangel compared to the Huckster-in-Chief, Donald Trump.

And if anyone had motive to launder millions for oligarchs, that would be the 6x bankrupt Trump.

And to top it off, Avenatti doesn't get on his knees for Putin.

 

[upsideguy]

Why does me voting for Trump mean that I don't care about the truth?

That would be a rational conclusion..... You vote for a man that has an incredible history of bearing false witness and that is not a show stopper for you, then we could conclude, at least, that being a liar is not a disqualifer for you; that it is actually acceptable as long as other attributes are there.

Overlooking Trump's integrity problem, however, disqualifies you from challenging the integrity problems of other public figures, lest you look hypocritical. As I pointed out in my previous post, you have surrendered the moral high ground on such matters and thus look foolish calling out Avenatti as you did in the OP.

 

[FreeWits]

Objective facts and verifiable truths are not subject to personal opinions. So it's not a matter of us "agreeing to disagree" on the issue of Trump's historic level of dishonesty. It's a matter or record. That's the good news. The bad news is that your idea of honesty (or "dishonesty") and "accountability" lacks BOTH honesty and accountability.



Clearly. You think facts are a subjective measure. I know that they are not. You offer unsubstantiated opinions while asking others for objective facts, and then complain when they refuse to accept your opinions as equal to their facts. That explains our respective "world views".



I always consider that, when confronted with objective FACTS which conflict with my arguments. In this case, however, it wasn't a tough call.



:lamo You were "done here" a long time ago. When you present some facts (and if you could, you would have done so by now), I am MORE than ready and happy to discuss the laundry list of examples and/or evidence of Trump corruption, collusion and lies related to the Daniels case and his entire campaign/presidency.

Or, you can just admit that you have ZERO "proof" that (for example) Avenatti is being paid by a "secret source" rather than by Daniels and the crowd-sourcing website that she started, as you claimed.......and we can begin discussing the laundry list of evidence against Trump right now. Your choice. Either way, we agree on one thing: you are "done here".

Again, facts are open to interpretation. No objective fact can be viewed without subjective interpretation. For instance, do you hear Yanni or Laurel? There is an objective fact of what is being said, but half the people hear Yanni and half the people hear Laurel. Some people can even warp their subjective interpretation of reality in real time and switch between hearing Yanni and Laurel.

You then try to shift the burden of proof to me, but it's you that has the burden of proof. How is Stormy Daniels/Michael Avenatti going to take Trump down? You say I have no proof that Stormy Daniels isn't paying Avenatti, but I already provided it. Here her Tweet is again explaining that she's not paying Avenatti: https://twitter.com/StormyDaniels/status/989516286463004673