Despite a lack of evidence and fabrications Avenatti is hailed by the press as a Trump foe.
This morning once again Morning Joe was joined by the perpetual cathode litigator Michael Avenatti, legal counsel for porn star Stormy Daniels. He was presenting his latest piece of “evidence”, purportedly connected to his case. This time he had a document that President Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen had received payments from a variety of companies, including one nefariously alluded to have the always dreaded “Russian Ties”.
What wrongdoing was exposed, and what does this have to do with a skin-star’s NDA settlement? Those are questions to be asked by pragmatic-thinking citizens. Our media complex meanwhile is not so bothered by these fact-based queries. Why delve into the tall weeds of verification when a pit-bull litigant can hurl accusations at The President in the court of public opinion?
Another question unasked: How did Avenatti obtain these documents? His trial is not even in its discovery phase, so how did he come into possession of what are private business forms? That itself may be a legal problem.
FYI: no way to get bank info & "suspicious transaction" report intel LEGALLY. Either Avenatti is lying, got the information from someone who got it illegally, or himself obtained information ILLEGALLY. It's not everyday you see a lawyer admit to complicity in a crime on Twitter. https://t.co/Tmu4TuE3M0
— Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) May 8, 2018
Avenatti has been such a regular presence on the MSNBC morning show that he could be deemed a co-host at this stage. (In fact…more on that in a bit.) CNN is no less slavish, turning over their cameras to Avenatti 59 times between the dates of March 7, through April 30.
The press loves the man, despite his repeated blunders, and even when his stories blow up in their faces they warmly embrace him back. Little surprise for this affection however exists, given the lawyer has a lengthy career working on Democratic campaigns, and was essentially reared in the business by Obama right-hand man Rahm Emanuel.
It was just last week when media outlets had to sheepishly correct their breathless stories of Cohen’s phones being wiretapped and supposedly leading to slam-dunk interrogation of Trump. It was later revealed there had been no phone taps at all and the media, which decry “fake news” at every chance, had to once again walk-back their verified-as-fake reports. That embarrassing debunked information had been trough-fed to reporters by Michael Avenatti. Not surprising coming from the lawyer claiming Daniels “Only wants the truth,” when her career was spent faking it, in front of cameras.
Now today, not having learned their lesson, the press once again presents themselves prostrate, willing to be defiled by the lawyer in a manner similar to his famous client’s profession. Avenatti’s latest bombshell accusation is that Michael Cohen received a number of payments from companies. That is essentially it. A lawyer, collected fees. There is no direct charge of illegality, but in Avenatti’s trademark fashion he presents a story with the implication of darkly evil attachments.
All you get from Avenatti is heavy implication. Looking over the companies involved he derisively suggests Cohen was hired under false pretenses. When Novartis issued a statement that they hired Cohen for healthcare matters, Avenatti states, “Wow – he’s a doctor as well!” Companies with other focuses have snide remarks that Cohen is also an “accountant”, or “real estate baron”, etc. This is infantile alluding, for the sake of implying wrongdoing. In this vein, since his main client is an adult film star can we not therefore announce, “Oh, so Avenatti is also a Porn Director!”
One other name listed in Avenatti’s report is Viktor Vekselberg. While all concerned are very excited by that name, they should curb their hysteria. This name becomes emblematic of how the most tenuous connecting fiber to anything that can be called “Russian” is presented as “proof” in the press — of something. It underscores the desperation in the media to attach Russian collusion — or the now accepted modifier “Russian Meddling” — to any story with the administration.
Vekselberg is mentioned in this fashion. One of the payments to Cohen came from the company Columbus Nova. They are based in New York. One of it clients is The Renova Group. Renova Group is owned by Vekselberg. Thus, because Trump’s lawyer was hired by a company that does business with a Russian company this proves…the press can invoke Russia. Except Avenatti, and the press, are avoiding two very crucial details regarding this connection.
First, how can there be a claim this proves Russian interests in the White House when this past April Vekselberg, and The Renova Group, were included among the Kremlin-connected oligarchs who had sanctions imposed upon them? If Trump was in Viktor’s back pocket he surely would have been excluded from sanctions. Secondly, do not expect any investigation into Renova business activities to be undertaken with any gusto. Doing so is very likely to gather up the niggling detail that Hillary Clinton has a deep financial tie with that very same group.
If his lawyer dealing with Renova is said to be problematic for Trump, then surely Hillary’s working with the company directly as Secretary of State must be considered an issue. Also the Clinton Foundation accepting numerous donations exceeding one hundred thousand dollars from Renova has to be a curiosity. Additionally, Hillary helped pave the way for her husband to receive $500,000 for a speech to a Russian investment bank, and this led to a meeting with Vekselberg. Dastardly stuff — you know, if any Renova connection is deemed problematic.
The questions that go unasked towards Stormy’s lawyer by the supplicant news panels is telling. For instance, what does any of this financial smoke have to do with Avenatti’s case and Stormy Daniels wanting to be freed of her Non-Disclosure Agreement? He stated on Morning Joe that the money Cohen collected constituted a “slush fund”. Sure does sound like nefarious intentions.
Except the monies listed out total a far greater sum than the $130,000 Stormy was paid. Also of note is the use of the past tense in that sentence. The vast majority of the payments that Avenatti is breathlessly detailing here were made to Cohen well after the election, and well after his client had already received her payout. How then is there any connection to her?
This has routinely been the case in the Daniels case. Note how frequently Avenatti’s focus has shifted regarding his client’s suit. She initially incorrectly claimed to be excused from the NDA due to a magazine interview. Then it was the fact that Trump never signed the NDA that would be her exit clause (except the agreement was created by Cohen’s firm, and his signature kept it binding.) Now Avenatti is targeting that Cohen company. Tenuous claims of campaign finance have been floated. Now Cohen himself is accused of wrongly accepting fees. Or, is he?
Avenatti declared repeatedly throughout his morning visits that his financial release was “confirmed and verified” by the New York Times. This only means though, they confirmed the financial documents were seemingly accurate. What the data amount to is not at all confirmed. As The Times meekly wrote in its exhaustive article on Avenatti’s report, “It is unclear whether that or any of the other transactions were improper, but Mr. Avenatti has asserted that Mr. Cohen’s use of Essential Consultants potentially violated banking laws.”
Translation: “We can find no evidence of wrongdoing, but we are content to repeat all of the accusations made by a porn star lawyer/media-hound.”
That snippet alone underscores all of the activities on TV screens with Avenatti. He is given free rein, and his charges repeated unchallenged, because his crusade helps inflict any damage desired on The President. Little surprise that another detail has been reported in much lighter fashion by the press. Michael Avenatti reportedly has been leaning heavily on network executives to get his own talk show.
This should be surprising to exactly nobody.
for more mayhem and bad movie insight, follow along @MartiniShark