I love that Stormy Daniel's lawyer is a BULLDOG. The Democratic party needs MORE of them

[demtenjeep]

are we tired of being kicked in the teeth yet?

Fuck this go low/go high shit

we need to fight back and I love Avenetti

Lets get more of them!!!

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. Yum.

[Hokie]

2. I thought the complaint in the current lawsuit was better written than the first lawsuit

I suspect Avenatt's co-counsel in NY wrote this one. It is short and to the point.

[rzemanfl]

3. Link? n/t

[Hokie]

6. Here is the complaint..

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cghg5fwc42lh7y7/Complaint.pdf

[rzemanfl]

8. Thank you very much. n/t

[VOX]

4. He appears fearless, which separates him from just about everybody in the entire saga.

However, he is a risk-taker, which, while an attribute in today’s weird climate, sometimes has a downside (“I must be bulletproof”).

God help him if he’s got ANY skeletons whatsoever, because you know RW ops are digging furiously for something/anything on him. If so, it will get the full Trump treatment, forever and ever.

Hoping every day that Avenatti is whistle-clean and vetted thoroughly.

[jberryhill]

11. Of what possible consequence would that be?

You think there is a court that gives two shits one way or the other?

If one has a license, then one can represent another party in court. It really doesn't matter what else is going on.

[VOX]

14. It would matter in the court of public opinion...

Which (for now) is how this whole mess is being waged and sized up. We have yet to hear from the law, and have no idea when we will. And with a November election coming up, public opinion really does matter, in terms of the voting booth. Reality— and who gets to frame it— is what’s at stake.

If say, a certain attorney is involved in something wholly unpalatable to the greater public, then it becomes all too easy to dismiss said attorney, and whatever follows, regardless of the law. So far, the rule of law has done jack shit to stop Trump and his overt, obvious lawlessness.

It’s probably going to come down to American citizens voting in enough senators and representatives to hold the line. Or not.

[Sophia4]

36. He is representing a porn star who has been wronged which means he is not worried about

what the public thinks.

He is just representing his client. Nothing else is relevant to him. He is not representing the Democratic Party.

[pnwmom]

15. Of what possible consequence? Not every lawyer would be willing to take on DT

in a case like this.

Over the course of DT's career, think how many lawyers he's intimidated. But he's not intimidating Avenatti, or Stormy.

And so far, Avenatti's winning.

[jberryhill]

17. What lawyer has ever turned down the opportunity to sue Trump?

Over the years, literally hundreds of lawyers have represented people who have done just that.

I know several, and none have ever felt "intimidated" by doing their job. Nor have I ever come across a federal judge who gave a crap about the personalities involved on either side of the room.

I'm curious about the "winning" thing. So far on motions, the score is Cohen 2, Avenatti 0. Meanwhile McDougal's lawyer, litigating the identical hush agreement, has favorably resolved her case and moved on.

The lawyers for the DNC who are suing the Trump Campaign et al. over Russian interference... how many times have you seen them on television? Can you name one without looking it up?

[pnwmom]

20. DT should have been stopped by a good lawyer long ago. For some reason,

no one was able or willing to do it.

Avenatti may be only barking at Trump's heels, but he's rattling him and causing him to make mistakes -- which are helping to send him into the arms of the waiting prosecutors.

[jberryhill]

27. Okay, so, this is the last time he was sued in the SDNY over defamation-by-tweet

https://cases.justia.com/new-york/other-courts/2017-2017-ny-slip-op-30028-u.pdf

One of the questions in the mix of issues is whether he could be taken to have commented on a matter of public interest. If Daniels was a litigant in a contract dispute, then that would not ordinarily be a matter of public interest, absent an effort to make that particular case a media extravaganza.

Among the things that hurt the plaintiff's case - in this one where apparently nobody gave much of a shit that Trump was being sued by a woman he insulted on Twitter - was the fact that the plaintiff had also been regularly appearing on television news programs criticizing Trump as well.

As context is key (Thomas H, 18 NY3d at 584-585; see Brahms v Carver, 33 F Supp 3d 192, 198-199 [ED NY 2014], citing examples), defamatory statements advanced during the course of a heated public debate, during which an audience would reasonably anticipate the use of "epithets, fiery rhetoric or hyperbole," are not actionable (citations omitted).

Avenatti has publicly stated that he has been baiting Trump in the hope of a response on which to premise an action.

Take a read through the Jacobus v. Trump case, and point out the differences here.

[pnwmom]

31. Without reading it, I can tell you one major difference.

That case didn't provide information that helped contribute to the warrant allowing the SDNY raids on Cohen's home, office, and hotel room.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/09/politics/michael-cohen-fbi/index.html

FBI raids Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's office, seizes Stormy Daniels documents, bank records

[jberryhill]

32. ...and that warrant was based on an investigation preceding the Daniels suit

The $130,000 payment was the subject of law enforcement interest back in January.

The entire weird story about Cohen paying it personally, and its potential status relative to campaign finance laws, preceded the Daniels suit.

The Daniels suit didn't change or alter any of that. That was already in motion.

This is a defamation claim. Good to know that prior relevant case law can be dismissed without reading it, for reasons having nothing to do with the facts alleged in this defamation complaint.

[pnwmom]

35. Daniels attorney was speaking out in January.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels%E2%80%93Donald_Trump_legal_dispute

On January 12, 2018, The Wall Street Journal reported that Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 in October 2016, a month before the presidential election, to stop her discussing an affair she allegedly had with Trump in 2006.[1][2] A lawyer for Daniels made claims that the payment was a cover-up, and others have raised questions about potentially illegal campaign payments.[3] Cohen denied the existence of an affair on behalf of his client, Trump,[4] but later acknowledged having paid Daniels $130,000 out of his own money.

[jberryhill]

37. Ummm.....

No.

That's not even what that says, although it is somewhat artfully written. It's kind of interesting how that sentence, out of chronological order, got slipped in there.

Note the reference for the sentence you highlighted - footnote #3. That's a BBC article from APRIL. Click on the citation for that sentence.

Avenatti, and indeed no lawyer for Daniels, was saying anything in January. The arbitration was filed by Cohen in February - that's what Daniels suit was in response to. If Daniels hadn't gotten the arbitration decision in February, she wouldn't be suing to get out of the contract in the first place.

In January, you will recall, Daniels was denying the affair at Cohen's behest. If she had a lawyer in January (other than the shitheel Davidson), she wouldn't have signed it.

But, no, that Wikipedia article, and the citations for support of the statements, does not say what you think it says.

It was Common Cause that filed DOJ and FEC complaints back in January, on the 22nd:

https://www.commoncause.org/media/feccomplaintstormydaniels/

On January 31 - Daniels was still denying it happened:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/porn-star-stormy-daniels-says-affair-with-trump-never-happened/2018/01/30/d8d5fcea-0633-11e8-b48c-b07fea957bd5_story.html?utm_term=.0ba157e81925

Hours before a scheduled appearance on "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" to follow President Trump's nationally televised State of the Union address on Tuesday night, porn star Stormy Daniels issued a signed statement addressed "To Whom It May Concern" that denied an alleged affair with Donald Trump.

Are you saying that Avenatti was advising her when she signed that?

Really? Because that statement is the biggest problem she has in the defamation claim against Cohen, since she is essentially suing Cohen for agreeing with her.

[jberryhill]

40. And just to make that clearer...

The Cohen arbitration, which was the reason for the Stormy Daniels suit, was in late February.

The Stormy Daniels suit was filed 6 March 2018 in Superior Court of CA (I forgot that its Cohen 3, Avenatti 0 if you include the removal to federal court).

The Cohen search was conducted 9 April 2018.

The USAO-SDNY stated that the investigation of Cohen had been going on for months before April 9.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000162-db0f-d230-a36b-ffffb9e30000

The referral from the special counsel, and the independent investigation of that referral, long preceded the Cohen arbitration or the Daniels suit to rescind the contract in order to get out from under the arbitration award.

To the extent that Avenatti is claiming, or allowing others to claim, that he has anything to do with the criminal investigation of Cohen which precipitated the April 9 search of Cohen, it is the rooster taking credit for the sunrise.

[pnwmom]

41. Okay, I concede that point. But this doesn't change the fact that Avenatti

has successfully baited DT into making damaging statements, including his recent statement that Cohen represented him in the Daniels matter.

In the beginning, both Cohen and DT were insisting that Cohen acted on his own and DT knew nothing about it. Now, DT has stated that Cohen was representing him. But in that case where does that leave the $130K payment? If there was an illegal campaign donation, then DT knew about it.

[jberryhill]

42. People can make all kinds of statements out of court

A lot of what gets talked about on the TV machine bears only a distant relation to what is relevant to the actual litigation. The out of court statements of Cohen and Trump have been all over the map on this thing. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. The actual position in the suit taken by Cohen and EC is that the "and/or" makes it irrelevant whether "Cohen was representing" Trump as signatory to the contract. Whether that's a good position or not remains to be seen. But even if the upshot is that Trump was an intended beneficiary of the contract which Cohen alleges - in the actual litigation, and not the as-seen-on-TV version - that EC can act as "anybody" in the document, then whatever Trump means by "represented me in the crazy Daniels deal" could mean that Cohen was looking out for his interests. The statement has no bearing on anything in the litigation in California thus far.

On this thing:

"But in that case where does that leave the $130K payment? If there was an illegal campaign donation, then DT knew about it."

The California case is not about whether it was an illegal campaign donation. Aside from which the only relevant question in terms of contract performance is "was Daniels paid the $130k". Well, both sides admit that fact. Whether the money came from illegal bookmaking, a bank robbery, or embezzling a pension fund, has no bearing on whether there was or was not an enforceable contract under which Daniels took that $130k in order to speak no further than the 2011 InTouch interview (which had leadked and was floating around in October 2016 anyway).

Aside from which, it is perfectly possible for there to have been an illegal campaign contribution without Trump personally knowing about it.

For the purpose of the California civil suit, the answer to "where does that leave the $130k payment" is "hopefully in Daniels' bank account, because she is suing Cohen for the right to pay it back and have the contract declared void."

The investigation that led to the search of Cohen was not instigated, informed, or assisted, in any way, by the Daniels lawsuit. If you read the procedure that the USAO-SDNY went through to reach the point of getting that warrant and executing the search, it's plainly obvious that the timeline does not add up. They did not obtain anything they didn't already know from the Daniels lawsuit, because Cohen was already spinning tales about the payment before it was even filed.

Again, remember, the Daniels/Cohen defamation claim is based on Cohen's public statement made on 13 February 2018:

"In a private transaction in 2016, I used my own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130k to Ms. Stephanie Clifford...

Just because something isn't true doesn't mean that it can't cause you harm or damage. I will always protect Mr. Trump."

Back in February, Cohen was already getting flack about the payment. That was BEFORE the arbitration decision, and it was BEFORE the Daniels suit.

The only reason Daniels brought her suit was because he then proceeded to get an arbitration decision against her. That's what her suit is about. It's not about whether there was an illegal campaign contribution, and it's not about whether Cohen "represented" Trump or what the scope of that may have been, because Cohen's position in this litigation is that the "and/or" makes them interchangeable as far as the contract is concerned. There is no issue before the court on California which turns on what Trump knew about the extent of the deal or how the payment was made, because Cohen is going to live or die on the "and/or".

[pnwmom]

44. Prosecutors can use public statements in court and court documents.

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/26/17284898/trump-fox-and-friends-michael-cohen-court

[jberryhill]

47. Yes they can, for particular purposes

Trump's statement that he didn't know about the payment or that "Cohen represented me" is not relevant to any issue in the California litigation.

Yes, there are all sorts of situations where an out-of-court statement may be "used" in some manner in a court proceeding. However, that is also an example of one that was rhetorically fun, and only marginally relevant to the issue (which is why it was relegated to a footnote), but ultimately wasn't relevant to the decision rendered either.

Cohen's position in the California suit does not turn on whether Trump knew about the deal, the payment, the terms of the agreement, or anything else. Trump's representatives have filed "me too" joinders in Cohen's briefs, in which Cohen argues that he and EC have full authority under the contract, due to the "and/or" clause. There is no legal issue in the California case that would go one way or the other on the basis of what Trump has said he didn't know, or what Trump may have meant by Cohen representing him in the deal. It's simply not determinative of any issue on which the case turns.

[EffieBlack]

23. You really just can't stand Avennati, can you?

You may think he’s a bad lawyer and that you know better than he does how to handle his case and represent his client, but, whatever you think of him, he’s eating DJT’s lunch.

[jberryhill]

24. I don't know why you feel the need to reduce every criticism to a personal comment

Yeah, I'm critical of his work and how he does it. I'm critical of attorneys in general who use their clients as means to their personal aggrandizement. It's unprofessional and inappropriate.

At every turn, you take that as an occasion to impute some sort of emotional investment in it, and to make it personal.

Why is that?

Have I said something about you, how I think you feel, etc.?

I am kind of interested to know why someone who has lost every motion he's filed or fought thus far is "winning", that's all.

But, yeah, those DNC lawyers suing the Trump campaign? They really need lessons on TV presentation, I guess.

Is it at all ever possible for you to have a discussion without the topic being the other person in it?

In this Complaint, the Defendant is accused of having "intimated" a publisher. Maybe proofreading a short complaint is too hard.

But I'm pretty sure that my comments aren't going to hurt his fee fees one bit.

[EffieBlack]

25. No, I don't comment at every turn - I usually just let your commentary pass without any response

But one can't help but notice how consistently critical you are of him and how you second-guess him at every opportunity. That's certainly your prerogative, just as it's my prerogative to comment or not comment on it when I choose, especially given this is a public discussion board. If you decide to take personal offense at my comments, that's up to you.

[jberryhill]

28. Would you care to discuss case law?

Okay, so I'm not sure the distinction between "discussion of the topic" and "discussion of other people's motives, feelings, etc." is clear to you.

You could really advance the discussion by comparing and/or contrasting this claim with a very similar one, Jacobus v. Trump, on the topic of defamation-by-tweet:

https://cases.justia.com/new-york/other-courts/2017-2017-ny-slip-op-30028-u.pdf

One of the problems with this claim, substantively, is the media circus to which Avenatti has contributed, and which does his client no good here.

His tweets about his critics, necessarily restricted to 140 characters or less, are rife with vague and simplistic insults such as "loser" or "total loser" or "totally biased loser," "dummy" or "dope" or "dumb," "zero/no credibility," "crazy" or "wacko," and "disaster," all deflecting serious consideration.

Law isn't about who we like or dislike, or how we might feel about a particular case. And that's particularly not at all clear to folks in general on DU. For example, in determining whether a convicted felon presents a danger to the community or flight risk, in the course of deciding whether that felon should stay out on monitoring bail pending sentencing, we recently had the spectacle of people deciding that the ordinary considerations applied to that analysis should be different if the felon is a famous black man - as if a legally blind guy is going anywhere on his own, or likely to assault persons visiting him for professional advancement and mentoring.

Nobody here on DU gave two shits about the last woman insulted by Trump on Twitter who indeed proceeded to a lawsuit on facts scarcely different.

Why do you suppose that is?

[EffieBlack]

30. Take a breath and go find someone else to argue with.

I'm not interested.

[jberryhill]

33. I'm breathing quite fine

Thank you for your concern. I post stuff on DU to relax. You might try it. Or, you might post your insights into legal matters under discussion, as I believe you profess some expertise from which others might benefit.

[jberryhill]

49. lol

How's that lunch going, Effie?

[Sophia4]

38. But actually, each motion lost has carried the case further so that, in the end,

if and when Avenatti gets a favorable verdict or decision, it will be less likely to be overturned on appeal. His case is, by, for example, the stay, being made less vulnerable to a negative decision on appeal. The stay in the California case means that Cohen will be less likely to be able to plead the Fifth when the Stormy Daniels is heard. Seems to me anyway. It's never great to have to delay. But the delay now may save a lot of time and trouble later on.

That's just my guess.

[rzemanfl]

5. Oh good, another place for the go low/go high debate.

I wonder if that "post removed" person will post to this thread....

[librechik]

7. swoon

i can say no more.

[thegoose]

9. He and Maxine Waters

You have to insult Orange Anus at the same level he does to others. He has no shame and can't be humiliated. That whole crime family is fair game.

[demtenjeep]

10. totally agree-but then I thought so even before he called Mexicans rapist or Rosie O a fat pig

I have watched him since he divorced his first wife

the whole family can fuck off (nadt) I hate them ALL every single one of them

[shanny]

12. agree 110%

[Danascot]

13. He needs to be recruited into the Dem party

He could be VP of Rapid Attack & Counterattack. Just imagine how much Republican butt he'd kick every day.

[NCTraveler]

16. What does he have to do with the Democratic Party? Nt

[demtenjeep]

18. he has alluded to being a player in the Democratic Party

we need more people like him In the Democratic Party

maybe we wouldn't be kicked so much

the last 3 repuklican presidents have lost the popular election because the Democratic Party let them kick them


NO MORE

[NCTraveler]

21. He has alluded to a lot of things.

Maybe a good DNC spokesperson I’d he isn’t a Republican.

[demtenjeep]

19. In full disclosure. I no longer have ANY use for anyone repuklican

if it is family, I simply choose not to be around them. If it is co-workers I never talk politics with them


I am not hateful, I just choose to be around people I can respect. I can NOT respect anyone who voted for that ignorant buffoon

I'm tired of being kicked in the teeth. #NOMORE

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. Going high IS fighting. Avenetti IS going high. Think of him as a Great Dane with a Bulldog head. nt

[RandySF]

26. He's representing his client, not the party.

[LuvLoogie]

29. He's a lawyer. He's not running for office to be a legislator.

I haven't heard his position on health care, reproductive rights, the environment...

Not sure if he has the temperament to run for office and serve. He could perhaps be a James Carville type. He could play that role.

[demtenjeep]

34. yes, would make a fantastic Carver

and we need him plus 1000 more

we are in a fight for survival.

the time to play nice is over

if we do play nice -it will be a blue whimper not a wave

[Sophia4]

39. My guess is that he loves litigation, loves a good fight for what he believes is

right. I have no problem with that.

[EffieBlack]

43. I've found that most litigators who go into politics hate it

At least those who go into politics in order to accomplish something. Governing and litigating are very different things, especially if we're talking about the legislature. The litigators I know who went into a legislature - either the U.S. or state House and Senate - ended up miserable. Unlike litigating, legislating is a very slow, deliberative, collaborative process and an individual legislator - especially a fairly junior one - has very little say on the outcomes. It's enormously frustrating to someone who is used to being in control and moving things forward.

[Sophia4]

45. Good points.

[oberliner]

46. "Fuck this go low/go high shit"

What the hell?

[JI7]

48. he isn't a politician and isn't running for any office. his goal seems to be maybe TV show

do you think conor Lamb would have won if he had behaved like Avenatti ?