Are Avenatti's Cohen Revelations Helping Or Hurting Stormy's Case?

[DonViejo]

By Allegra Kirkland | May 15, 2018 8:05 am

Michael Avenatti has spent the past few months making Michael Cohen’s life hell.

The omnipresent attorney for adult film star Stormy Daniels has been a constant in the churning news cycle, using an arsenal of tweets and cable news hits to keep pundits focused on the $130,000 that Cohen paid Daniels to keep her silent about her alleged affair with President Trump.

But lately, Avenatti has ranged farther afield. Last week, he set off another media frenzy by releasing a document detailing the hundreds of thousands of dollars Cohen received from major corporations and others in 2017 after pitching them on his access to the new president. It said Cohen’s company, Essential Consultants, took in $1.2 million from Novartis, $600,000 from AT&T, and $500,000 from the U.S. subsidiary of a company owned by a Russian oligarch. Much of the information in the document, which appeared to be based on information in Cohen’s bank records, was soon confirmed by major news outlets.

Then on Sunday, Avenatti tweeted out a series of screenshots from Dec. 12, 2016 showing Cohen and a group of unidentified men in the lobby of Trump Tower. According to Avenatti, one of the men is Ahmed Al-Rumaihi, the head of a division of Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund who has been accused in a lawsuit of trying to bribe Trump administration officials.

The disclosures appear to be part of Avenatti’s ongoing effort to discredit Cohen’s character and business record in the court of public opinion.

more
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/legal-experts-question-michael-avenatti-cohen-relevations-relevance-stormy-daniels

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

1. Stormy is being pushed into the shadows

Avenatti is expanding his rants, from Stormy-related stuff to Trump-Russia corruption, etc.

It's good for Avenatti, don't see how it helps Stormy.

[rzemanfl]

2. IMO Stormy is getting what she wants. Fame and revenge. n/t

[jberryhill]

4. Revenge for what?

[NCTraveler]

6. Threats to her life.

What seems to be two lawyers originally working in concert to shut her up.

Those two items alone should be enough to at least understand there might be a possibility of a desire for revenge.

If accurate of course.

[jberryhill]

10. The one in 2011?

There is no claim in the Daniels lawsuit seeking any sort of compensation for threats on her life.

What seems to be two lawyers originally working in concert to shut her up.

She may have been shorted if it turns out that Davidson and Cohen were acting in concert in some way.

Do I understand this correctly - In 2016, prior to the election, she wanted to speak out about having voluntarily had sex with Trump in 2005. Rather than doing so, two lawyers forced her to take $130k? Maybe I've lost a detail somewhere along the way, but who threatened her in 2016 to take the money?

[NCTraveler]

12. Why would it matter if she filed suit.

That point is insignificant. She clearly stated her life was threatened in front of her child.

There is also the question if Cohen was working in concert with another lawyer in these cases.

Again, filing suit it insignificant with respect to the claims or possible motives for wanting revenge.

[rzemanfl]

19. Being called a liar by the biggest one of all? Do we agree on fame? n/t

[jberryhill]

22. Okay, let's separate those

Yes, she has filed a defamation claim in NY against Trump on the basis of her alleged loss of reputation and income because he disparaged her in a Tweet. The NY courts have seen that before:

Jacobus v. Trump is worth a read, if the legal issues matter:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9055925074095043891&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

The appeal decision is shorter:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7136694911415405456&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Plaintiff's defamation per se claim was correctly dismissed in the absence of actionable factual allegations that tended to disparage her in the way of her profession, trade or business (see Herlihy v Metropolitan Museum of Art, 214 AD2d 250, 261 (1st Dept 1995)).

While it is unclear whether Daniels profession or business is premised on honestly stating with whom she has voluntarily had sex, or whether Trump's claim that he did not have sex with her has damaged that business, it is very difficult to be trading on that notoriety in the first instance, and then alleging that it has caused her financial harm. That, of course, ignores the issue of whether there is credibly a class of consumers who decided "Oh, well, since the president denies it, I will not buy her products or attend her appearances, because I would not want to watch porn or see a performance by someone who the president claims to be dishonest."

In other words, it is hard to claim one has been defamed, when the attention generated by the controversy itself is the primary driver of one's claim to fame in the first place.

[rzemanfl]

25. You managed to say that in a way.

Last edited Tue May 15, 2018, 04:40 PM - Edit history (1)

That can't be called **** shaming.

Thanks for the response.

[jberryhill]

28. It's certainly not that

If you are an accountant, then if someone credibly claims you are bad at math, that goes to your professional competence.

If you are a banker, and someone credibly says you embezzle money, that goes to your professional competence.

If you run a restaurant, and someone credibly says you don't wash their hands when you use the bathroom, etc..

All of those claims are the sorts of things for which there is some direct connection to the allegation and the subject's source of income.

I don't think anyone has ever read the blurb about an adult magazine model and said, "Yeah, but what if she doesn't really like to take long walks on the beach and country music?"

Ms. Daniels primary source of income, and an increased one at that, derives from her association with Trump. There is not a soul alive who gives two shits whether Trump denies it, and the fact that he has given the matter any attention at all is free advertising.

Apart from the reasons about "stuff Trump tweets" in the Jacobus suit (which nobody at DU gave two shits about), the damage claim of $75,000 is absurd.

[rzemanfl]

34. I suppose I was using a high school definition of "reputation." n/t

[pnwmom]

29. Stormy is loving this. Didn't you see her on SNL?

She says what she wants is DT's RESIGNATION.

I think she's as happy as any of us would be, if we could be instrumental in getting DT impeached.

[jberryhill]

3. They are unrelated to the Daniels case

There is no dispute in the Daniels civil action that Daniels got paid. Where the money came from or how it got there is not relevant to her case.

By phrasing the question as "helping or hurting" her case, they are missing the point.

Tangentially, souring Cohen's appetite to enforce the arbitration award helps the Daniels case to the extent that Cohen would be encouraged to agree to rescind the contract and be done with it.

But since the contract case is on hold, and the NY defamation case won't be served for a while, there is literally nothing to do in either of Daniels' civil actions.

[Sophia4]

13. Avenatti and Stormy are trying to find out where the money that was paid to her

came from. Remember. Trump originally referred all questions to Cohen and other outside lawyers. There is also a question as to whether other women were paid by Cohen and if so, which women.

Avenatti has carefully planned this it appears to me. He knows what he is doing it appears to me. I could be wrong, but he may know things we don't know.

Where did this money come from? is a question that needs to be answered. Was it from campaign funds of some sort? How are campaign funds defined in a case like this?

Or was the whole pay-off part of some larger scheme?

Americans have a right to know just what sort of a person Trump really is. This case is helping us to find out. Stormy does not seem to be worried about the negative aspects of investigating these issues more thoroughly. Why should we?

[jberryhill]

16. ....which is not relevant to the case

Mueller interviewed the companies that paid Cohen back in November. While Avenatti is publicizing various information unrelated to Daniels' legal claim, it is quite clear that the relevant criminal investigation has had this information for quite a long time.

Yes, Avenatti is publishing information about where Essential Consultants got its money. But that has nothing to do with the claim for recission of the contract.

If I enter into a contract with some guy to cut my grass for $50, and I pay him the $50 and he doesn't cut my grass, then whether I got the $50 from selling crack, robbing a bank, or running a pimping operation, has NOTHING to do with whether that guy didn't perform his contract to cut my grass.

[Sophia4]

15. Here is an interesting, related article.

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trump-faces-major-deadline-stormy-daniels-case-and-all-his-options-look-really-bad

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

5. It's all part of putting pressure on your adversary

Why oh why didn't they just settle this case? They chose to fight and Avenatti is fighting back. Every one of these revelations squeezes them a little more. (or maybe not so little) Avenatti is playing hardball-just like Trump does. It may not all seem directly related but every ancillary damaging detail that flows from his investigation ramps up the stakes a bit more.

[NCTraveler]

7. Considering they want the contract rescinded.

I don't see how it hurts.

[blugbox]

8. The courts have not forgotten about her or her case.

The public perception or opinion about any of it matters not. He can go on whatever tangents he wants on public television, but when the date comes around for Ms. Clifford's case, he will be there for her the same as if he'd never gone public.

[Fullduplexxx]

9. So much concern

[unblock]

11. much of what he's doing doesn't technically have much to do with the case itself.

mostly he's just taking advantage of a lull in the actual case to keep media attention on the case and to continue to be a thorn in the side of their adversaries.

it would be perfectly reasonable for him to quietly focus on other cases and stay out of the spotlight.

but to the extent the exposure embarrasses cohen and/or donnie and encourages them to cave or settle or otherwise take inferior actions in the case, then he's wise to keep up the pressure.


aside from that, he's doing a service to the nation exposing some of this crap.

whoever had the idea to comb through the c-span video of the trump tower lobby looking for cohen and other suspicious people -- all i can say is, genius, sheer genius.

[Sophia4]

14. 'GENIUS' is the right word.

[Demsrule86]

24. I also think he hates Cohen...who is a sleaze ...he was in cahoots with Stormy's lawyer who was

also the lawyer for other women who signed NDA's. I agree he is a genius.

[pnwmom]

30. And Stormy hates Cohen and DT and wants DT to resign.

She said so in her SNL appearance.

[Demsrule86]

33. He should resign...damn criminal. And I think he will at some point.

[Kirk Lover]

17. Who's Stormy?

But I said this last week. I don't want Avenatti to go to far afield because I feel a backlash or over exposure coming. I do hope I'm wrong.

[Demsrule86]

23. Even if such a thing happened and given the quality of the info...I don't think it will...he is not

a Government rep...so it won't matter.

[Vinca]

18. The $130,000 in question is going to be donated to a charity according to Stormy.

Avenatti - just by being Stormy's attorney - is increasing her exposure (no pun intended) and she's making a whole lot more money than she was making pre-Avenatti. Along the way, Avenatti has joined the good guys rooting out crimes committed by Trump and his merry band of goons. I would bet Stormy is happy about that.

[Sancho]

20. Avenatti knew this would be a media circus, and Stormy was the perfect client who didn't care.

He probably was aware that it would end up a battle over tRump, politics, and discovery. Avenatti got lucky that Mueller raided Cohen about the same time, and opened another can of worms.

Now, half of Manhattan knows they can send stuff to Avenatti because he'll use it; but if they give it to Mueller it will go down the rabbit hole. Much more fun to see stuff on CNN!

Admittedly, Avenatti is a good showman.

[Demsrule86]

21. I think this is what Stormy had in mind...help get rid of Trump...hell maybe she is a patriot.

[pnwmom]

31. I think she IS a patriot. She and Avenatti see an opportunity to use her case

to take them down -- and are as happy about that as any of us would be, if we were in that position.

[Demsrule86]

32. I agree with you. And he has done more damage to Trump than 1000 journalists.

[old guy]

26. I have no idea.

[blue cat]

27. It's Stormy's call on Avenatti.

Other people's opinion don't really matter much.