I really don’t know why the fuck either Trumpistas or the MSM think attacking Avenatti is going to be a winning formula for the Great Orange Gasbag. Same as w/ claim that Dems funded the Steele dossier: does partisan sponsorship somehow magically render the factual data impotent?
And not just it doesn’t look like a political winner, I also don’t see WTF is wrong with an attorney seeking to recover his client’s financial exposure from any source short of illegal ones.
The Stormy defense already has a crowd-funding site up. And it’s obvious what she’s doing in these court proceedings and what Avenatti is doing on her behalf have the effect, intended or not, of serving the interests of Dem partisans. So, why NOT seek funding from Dem backers?
Indeed, if there’s any reasonable chance of getting such funding, AND it’s n his client’s best interests to pursuit this option, wouldn’t it be professional breach of duty NOT to pursue it?
Maybe not, but it is a classic tactic to raise, at least a doubt, as to the impartiality or reliability of the sponsored person or information. I’m just glad the Dem operatives said no.
To R’s, merely existing in the same universe as a Democrat renders all information “fake news”.
You make a solid point, and I agree totally. My understanding is that the origin of the dossier was early on in the GOP primary. I think that fact has been lost amidst the Sinclair, Fux News and Brietbart noise machine.
My two cents.
The RNC is paying for the legal bills of Hope Hicks.
But Avenatti asked some Dems for some money!!!
So I guess that funding site started by the friends of poor, poor, totally innocent Paul Manafort should be shut down immediately. Right, NYT?
I really think we should wait for the opinion of NYT writer Maggie Haberman, Feckless Stenographer.
I’m pretty damn sure that Avenatti can handle this just fine. Probably opens another line of attack for him as well. This man does not fuck around with nonsense.
I saw what you did there!
I’m not holding my breath that Avenatti will bring Donald down, and won’t be surprised if he’s just in it for the money.
He’s a lawyer… isn’t money the basis for why most lawyers take a case???
I have little doubt that this fact will morph, a tweet or two from now, into the presumption that any and all claims are motivated by politics, tsk, tsk. Exactly why someone’s liking or not liking a person, or having a different political persuasion, or even being monetarily benefitted by a particular result, is seen to require anything that person testifies to, or claims, to be totally disregarded, continues to escape me. It is as if only someone who loves and supports Trump can be taken seriously if they criticize him — but then, of course, in doing so they’re no longer supporters, so have to be treated as liars … Trump’s media-enable Catch-22, an old technique of his, I think, paraded for us all, early on, when Trump’s criticizing Mexicans was asserted (not without tactical success, in the MSM) to mean that a judge ruling against him had to have been biased because of Mexican heritage (the critiques of Trump chasing the shiny object of whether the judge actually was Mexican, rather than homing in on the outrageous stupidity and cupidity of the bias assertion itself) … what an elegant piece of illogical excrement is this POTUS. When did we finally lose our capacity to distinguish between why someone is speaking out, and the truth of what they’re saying, as to the impact of political leanings? Weird world, folks.
I actually went on Avenatti’s website some time ago and he has listed where the funding for Stormy Daniels comes from (this is after his appearance on Rachel Maddow show during which she posed that question to him). There was a Gofund me page with $500,000+ in it. NYT is very disappointing despite their “breaking news” stories on Russia etc…I unsubscribed some time ago.
It’s disappointing to see so many Avenatti takedown pieces on TPM. I visit the site for political news rather than for dirt on a private attorney.
Double standard time again!
Richard Mellon Scaife bankrolls the “Arkansas Project” to sabotage Bill Clinton and the Coporate Censored Conservative Press gives him a pass.
The Kochs finance the Teabaggers and the CCCP gives them another pass.
But when Michael asks for Democratic help, oh my the CCCP goes off the rails…
NYT is complicit with Trump, in all kinds of ways and for all kinds of reasons.
Actually, it was the Ted Cruz campaign that originally paid to compile “The Dossier” on Trump.
Once the Mercers (Ted Cruz’s FORMER Sugar-Daddies) decided to back Trump instead of Cruz, they immediately dropped it.
By sheer coincidence the Hillary campaign contracted the same company to do “opposition research” on Trump later on, only to be told of the existence of “The Dossier” at that time.
I also stopped my subscription for the New York Times due to their over hyping of Dem foibles and the utter sweeping under the rug of Republican crimes.