What about if the lawyer pays on behalf of the client with the expectation that he will be reimbursed via retainer? (I believe this is one the several versions of what happened.)
He’s giving them the business. WTF else do you expect? Is this the dumbest thing I’ve seen here? Lawyers advocating aren’t obscure in their motives.
But the main thing I’m seeing is that he knows how to counter the spin from the administration that so far have been left unanswered and unanalyzed because the media is too confused to act in ways that are protective of democracy, and we are in shock as a populace. So why wouldn’t it be up to the GD lawyer to do it and challenge this situation? That’s the way the justice system works. In the end it is to protect democracy. Who else, in what capacity, will do it?
Well, Trump told a bunch of reporters he didn’t know about it. He didn’t say it in court. Does it really matter, legally, if he lied outside court to parties not involved in the agreement? If I tell someone at work “I’m not married,” legally I am very much still married.
As to the issue of who’s paying Avenatti, that The Hill piece is the biggest pile of shit I’ve ever seen:
Aside from the fact that Daniels’s crowdsourcing campaign is VERY public and everyone not living as a hermit in the forest can find out about it in half a minute, the implication that Avenatti may not truly be Daniels’s lawyers is idiotic. IANAL, but even I know that paying a lawyer is NOT what makes them your lawyer, no matter what you saw on Breaking Bad. A lawyer is your lawyer when they advise you as to the law, and Avenatti is clearly advising Daniels as to the law. If that was not the case, you could not have public defenders and pro bono work.
I mean, the idea that Avenatti is an egotist who’s in this for his own ends is hardly a huge revelation, but one has to grudgingly admire the ambulance-chser who, for whatever reason, is doing the job of investigative journalism the media should have done two years ago. Like Michelle Wolf’s set at the correspondent’s dinner, I will not be shocked if, eventually, the media turns on Avenatti just because he’s showing them up for failing to do their jobs.
You’ll have to forgive Republicans for asking who is paying Avenatti and questions like that. They’re just repeating the latest Republican talking points they’re being given by Fox News and other Republican shills who are going out of their way to raise questions (even if the questions are bullshit) and cast doubt on the man.
Worth noting in that context that the guy who wrote the linked article asking who is paying for Avenatti is not a Republican but rather a pollster with a long relationship with both Bill and Hillary Clinton’s campaigns.
Funny how one guy with a fairly small staff can uncover dirt, while someone like Devil Nunes with the vast resources of the US Congress could not find a single speck.
I did notice that, but the thing is, bullshit is bullshit.
That’s very possible, but the “context” I was referring to was the post preceding mine.
who the fuck cares? does that mean the information uncovered is bad?
I’ll never understand this mantra of " a liberal/democrat/lobbyist paid for it, therefore it doesn’t count " thats complete and utter horseshit.
Either the information is good or its bad - source of funds to uncover it is completely and totally irrelevant.
Worth noting that Avenatti already addressed all of these questions.
If Trump didn’t know about the payment, then that necessarily means that he didn’t read or understand the contract, which means the contract isn’t enforceable.
I guess he could say that he was lying when he said he didn’t know about it though.
I see on looking around a bit, that Avanetti’s statement yesterday was in response to the Mark Penn article.
I don’t at all get this line of reasoning, either. You freely sign a contract, it’s on you. If you’re stupid enough to not read some of it, to the point you don’t fully understand it, that’s just too bad. How could it be otherwise? If you let people out of contracts when they said they hadn’t read or understood them, you’d get that all the time.
I guess it’s made worse by the fact that Trump didn’t sign it, either. So there’s a piece of paper, without his signature, about which he tells everyone that he is unaware of its contents. If it could be shown that he was unaware of it and not just lying, and it doesn’t have his signature, seems to me like it’s not enforceable.
But the point is, did he sign the contract or not? If he signed it, then he knew or should have known what he was signing, which means his claim he didn’t know what Cohen was up to is ludicrous.
If he didn’t sign it, then he didn’t sign it, which means he didn’t sign it.
I don’t get this either. If he didn’t sign it, couldn’t he just say “I don’t know what you’re talking about, go find David Dennison”. (A little late for that I suppose)
Avenatti should ask Trump to read the contract out loud.
It would probably be about as cringe inducing as listening to Floyd Mayweather attempting to read a radio drop.
Right, except then there’s no non-disclosure agreement, which means she goes to TMZ and gets ONE MILLION DOLLARS to tell her stories about Donald’s withered penis and short fingers.
So is there a valid non-disclosure agreement or not?
Trump wants the answer to be “There was a valid and enforceable non-disclosure agreement, but I had nothing to do with it”. Except that doesn’t make sense, does it?
Not to a California judge, certainly. So who’s going to buy Stormy’s new book?
There’s a part that identifies Donald Trump aka David Dennison.