re: Michael Avenatti says he’s talking to Trump’s legal team — and would testify for Trump

This feels ??

quote:

---

We can’t believe any of the people in this sham trial.

---

The money flowed from Trump's company to Stormy/CPL. We know this is a fact.

The trial is trying to piece together the most logical explanation of how and why, based on evidence to be introduced at trial.

Ultimately this trial boils down to 2 possibilities.

1. Cohen committed fraud and stole the money from Trump' company (and didn't keep the stolen money and paid Stormy/CPL for...reasons)

2. Cohen facilitated and obfuscated payments to Stormy/CPL from a company Trump owned.

If 1 is shown to be more likely, the case is over, even though it could still technically violate the law.

If 2 is shown to be more likely, THEN the jury has to compare that behavior within the wacky NY business records law

If the jury then finds this behavior violated the law, THEN they have to consider the implications on the campaign (or else it's s prescribed misdemeanor charge)

quote:

---

So now we believe Avenatti

---

I’m going to share something with you. People, all people have flaws. Sometimes they do good, other times they do evil. Sometime they tell the truth and sometimes they lie.
You must have the ability to separate what is truth from persona.
If you can’t do that, that’s sad.
When Avenatti says Trump is being singled out for political reasons, it’s fact and everyone knows it.

What is he lying about?

quote:

---

In terms of the wealthy, either famous or not, would you agree that it’s not at all a rare occurrence for opportunists to come along and shake them down for money using threats of fictitious salacious leaks to the public……which could be averted through payment of some sum of money?

---

I'm sure that happens all the time.

However, even if this was a shakedown, it would still potentially violate the wacky NY business records law

I was going to suggest Michael Ned, due to the poster's attitude

quote:

---

Dude's mental.

---

You were probably cheering him on when he was dumping on Orange

quote:

---

However, even if this was a shakedown, it would still potentially violate the wacky NY business records law

---

Yeah, I’m aware, which is why I wasn’t at all referring to that aspect. I was referring to exactly what was being discussed in terms of the commentary related to things like

quote:

---

No, more his failure to admit he banged her

---

and

quote:

---

The shift from MAGA baws since 2016 (when this was a badge of alpha honor) to 2024 (where many deny it even happened) has been something to see.

Nobody cares. Even the Evangelicals didn't care about the immorality.

---

and so on and so forth, the implication clearly being that as far as you’re (and likeminded buddies) concerned, it’s a foregone conclusion, he’s a dirty dog who has only made his situation worse by being dishonest and failing to admit the affair. Yes I’m taking a few liberties there for illustrative purposes, but it’s an accurate inference nonetheless.

So considering your earlier acknowledgment that shakedowns of this nature are not a rare occurrence, what’s an attorney doing with all this ugly and lamentable speculation and assumption of facts? I assume that you now would agree, given the earlier acknowledgement, that you don’t know if the incident occurred and it may well not have.

Of course you’re entitled to your opinion as to whether it actually happened or not. Mine is that it was an instance of the aforementioned shakedown, especially in light of the involvement of slime ball Avenatti.

He's a loser, though I am enjoying the logic of the panicked "oh now you believe that guy" responses. As if it's somwhow hypocritical to believe someone when they say the opposite of what they were saying when you didn't believe them.

Cop: did you kill the mailman?
Suspect: No
Cop: I think you did
Suspect: ok I did
Cop: why should I believe you? You're a liar!