Things That Make You Go Hmmmm....Michael Avenatti

[Highway Star]

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/38 ... l-avenatti" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Nikoli]

Let me guess. The "deep state" is financing this? Was the bogie man considered?

[madhatter]

Let me guess. The "deep state" is financing this? Was the bogie man considered?

treasury dept investigation should reveal that...along w who illegally supplied bank records to daniels lawyer...

some things we do know however:

Daniels's previous lawyer advised her to stick to her agreements. In contrast, Avenatti OK'd her violating with impunity her nondisclosure agreement on “60 Minutes” despite a binding arbitration judgment against her. She has acknowledged on Twitter that she is not paying for her lawyer. So who is? And did he indemnify her against all multimillion-dollar penalties

Cohen’s lawyers, Stephen Ryan and Todd Harrison, said Avenatti improperly attributed two transfers — one from a Malaysian firm to a Canadian bank and another from a Kenyan bank to an account in Israel — to the wrong Michael Cohen.

But they said Avenatti also appears to have some information from Cohen’s actual bank records and their client “has no reason to believe that Avenatti is in lawful possession of those records.”

AT&T and Novartis both said they turned over information about their dealings with Cohen to special counsel Robert Mueller, who's investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russian agents in the 2016 presidential election.

we also know this:

In November, lawyers from Mueller’s office asked Novartis for information about its relationship with Essential Consultants, a shell company created by Cohen.

“Novartis cooperated fully with the Special Counsel’s office and provided all the information requested,” Novartis spokeswoman Sofina Mirza-Reid said in a statement. “Novartis considers this matter closed as to itself and is not aware of any outstanding questions regarding the agreement.”

AT&T heard from Mueller at about the same time, according to company spokesman Michael Balmoris.

“When we were contacted by the Special Counsel’s office regarding Michael Cohen, we cooperated fully, providing all information requested in November and December of 2017,” Balmoris said in a written statement. “A few weeks later, our consulting contract with Cohen expired at the end of the year. Since then, we have received no additional questions from the Special Counsel’s office and consider the matter closed.”

we also know that mueller handed this off to another office...now use that little pea brain of yours ( if you can) and try to see if you can connect the dots here...

[XtremeJibber2001]

For Avenatti, where there is smoke, there's fire.

For Cohen, where there is smoke, there's certainly no fire.

Am I following?

[madhatter]

For Avenatti, where there is smoke, there's fire.

For Cohen, where there is smoke, there's certainly no fire.

Am I following?

you really are blinded by your ideology....


if I had your bank records you could be virtually certain I didn't have legal access to them...pretty simple right? the treasury dept also knows that...if cohen didn't give avenetti access who did? is it one of cohens own people ? maybe, if he has "people" in any case unless he granted the " divulger" access and authorized dissemination it's likely criminal to possess them...we've heard nothing about how he came to have them only that cohen says he did not authorize it...the likelihood of something being criminal here is probable...

for cohen you have payments made above board by major US corporations of what seems like a lot of money to you but its actually not all that much in terms of lobbying...could there be something there? guess ya can't ever rule it out completely but logic dictates that you;d not have such an easily traceable methodology if you were trying to hide something...each of these corporations freely and openly admits they made these payments, says they were investigated by mueller last year and that nothing more has come of it since then and they consider the matter closed...they all issued statements to that regard...mueller has brought no charges against any of them or referred any of them for investigation as far as we know...

now like I told the other peabrain connect the dots here...does mueller consider the matter closed? in regards to cohen I would have to say no and that's why he referred it to the NY office, thogh that may also be a notignburger we dont; actually know yet...as far as trump I'd say yes he does consider it closed or he'd not only have kept the investigation in DC but but there would also be an indictment...right now the evidence here says the likelihood of criminality particularly on trumps part is very low to none..just like the last 100 or so times you were certain of it...

the lengths you people will go to give the slightest credence to your wild fantasia borders on mental illness it seems...

[Nikoli]

The man has addressed the payment question. Seek and you will find the answer. Your sources don't want you to know the truth. They would lose ad dollars. Keep on that zerohedge train. I'm surprised you're not a flat earth member.

Again you are being made a fool.

[XtremeJibber2001]

For Avenatti, where there is smoke, there's fire.

For Cohen, where there is smoke, there's certainly no fire.

Am I following?

you really are blinded by your ideology....


if I had your bank records you could be virtually certain I didn't have legal access to them...pretty simple right? the treasury dept also knows that...if cohen didn't give avenetti access who did? is it one of cohens own people ? maybe, if he has "people" in any case unless he granted the " divulger" access and authorized dissemination it's likely criminal to possess them...we've heard nothing about how he came to have them only that cohen says he did not authorize it...the likelihood of something being criminal here is probable...

for cohen you have payments made above board by major US corporations of what seems like a lot of money to you but its actually not all that much in terms of lobbying...could there be something there? guess ya can't ever rule it out completely but logic dictates that you;d not have such an easily traceable methodology if you were trying to hide something...each of these corporations freely and openly admits they made these payments, says they were investigated by mueller last year and that nothing more has come of it since then and they consider the matter closed...they all issued statements to that regard...mueller has brought no charges against any of them or referred any of them for investigation as far as we know...

now like I told the other peabrain connect the dots here...does mueller consider the matter closed? in regards to cohen I would have to say no and that's why he referred it to the NY office, thogh that may also be a notignburger we dont; actually know yet...as far as trump I'd say yes he does consider it closed or he'd not only have kept the investigation in DC but but there would also be an indictment...right now the evidence here says the likelihood of criminality particularly on trumps part is very low to none..just like the last 100 or so times you were certain of it...

the lengths you people will go to give the slightest credence to your wild fantasia borders on mental illness it seems...

In the first paragraph you assert Avenatti has done something likely illegal and warrants investigation while the second paragraph with Cohen you assert everything is above board. You pick and choose what you deem suspicious based on your individual biases. Anyone objective that views both paragraphs worthy of closer inspection is called names. It's a cyclical process reoccurring through the threads here. The one part you're right is the last paragraph where you admit we really don't know anything yet, but to suggest none of any of this is at all is suspicious is silly.

[madhatter]

For Avenatti, where there is smoke, there's fire.

For Cohen, where there is smoke, there's certainly no fire.

Am I following?

you really are blinded by your ideology....


if I had your bank records you could be virtually certain I didn't have legal access to them...pretty simple right? the treasury dept also knows that...if cohen didn't give avenetti access who did? is it one of cohens own people ? maybe, if he has "people" in any case unless he granted the " divulger" access and authorized dissemination it's likely criminal to possess them...we've heard nothing about how he came to have them only that cohen says he did not authorize it...the likelihood of something being criminal here is probable...

for cohen you have payments made above board by major US corporations of what seems like a lot of money to you but its actually not all that much in terms of lobbying...could there be something there? guess ya can't ever rule it out completely but logic dictates that you;d not have such an easily traceable methodology if you were trying to hide something...each of these corporations freely and openly admits they made these payments, says they were investigated by mueller last year and that nothing more has come of it since then and they consider the matter closed...they all issued statements to that regard...mueller has brought no charges against any of them or referred any of them for investigation as far as we know...

now like I told the other peabrain connect the dots here...does mueller consider the matter closed? in regards to cohen I would have to say no and that's why he referred it to the NY office, thogh that may also be a notignburger we dont; actually know yet...as far as trump I'd say yes he does consider it closed or he'd not only have kept the investigation in DC but but there would also be an indictment...right now the evidence here says the likelihood of criminality particularly on trumps part is very low to none..just like the last 100 or so times you were certain of it...

the lengths you people will go to give the slightest credence to your wild fantasia borders on mental illness it seems...

In the first paragraph you assert Avenatti has done something likely illegal yep since cohen says he didn't release them, same same as if I had your bank records and you know you didn't give them to me, stop playing stupid... I assume yer playing here...and warrants investigation actually the treasury IS conducting an investigation....that they opened immediately cuz its THAT OBVIOUS...while the second paragraph with Cohen you assert everything is above board. the companies involved say so, they say they've been questioned by the FBI and that questioning is over and they consider the matter closed...mueller hasn;t brought any charges and handed cohen off to the NYC office, hard to believe that there's any russia collusion evidence there let alone a smoking gun or mueller would be indicting not handing off...You pick and choose what you deem suspicious based on the facts at hand...dispute them if you wish...Anyone objective that views both paragraphs worthy of closer inspection is called names. It's a cyclical process reoccurring through the threads here. kinda like the one where you are wrong about trump every time you post...hmm lets see you post ridiculous crap a 5th grade can easily debunk yet you hold fast to it cuz " it hasn;t been proven false yet" do you believe in unicorns too?bigfoot? loch ness? The one part you're right is the last paragraph where you admit we really don't know anything yet, but to suggest none of any of this is at all is suspicious is silly.

ok so you tell me what YOU think the outcome will be... I already told you what I think...there is no russian collusion there were no bribes payed by any of these companies to trump and that avenetti illegally obtained cohens banking records....

otherwise I have no idea why you bother posting here...

[madhatter]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 598180002/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Clinton and Obama administrations yielded millions for insiders cashing in on influence. What is different in this case is that Cohen, who has no appreciable legal skills or particular business acumen, seemed to be selling only access. He is not a lobbyist and barely acknowledged as a lawyer. Like so much of Cohen’s record, it was raw, crude, and unabashedly corrupt. Absent some new evidence, it was also perfectly legal.

Cohen notably seemed to dispense with the pretense of most for influence peddlers who dress up this corrupt practice as “lobbying.” Cohen was selling his own remaining asset: access to Trump. There is no registration needed for influence peddlers. Of course, if you engage in lobbying, legal problems can arise. However, Cohen was offering his “knowledge” of Trump — a murky area where someone offers insights and framing advice. The assumption is that Trump would know who was taking care of his friend when actual lobbyists from AT&T or Novartis came knocking.

There really is no way to prohibit the selling of knowledge or associations. The law focuses on specific acts like lobbying or lawyering for regulation. Moreover, these companies and law firms will emerge unscathed from this scandal. No one is likely to cancel their AT&T subscription because of the company’s sleazy tactics — any more than customers responded to AT&T spending huge amounts to kill net neutrality.

Whatever may come out of this scandal, one thing will not emerge: reform.

Trying to bar the selling access in Washington is like trying to ban corn sales in Iowa. It is the only indigenous crop of the Beltway. Only two things are certain: first, Cohen is a sleazy influence peddler and, second, he found a perfect home in Washington.

that's about the reality of it...

[Highway Star]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mails.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Whomever's doing it, it's a bit obvious that it's just another well funded attack angle in the ongoing smear campaign.

[Highway Star]

Clearly a DNC player and possibly even a CIA/NSA/??? asset:

In 1999, he earned a J.D. degree from George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C., where he worked with Professor Jonathan Turley on constitutional issues relating to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). He graduated Order of the Coif and first in his class.[7] In 2003, George Washington University Law School established the Michael J. Avenatti Award for Excellence in Pre-Trial and Trial Advocacy, an annual award given to the member of the graduating Juris Doctor class who demonstrates excellence in pre-trial and trial advocacy. Avenatti also received George Washington University’s prestigious Alumni Recognition Award in 2010.[20]

While in college and later in law school, Avenatti worked at The Research Group, a political opposition research and media firm run by Rahm Emanuel (later White House Chief of Staff for President Barack Obama, and Mayor of Chicago).[21] Avenatti worked on over 150 campaigns in 42 states, including multiple gubernatorial and congressional campaigns and Joe Biden’s U.S. Senate campaign.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Avenatti" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Highway Star]

I just think it's funny that people can think that Trump could be bribed with $500k.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I just think it's funny that people can think that Trump could be bribed with $500k.

There are plenty of wealthy folks throughout US history that have been bribed for less. In fact, I might even argue wealthy politicians take bribes or do other stupid things that catch them up in financial scandals as often as their less well-off peers. You sound like Larry Kudlow.

[Nikoli]

I just think it's funny that people can think that Trump could be bribed with $500k.

The man eats Big Macs and doesn’t pay his debts.

[madhatter]

Accordingly, someone may be in deep trouble over the leaks. As The Daily Beast's Kate Briquelet notes, Cohen's attorneys filed court papers questioning the veracity of Avenatti's "dossier," along with how he came to obtain the banking transactions.

A spokesman for the Office of the Inspector General told ABC News that investigators are probing whether Suspicious Activity Report information “has been improperly disseminated.” The IG investigation arose from a New York Times report that apparently included the same information Avenatti released, according to ABC News.

tax lawyers interviewed by The Daily Beast say they’re puzzled that Avenatti would have access to Cohen’s banking info—especially after Daniels’ civil case was put on hold, and because the feds are still investigating Cohen. They said it’s highly unusual for SARs, which are confidential and not to be made public, to be leaked.

Experts told The Daily Beast the level of detail in Avenatti’s report suggests he obtained Treasury documents that only the agency’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) had access to or which were requested by law enforcement—such as the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, which has been investigating Cohen for months, reportedly eyeing the Trump stalwart for possible bank fraud, wire fraud, and campaign-finance violations.-The Daily Beast

“I think somebody from the SDNY is leaking,” said Las Vegas-based trial attorney Robert Barnes. “The degree to which Avenatti had details implicates them badly.”

apparently this guy also has deep debt obligations and is facing disbarment in california as well...

According to Dempsey, Avenatti was supposed to bankroll the deal through his company, Global Baristas, but didn't have the funds - instead borrowing $2 million at an "exorbitant" 15% to close on the transaction. The actor sued to get out of the partnership after he claimed "Avenatti concealed the Loan and the Security Agreement from Dempsey."

Since 2013, 46 cases have been filed against Global Baristas US LLC and its parent company, Global Baristas LLC in Washington's King County Superior Court.

One of the companies left in Avenatti's wake is Dillanos Coffee Roasters, which CEO David Morris says is owed over $160,000 for beans.

Speaking of back taxes, Avenatti reportedly paid himself $1.85 million in 2015 and 2016 while his law firm racked up over $1.5 million in back taxes.

Robert Barnes
@Barnes_Law
#Avenatti is reportedly under a rather massive California State Bar inquiry; there is a good chance he gets disbarred. https://twitter.com/cellinoatt/status/9 ... 6832996352" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

4:14 PM - May 9, 2018
581
377 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Read the bar complaint against Avenatti here: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05- ... st-catches" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

nah he's a good guy representing an upstanding woman to defend her honor...