Stormy Daniels

W

Warbler

At the Start
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
8,493
Way to go girl :lol:

You have to hand it to Trump, he just keeps delivering

She's now filed a deposition against him and Michael Cohen it seems

As one American commentator put it "why is it other countries don't have leaders who get sued by porn stars?"
 
Not as entertaining as Michael Avenetti's

I should say this particular case seems to have taken a turn for the funny again. I can only assume that Rudy Guiliani was desperate to avoid Trump perjuring himself and decided to eliminate the risk for him. Campaign finance regs seems to have been other big risk, though I remain open-minded on whether this has been breached. Rudy's opinion doesn't constitute case law.

The big question of course is just how many more NDA's Trump has in place. My own suspicion is that he's subjected his own wife to one
 
Guilliani is defined as an "It's all about me"-type individual in Comey's new book, based on their time together in the Manhattan DA's office........which probably explains why a) Rudy felt the need to call Comey a "liar" in the Fox News interview, and b) why he is so keen on a fellow narcissist like Trumpet.

Guilliaini seems like a shadow of the guy who helped NYC through the post-9/11 crisis........verging on unhinged.
 
While I've found Guilliani's politics opportunistic to say the least, I thought his contribution to handling the 9/11 crisis was to be admired.
He really has gone completely off the rails since then.

Calling the Mueller investigators and the southern district of New York DA's office (of which he was once a member) storm troopers is beyond the pale.
Watching his "conversation" with Hannity is more than cringe worthy

Seems like everybody that gets in Trump's orbit is poisoned beyond repair.
Most likely this derangement was always lurking just beneath the surface and Trump has just helped bring it out in the open.

Chris Cuomo, part of New York royalty, who hosts New Day on CNN and knows him well and has respect for the guy, was totally baffled and saddened on air today as to how this turn of events was even possible.
 
It's almost certainly the case that the FBI have picked up enough evidence from their raid on Cohen's office/ hotel/ home, to blow apart Trump's explanation that he knew nothing about the payment. That being so, Trump's team had little option. They could either continue peddling their lie and look even more stupid when it was exposed, or get a willing stooge like Rudy to come clean and endure 48 hrs of bad publicity but probably draw the sting which would otherwise be involved with having it come out in court with all the attendant implications of perjury
 
Would appear that NBC are now reporting that the FBI had been wire tapping Michael Cohen. Suffice to say Giuliani has blown a gasket and called it illegal and heaven knows what else

I can't help wondering if Rudy has missed a few things in his emotional reaction though?

This referral to New York's southern district came from Robert Mueller. He came into something which needn't be within the compass of the special counsel, but which he felt was evidence of a crime. Michael Cohens name (like that of Carter Page) cropped up the Christopher Steele dossier. In Cohen's case there was a quite specific reference to a secret meeting he was alleged to have attended in Prague with a hacking team working to Russian direction. Cohen of course has denied this, and tried to present his passport as evidence he'd never been to the Czech Republic. Well in the first case if its in Schengen area he wouldn't get a passport stamp anyway provided he entered through another country. Worth noting that when FBI seized Paul Manafort's material they found eight different passports (or something like that - Manafort's password was Bond007 incidentally - gives you some idea as to the mind-set of these characters). It's also been noted of course that Cohen's daughter had posted pictures on her Facebook page that placed her Italy during this period. Anyway, I digress, there was a report doing the rounds a month ago that Mueller had unearthed evidence that Cohen was in Germany at broadly the time that Steele reported the Czech meeting to have taken place. Smoke and mirrors of course, and that's the last we heard of it

If I'm joining the dots up though, it seems to indicate that the FBI have used a FISA warrant against Michael Cohen, and its this which has allowed to wire tap him, in which case they will have acted legally, and Rudy Giuliani is barking up the wrong tree. During the process of this surveillance they've come into evidence about money laundering, bank fraud, wire fraud, and the Stormy Daniels case which Mueller has then referred to New York's southern district
 
All fine and well this Giuliani nonesense but tell me what I really am most curious to hear from you, is Cracksman going to be better than Enable :)
 
Stormy Daniels is a sight more interesting than any bloody racehorse, and especially a pair that you're hardly going to get rich on. Find the 20/1 winner of the 0-70 handicap at Leicester instead, it pays more than any Gp1 superstar
 
No wonder you packed it in, not always about the betting.
I will give you that SD is a sight more interesting :cool:
 
She's about $500,000 short on her crowd funding target to continue her action. Unless Michael Avenatti is prepared to go Pro Bona she might run out of dough yet.

Avenatti tweeted this again in the last few hours

There are no PACs, no political party, no special interests, no fat cat donors, no secret club, and no aliens covering the costs of our legal fight. Period. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, they should present it now. Otherwise, pipe down. Go to ​
http://crowdjustice.org
 
Last edited:
This one's just taken another twist in the last hour as Stormy Daniels has filed a case against Keith Davidson (her former attorney) alleging involvement with Trump

Allow me to fill in anyone who hasn't been keeping up to speed

Davidson represented Daniels in the negotiation of the $130,000 settlement and DNA (non-disclosure agreement). Michael Cohen represented Trump. It's long been a subject of speculation as to why Daniels got such a poor deal and low pay-out.

Daniels ultimately withdrew instruction from Davidson and engaged Michael Avenatti (a publicity shy attorney from LA).

For the past few weeks Avenatti has been teeing up Davidson as having played a questionable role in negotiating his client a suspiciously poor detrimental settlement and encouraging her to accept disadvantageous terms.

There are only three possible explanations I can see for Davidsons performance

1: Incompetance (it isn't illegal to be not very good at your job)
2: Coersion through intimidation and ultimately capitulation
3: Collusion

The first doesn't seem that likely. I'm pretty certain (IIRC) that Davidson represented Karen McDougall against Trump in another NDA case. McDougall had a 10 month affair, Stormy Daniels a one night stand. Davidson succeeded in getting McDougall a significant payment however. This must weigh as evidence that he knew what the market rate for silence 2 weeks before polling day was

This leaves the other two options

Did Michael Cohen and/ or other individuals from the Trump orbit threaten Keith Davidson to the point where he felt sufficiently intimidated to persuade his client to accept a poor deal? That could be Davidson's best explanation, as the alternative one (and the one that Daniels appears to be alleging) is that Donald Trump has paid Keith Davidson a commission to persuade his client to accept a detrimental deal. In any other language its called bribery, and quite possibly obstruction of justice (albeit this is a civil settlement rather than a criminal one) so I wouldn't be certain

It's worth noting that Avenatti has periodically released a few emails between Michael Cohen and Keith Davidson suggesting that he has access to them. It's also widely believed that when the FBI did a 'no knock' raid on Cohen's office they were able to capture 17 cell phones and numerous hard drives with 3 million emails on them

Earlier today Avenatti tweeted a weather forecast "there's a storm coming". If they've got evidence that Davidson entered into an agreement with Trump to corrupt a payment in his favour, Trump has a problem. Davidson is bound to get debarred unless he can somehow implicate Trump as having acted with menace and threat (in which case he might get a lesser sentence). He's going to make for an interesting witness
 
Avenatti has just tweeted a subtle hint which you might need to decode the nuance of in order to work out where he feels the balance of likelihoods regarding Davidson might lie

"
Keith Davidson should have been charged after his arrest for extortion not long ago. He is a disgrace to the profession. Watch him now try and distract away from his own unethical conduct. Ms. Daniels deserved better. ​
https:/""
 
Seems like Michael Cohen is on the look out for new legal representatives as of tonight. It's not immediately clear what's happened, but either he's withdrawn instruction, or they've taken the view they no longer want to represent him
 
Within the last few hours we might have had a significant development on this one which could begin to unravel spectacularly. I'll try and explain it, as it becomes a bit complicated if you haven't following things

Shera Bechard (plaintiff) has filed sealed charges against Elliot Broidy, Keith Davidson, and Michael Avenatti, plus 20 other Does (a Doe as in John or Jane Doe is standard legal shorthand for anonymous/ unnamed)

Let me fill you

Shera Bechard is yet another former playboy playmate (someone seems to be targeting them) who was under an NDA (non disclosure agreement) about a relationship she had with Elliott Broidy (Californian GOP finance chair and very wealthy businessman) which resulted in Ms Bechard becoming pregnant and having a termination. Broidy agreed to pay her $200,000 in eight installments in return for her silence, but has seemingly indicated he's no longing willing to, and won't be making the third payment. All this sounds run of the mill so far, but it's worth putting some of the pieces together

Keith Davidson was her original solicitor who brokered this agreement from her side. Davidson is a Californian attorney whose principal line of business is celebrity blackmail cases. He came to notoriety with the Hulk Hogan sex tape, but also represented Karen McDougall (another playboy playmate) in her 'catch and kill' story with the National Enquirer and Stormy Daniels in her NDA. Both ladies of course allege relationships with Donald Trump, and both subsequently sacked Davidson who they eventually came to realise was working against their interests, but was instead colluding with Michael Cohen (Trump's so-called personal fixer and occasional attorney). Cohen is a qualified attorney but hardly does any substantive legal work and has very few cases on record. When forced to declare his client list by the NYSD he only had three (Trump, Broidy and Hannity)

Anyway, a few months ago Michael Avanetti whilst discussing the Stormy case on MSNBC teased the following

“I think at some point we are going to find out, if in fact the client in connection with the [$1.6 million] settlement was, in fact, Mr. Broidy, I’m going to leave it at that.”​

Last night on Twitter Avenatti was cryptic again when responding to news of the identity of Cohen's latest attorney

"The info he has (Cohen) is far too critical to the country... For instance, imagine if people later discover that he had info relating to Trump's true "beliefs" re Roe yet did nothing"

The reference to 'Roe' is the landmark Supreme Court ruling Roe v Wade on a woman's right to abortion. Amongst Republicans and evangelicals this is a serious hot button electoral issue, out ranked only by that of the second amendment (the right to bear arms) in the irrational barmy league table of emotive issues. Roe v Wade is likely to be under threat again with the appointment of a new supreme justice

Starting to lose the thread myself a bit now

Anyway, there would be little obvious reason for Broidy to reach out to Cohen as regards handling the Bechard NDA. Broidy himself has convictions for bribing public officials and a history of buying in top legal counsel. Cohen is Donald Trump fixer and a barely qualified attorney. He's also a New Yorker, Broidy a Californian. They might have met in GOP circles (it's widely accepted that they would have done) but that still wouldn't make Cohen your 'go to man'. What is also suspicious is the sheer size of the payment. $1.6m, for a man who was hardly known (even in California) and whose reputation (if one exists at all) is based on questionable business deals rather than maintaining a public image

So here's the hypothesis

Broidy didn't have a relationship with Bechard. It wasn't Broidy who got her pregnant. Neither was it Broidy who forced her into a termination. It was Donald Trump

Davidson contacted Cohen, who then set about arranging an NDA and a mechanism to pay Bechard. Cohen couldn't make any payments that tied himself or Trump to Bechard or Davidson. Instead they needed someone else to claim to have been the person concerned, and Becahrd needed to corroborate this in return for the money. Broidy has the means to make the payment, no history of philandering, a wife who seems equally obsessed with money and acquiring influence, and so to them at least, it looks like a decent transaction. They get some investigations which could jeopardise their own investment activities in Malaysia dropped, and they make about $40m as a result. In return Elliott Broidy, who admitted to making the payment to Bechard straight away when challenged (which kind of defeats the object of paying push money!) agrees to pay Becahrd and claim that it was he who made her pregnant

So why has Broidy stopped paying her?

Well because the FBI have raided Cohen's office, recovered his phones, recovered his shredded documents, and got his hard drives. As they comb through this, they discover that its Trump who has made Becahrd pregnant and that Cohen has persuaded Broidy to take the fall (remember Cohen only named three clients in the NYSD disclosure). How the hell, or why on earth, has Broidy even ended up as a Cohen client

With this news likely to break, and Cohen showing signs that he's likely to be co-operating with the Feds very shortly, Broidy has decided to end the arrangement and refuse to make future instalments. Bechard can suddenly see a lot of money she was hoping to make on the back of her abortion turning to dust and has issued proceedings against the plaintiffs named (plus about 20 others who I assume are journalists)
 
Last edited:
This get's funnier

As I was reading Avenatti twitter feed in the last 5 mins he tweeted an update, and has filed to take Bechard deposition under oath on July 16th. I'd be amazed if he's allowed to, but it basically permits him to ask the pointed questions. It's clear to me at least that he thinks Donald Trump got her pregnant and not Elliott Broidy.
 
Time to update this after events in the last few hours over in California

Two of the three counts that Peter Stris and Shera Bechard have brought against Michael Avenatti have been thrown out. Avenatti has been granted leave to file to recover his costs against them. Naturally Avenatti is proclaiming a victory, but the third count has been allowed to proceed which Avenatti is appealing

We never knew what the counts were, and I'd speculated previously that it was a loss of income claim brought against Avenatti by Bechard in connection with him undermining her NDA with Broidy to the extent that Broidy ceased making payments on it. Such an action never looked likely to succeed given that Avenatti was never a signatory to the NDA. It now appears however, that the allegation might be that Avenatti has obtained personal details of her claim against Broidy through Keith Davidson, her former attorney and the person who represented her in having the original NDA drawn up - (Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's then self-styled 'fixer' drew that NDA up)

Why is this significant?

Well if Davidson has disclosed the true nature of the circumstances that led to the formation of the Bechard NDA, then he (Avenatti) knows who got Shera Bechard pregnant, which ultimately resulted in her having an abortion.

What could have happened is this I believe.

Avenatti has boxed Keith Davidson into a corner, as he had Michael Cohen. These two were then representing Bechard and Broidy respectively. Davidson would have been bound by client / attorney privilege and shouldn't disclose any information to Avenatti. But Davidson is in deep trouble over the Stormy Daniels NDA. The allegation seems to be that Avenatti has applied pressure to Davidson, (perhaps using Daniels as leverage) to secure details of the Bechard case and got it.

Bechard has subsequently fired Davidson and instructed Peter Stris to act for her (same attorney who represented Karen McDougall in her victory against AMI)

They sued Avenatti for seeking information about Bechard (and have also sued Davidson on the same motion)

It's perhaps worth looking at Avenatti's behaviour during the period which we now believe he's been in possession of the information. He has been leaving a trail of breadcrumbs about 'Roe' (a reference to the landmark abortion ruling Roe v Wade) and cryptically suggested it would be interesting to know how Donald Trump really thinks about it. He's also suggested on national television that we might one day discover that Broidy isn't the person who got the former playboy model pregnant and that the person who did it might very well be someone else. Who though?

Urm .. now why would Donald Trump's fixer be involved in drawing up the NDA for what is really a Californian affair. If only we could think of someone who has a history of chasing after playboy models? Why would an obscure GOP donor who has mysteriously benefited hugely in the last 18 months from Trump administration contracts, agree to pay $1.6M to a model. It's almost as if he's agreeing to take the fall for someone who needs to be protected

In the last half hour, Broidy has filed an emergency petition with the Californian courts to prevent the documentation being unsealed on the grounds that its embarrassing to him and will cause him both constitutional and reputational damage that would be irrepairable. He might get a 10 day stay on this, but his case is weakening
​
 
Last edited:
Why does any of this matter? You could tie yourself in knots with US legal jargon.
 
Because it resulted in an abortion which is a massive hot button issue for a certain sect of Republicans.

The big issue is was it Broidy or Trump? I honestly don't have a view. I think there's clear testimony to say its Broidy, but plenty of compelling circumstantial evidence to implicate Trump too. The only people who know for certain are the two people who had sex, plus Bechard's original attorney as he must have been given a name to approach someone in the first place, and they must recognised the legitimacy of the claim in order to have the NDA drawn up and a payment schedule agreed.

We know Davidson approached Cohen. Why? Cohen lives on the other side of the country, and had a client book of one at the time (he tried to tag Sean Hannity onto his list of clients later). Cohen isn't a legal expert in anything, and has barely taken a case to prosecution in his life. Why would anyone reach out to Michael Cohen?

There are two explanations, and both seem plausible

1: Davidson is something of a crook who doesn't observe client fiduciary responsibility. He saw this as a potential earner for him and a partner (Cohen). He knew Cohen had an NDA already drawn up because he'd originally represented Stormy Daniels. He duly rings Cohen and says 'hey, do you know Elliott Broidy? Well you might want to get in contact with him because …. "

2: Davidson contacts Cohen because Trump is the person who got Bechard pregnant. Cohen says 'leave it with me, I'll find someone in California who'll agree to say it was them in return for some favourable contracts'. He duly gets back in touch with Davidson and says a GOP donor with a history of bribery convictions called Elliott Broidy has agreed to say it was him

Either scenario could be true to my thinking. Davidson knows I reckon, but Davidson is a seriously unreliable witness, and certainly if he isn't under oath.

If Donald Trump has got Shera Bechard in the months leading up to polling day, and forced her into having an abortion, that doesn't sit very well with at least evangelical voters. It also casts huge questions marks of his supposed pro-life stance

I should have added of course, the greater damage to Trump will come from the subsequent awards of federal contracts (totalling about $60m) to Broidy. That's not all he's done. Broidy's business interests have also been greatly assisted by the US government dropping fraud investigations into some of the businesses he trades closely with in Malaysia and the UAE, and Trump's also altered some policy platforms (particularly in favour of the UAE and against Qatar) that has allowed Broidy to benefit financially. This is swamping the drain
 
Last edited:
On a slight tangent, in the last few hours Michael Cohen has issued Michael Avenatti with a notice of voluntary dismissal from the Stormy Daniels DNA case (he's dropped the allegations and all claims against her and sought to dismiss himself from the case). In other words, she's won, he's lost

This comes in the wake of Trump's desperate filing to the California court over the weekend where he's now contending that he has never been of the opinion that the DNA was legally formed (no contract existed now according to Trump) which he's now using as an attempt to slip the noose. In other words he too is surrendering but trying to do so on grounds of the fact that because the contract was never legally formed he can't be deposed under oath about it. Basically Trump is kakking himself about having to answer Avenatti's questions with the near certainty that he'll commit perjury

Avenatti did of course file a defamation suit against both Cohen and Trump months ago as he'd anticipated that they would eventually see sense and realise they were going to lose and seek to extricate themselves by simply dropping the claims against Daniels and paying her costs, rather than face a hearing where they'd have to plead the 5th amendment to avoid and even more catastrophic loss.

I'm not as convinced that the defamation case is as strong as the NDA case, but Avenatti is now fighting to get something into a court so as to permit him to take deposition from the pair as they're bound to blame each other, which means he'll be granted power of discovery which permits him to ask related questions which they have to answer under oath in order to help establish a pattern of behaviour

Stormy Daniels recently appeared on Dutch TV and was asked if there was anything "she knew, that the rest of us didn't yet". She said there was, and that in her opinion it stood a 50/50 chance of bringing Trump down. Avenatti was subsequently asked about her answer and confirmed he knew what she was referring to, and that in his opinion the future revelation stood a better chance than 50/50.

My own guess is that it has to be that Donald Trump and not Elliott Broidy got Shera Bechard pregnant. That in itself needn't be terminal to his political career, albeit damaging with the pro-life lobby. What will constitute a 'high crime and misdemeanour' is how Broidy was subsequently compensated for his agreement to take the fall on behalf of Trump. The Trump administration has awarded $40m of contracts to Broidy's company, they've dropped a criminal investigation into a significant Malaysian business partner which has also been worth a lot of money for Broidy, and also adopted a policy favourable to another Broidy business interest in the UAE. In any normal country, this would be considered corruption
 
Back
Top