Who is paying Michael Avenatti?

[Danoh]

Its a question I myself having been wondering about.

Trump is dirty, through and through. He is the same old Trump who in his first book endlessly brags about using all sorts of both corrupt tactics and corrupt individuals (even known criminals) in the service of his unbridled greed and vanity.

Still, the question this thread is titled with is one I have been wondering about.

Avenatti has gone from asserting that Giuliani's obvious, on the spot fabrication (that Trump was paying Cohen back his $130,000 Daniels payment, at the rate of $35,000 a month), was true, to the later awareness that the money actually came from a huge, multi-million dollar fund of dirty money.

(though obviously no where near the hundreds of millions of dollars the Chinese recently directly bribed Trump with).

I've been wondering just where Avenati is getting his rather too accurate info from?

So exactly who is paying Michael Avenatti? And is he a lawyer, an opposition researcher, a journalist, or a campaign operative?

For the rest of the article, click on the link below:

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/387088-who-is-paying-michael-avenatti

 

[annabenedetti]

From Avenatti's twitter account:

Who is paying my legal bills? Yet again, here is the answer (in Dropbox). The next time you see a "journalist" ask this same question, please join me in mocking them for their inability to do basic research. #basta


At the above link there's a statement from Avenatti linked to Dropbox and I can't copy/paste it. He says in part: "ALL fees and expenses of this case have either been funded by our client, Ms. Stephanie Clifford, or by donations from our crowdjustice.com page... No political party or PAC is funding this effort. No left wing conspiracy group is behind this. And no fat cat political donors are leading the charge..."


Clifford's Crowd Justice page shows a current amount pledged of $493,380 by 14,455 people.

 

[musterion]

Glad you bros settled that one. Go out and have a soy latte. My treat.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

......Trump is dirty, through and through. ......

You are a liar, through and trough.

 

[Danoh]

Glad you bros settled that one. Go out and have a soy latte. My treat.

Uh, oh, extremist paranoid Musti senses a conspiracy where there was none, once more.

What a character.

:chuckle:

 

[musterion]

Trump is, to be fair, dirty, by moral standards. Been saying that since he won.

But he's governing more conservatively than pretty much anyone expected.

More importantly, he's not Clinton.

And that's really all that counts.

 

[Danoh]

Trump is, to be fair, dirty, by moral standards Been saying that since he won.

But he's governing more conservatively than pretty much anyone expected.

More importantly, he's not Clinton.

And that's really all that counts.

There is a good reason why he and the Clintons were pals all those years - both have a long, long history of selling out their own for a buck.

Trump is presently doing just that - selling out our country piece by piece and by whatever means further enriches his Trump Organization.

Still, where Avenatti is getting his obviously accurate Intel from is just as suspect as Trump's most recent sell out - to China.

We will have to disagree on some of these things concerning Trump - until it massively hits the fan it surely will, and from many sides all at once.

 

[musterion]

I didn't vote for Trump to be a moral paragon anymore than I expect any other politician to be such -- no matter what THEY may claim about themselves (many imply they are such paragons of virtue and almost invariably show themselves to be as immoral as anyone else; Trump has NEVER made such a claim about himself).

What I did hire Trump to do is stop and hopefully reverse the damage being done to this Republic by people such as yourself. And so far, fighting the tsunami of the global swamp, he's doing surprisingly well.

 

[Tambora]

I didn't vote for Trump to be a moral paragon anymore than I expect any other politician to be such -- no matter what THEY may claim about themselves (many imply they are such paragons of virtue and almost invariably show themselves to be as immoral as anyone else; Trump has NEVER made such a claim about himself).

What I did hire Trump to do is stop and hopefully reverse the damage being done to this Republic by people such as yourself. And so far, fighting the tsunami of the global swamp, he's doing surprisingly well.

:thumb:

 

[Danoh]

I didn't vote for Trump to be a moral paragon anymore than I expect any other politician to be such -- no matter what THEY may claim about themselves (many imply they are such paragons of virtue and almost invariably show themselves to be as immoral as anyone else; Trump has NEVER made such a claim about himself).

What I did hire Trump to do is stop and hopefully reverse the damage being done to this Republic by people such as yourself. And so far, fighting the tsunami of the global swamp, he's doing surprisingly well.

Calm down, that's just you being your usually self-deluded; narrow minded extremist; paranoid; bigoted self.

I began this thread because the question of what might be Avanatti's actual sources has been on my mind and had hoped others might have something of worth to input on said question.

As usual, you right off saw a conspiracy on my part, where there was none.

You and your kind really are truly pathetic.

:chuckle:

 

[annabenedetti]

Missing Files Motivated the Leak of Michael Cohen’s Financial Records
A law-enforcement official released the documents after finding that additional suspicious transactions did not appear in a government database.

Last week, several news outlets obtained financial records showing that Michael Cohen, President Trump’s personal attorney, had used a shell company to receive payments from various firms with business before the Trump Administration. In the days since, there has been much speculation about who leaked the confidential documents, and the Treasury Department’s inspector general has launched a probe to find the source. That source, a law-enforcement official, is speaking publicly for the first time, to The New Yorker, to explain the motivation: the official had grown alarmed after being unable to find two important reports on Cohen’s financial activity in a government database. The official, worried that the information was being withheld from law enforcement, released the remaining documents.

The payments to Cohen that have emerged in the past week come primarily from a single document, a “suspicious-activity report” filed by First Republic Bank, where Cohen’s shell company, Essential Consultants, L.L.C., maintained an account. The document detailed sums in the hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to Cohen by the pharmaceutical company Novartis, the telecommunications giant A.T. & T., and an investment firm with ties to the Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg.

The report also refers to two previous suspicious-activity reports, or SARs, that the bank had filed, which documented even larger flows of questionable money into Cohen’s account. Those two reports detail more than three million dollars in additional transactions—triple the amount in the report released last week. Which individuals or corporations were involved remains a mystery. But, according to the official who leaked the report, these SARs were absent from the database maintained by the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN. The official, who has spent a career in law enforcement, told me, “I have never seen something pulled off the system. . . . That system is a safeguard for the bank. It’s a stockpile of information. When something’s not there that should be, I immediately became concerned.” The official added, “That’s why I came forward.”

Seven former government officials and other experts familiar with the Treasury Department’s FinCEN database expressed varying levels of concern about the missing reports. Some speculated that FinCEN may have restricted access to the reports due to the sensitivity of their content, which they said would be nearly unprecedented. One called the possibility “explosive.” A record-retention policy on FinCEN’s Web site notes that false documents or those “deemed highly sensitive” and “requiring strict limitations on access” may be transferred out of its master file. Nevertheless, a former prosecutor who spent years working with the FinCEN database said that she knew of no mechanism for restricting access to SARs. She speculated that FinCEN may have taken the extraordinary step of restricting access “because of the highly sensitive nature of a potential investigation. It may be that someone reached out to FinCEN to ask to limit disclosure of certain SARs related to an investigation, whether it was the special counsel or the Southern District of New York.” (The special counsel, Robert Mueller, is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. The Southern District is investigating Cohen, and the F.B.I. raided his office and hotel room last month.)

Whatever the explanation for the missing reports, the appearance that some, but not all, had been removed or restricted troubled the official who released the report last week. “Why just those two missing?” the official, who feared that the contents of those two reports might be permanently withheld, said. “That’s what alarms me the most.”​

More at the link.