Stormy Daniels’ lawyer Michael Avenatti sought legal funding from major Democratic operatives, according to a Friday New York Times report.
Avenatti personally contacted Bradley Beychok, president of the progressive PAC American Bridge, in March, reportedly seeking $2 million to help with the assorted legal costs of Daniels’ case. Beychok declined, officials at American Bridge deciding that the case was not a good use of their funds.
Avenatti reportedly said that he may have contacted Mr. Beychock, but that “we have not sought any money from anyone on the right or the left.”
Unnamed sources also told the Times that members of Avenatti’s law firm had reached out to two people connected to Democratic donors, but that those conversations did not result in any money either.
Avenatti also reportedly said on Thursday that Daniels is no longer paying his attorney’s fees, and that that bill, as well as security costs, arbitration, and potential damages are being paid by the $527,000 raised on a crowdfunding website.
“I can’t tell you the name of every person that I have spoken to, or not spoken to, over the last three months,” Avenatti told the New York Times. “But what I can tell you is that we have not taken any political-associated dollars from anyone on the right or anyone on the left. Period.”
I really don’t know why the fuck either Trumpistas or the MSM think attacking Avenatti is going to be a winning formula for the Great Orange Gasbag. Same as w/ claim that Dems funded the Steele dossier: does partisan sponsorship somehow magically render the factual data impotent?
And not just it doesn’t look like a political winner, I also don’t see WTF is wrong with an attorney seeking to recover his client’s financial exposure from any source short of illegal ones.
The Stormy defense already has a crowd-funding site up. And it’s obvious what she’s doing in these court proceedings and what Avenatti is doing on her behalf have the effect, intended or not, of serving the interests of Dem partisans. So, why NOT seek funding from Dem backers?
Indeed, if there’s any reasonable chance of getting such funding, AND it’s n his client’s best interests to pursuit this option, wouldn’t it be professional breach of duty NOT to pursue it?
Maybe not, but it is a classic tactic to raise, at least a doubt, as to the impartiality or reliability of the sponsored person or information. I’m just glad the Dem operatives said no.
To R’s, merely existing in the same universe as a Democrat renders all information “fake news”.
You make a solid point, and I agree totally. My understanding is that the origin of the dossier was early on in the GOP primary. I think that fact has been lost amidst the Sinclair, Fux News and Brietbart noise machine.
My two cents.