Avenatti: "We have a litany of more evidence in this case, and its going to be disclosed"

[Miles Archer]

The attorney, Michael Avenatti, also reiterated his claim that Daniels possesses a trove of evidence to support her story. His TV blitz showed that the controversy surrounding the alleged affair—and the very real possibility that the Trump campaign violated campaign finance laws to keep Daniels quiet—was far from over.

“We have a litany of more evidence in this case, and it’s going to be disclosed, and it’s going to be laid bare for the American public,” Avenatti told Good Morning America.

“Direct evidence from President Trump that would prove an affair?” host George Stephanopoulos asked.

“Absolutely,” Avenatti responded. He did not reveal what kind of evidence Daniels might have.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/stormy-daniels-lawyer-promises-to-reveal-a-trove-of-evidence-proving-trump-affair/

Link to tweet

[leftynyc]

1. Until they serve up proof

Far too many in middle America are going to ignore this. I was disappointed they didn't show any proof last night.

[jberryhill]

2. Tune in next week...

...for another thrilling episode of "the really good stuff is just around the corner."

“Direct evidence from President Trump that would prove an affair?” host George Stephanopoulos asked.

“Absolutely,” Avenatti responded. He did not reveal what kind of evidence Daniels might have.

Is there anyone that doubts they had sex?

[HipChick]

4. Lawyer is playing Chess, while Trump team is trying to figure out tic-tac-toe

[jberryhill]

5. To what end?

The only thing that has happened is that Daniels has filed suit in state court to rescind a contract in order to get out from under an adverse arbitration award. The other side has filed a notice of removal to federal court.

What do these television appearance do to advance any proposition in the litigation toward a favorable ruling from a court?

[tonyt53]

6. Even in federal court, the laws of the state (CA in this matter) are the rule.

He is keeping this in the public eye and making people talk about it. Team trump has to guess what comes next. Show all your cards up front, and you will lose. Drag it out until the other side makes a mistake, and you win. So far, his strategy is winning.

[jberryhill]

7. What does making people talk about it have to do with winning a case?

In the quote above, Avenatti is talking about having proof they had sex. That's not even an issue in dispute in the lawsuit.

And as far as "showing your cards up front" is concerned, yes, that's exactly what you are required to do at the appropriate stage of the litigation.

[tonyt53]

10. Ah, but what you are seeing on TV isn't litigation. It is one-upping.

That causes the party on the other side to make mistakes.

[Miles Archer]

12. I believe he actually said that...

...and his reputation is still on the line if he's bluffing.

I don't know...so far, nothing has been revealed that is outside of what we'd expect, based on Trump's past behavior. He likes to invite women to his room for unprotected sex on the first "date."

McDougal was invited to the Beverly Hills Hotel for "dinner," and she probably had visions of an expensive restaurant meal, and it turned out to be unprotected sex in Trump's bungalow.

My "WTF" moment in last night's Daniels interview was when she said

I realized exactly what I'd gotten myself into. And I was like, "Ugh, here we go." (LAUGH) And I just felt like maybe-- (LAUGH) it was sort of-- I had it coming for making a bad decision for going to someone's room alone and I just heard the voice in my head, "well, you put yourself in a bad situation and bad things happen, so you deserve this."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stormy-daniels-describes-her-alleged-affair-with-donald-trump-60-minutes-interview/

She "deserved" sex with Trump?

Meanwhile, Cohen is issuing "cease and desist" orders against people who talk about Michael Cohen being Michael Cohen.

Trump's silence on this is telling, though. I'm sure he's being told to STFU while this plays out, but it definitely goes against his nature.

[leftynyc]

15. Nobody cares about the sex

Only about the payoff and the threats.

[jberryhill]

17. She's not even suing about the 2011 threat

...and she's certainly not disputing the payoff.

[cyclonefence]

3. I don't understand

why any more proof is needed, or what we're trying to prove here. First of all, they had sex *once* which to me sounds like a one-night stand, not an affair. Second, it was clear to me that she was continuing to take his calls and stringing him along (he was obviously hoping for more sex) to see if she could get on the Apprentice. I just don't get it--there must be something else going on here because Spanky and his lawyers are so frothed up, but we already knew he was an unfaithful husband and a creepy guy about his daughter--why is Stormy Daniels so threatening to Spanky and his gang?

I guess the best that could happen is we could find out that campaign funds were used to silence her, which would be aces, but I really don't understand how she could possibly harm Spanky personally more than she has already. Which I think is minimally.

[Lint Head]

8. There is a reason the evidence is coming out in drips and drabs.

It keeps the story alive. It also keeps Trump twisting in the wind in regard to the story. There is a lawsuit involved but I think there is also more to the story unrelated to the lawsuit. The lawyer has to keep his focus on that suit and everything related to it. There is more to this than just the act of sex.

[Locrian]

18. drips and drabs

mental picture.... ewww

[Lint Head]

19. Ha!

[dameatball]

9. "laid bare"..........:)

[dalton99a]

11. Avenatti didn't get where he is by being stupid.

[Miles Archer]

13. No, he didn't.

The bluff has already been called. I don't see him pursuing this unless he has a solid reason to do so.

[oswaldactedalone]

14. But all the teasing is getting tiresome

Spell it out soon or lose credibility.

[MrsCoffee]

16. I'm thinking unprotected sex may have led to an abortion.

Just thinking of the paternity clause. Abortion, miscarriage. Adoption less likely but possible. Something along those lines. I read that she didn't decide she wanted kids until after she got married. She would obviously have medical records, etc. to prove it.

It would have been incredibly sloppy for his lawyer to include that language about paternity in there for no reason.