Avenatti launches his first political ad

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

In another sign he's taking steps toward a presidential run, Michael Avenatti on Thursday is releasing his first political ad, in which he calls for Americans to harness their anger and head to the polls on Tuesday.

The ad, first obtained by POLITICO, will be released digitally on Twitter and Facebook, with a shortened version appearing on Instagram. Avenatti, best known for representing porn actress Stormy Daniels, would not say how much he’s spending on the spot except that “it’s sizable.”

The ad opens with individuals of different races and ethnicities, repeating: “We the people,” until one finishes with: “Are mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.”

“Enough with the lies,” one person says into the camera. “Enough with the bigotry,” says another. “If you put big money first and us second, your time is done,” says another.

(video embedded)

Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/01/avenatti-political-ad-953758

[Perseus]

1. What is the status of his defense on Stormy Daniels?

If he doesn't win the case in favour of Daniels he can say goodbye to his political aspirations, that will be a red line against him which republicans will exploit forever.

[jberryhill]

2. He is not "defending" Daniels, she is the plaintiff

He has filed two lawsuits in which she is the plaintiff:

1. The contract lawsuit against Cohen's company and Trump. The goal of this case is to have the "hush agreement" rescinded, and to have a declaration that the contract was void. The current status of that case it that the defendants have filed motions to dismiss as requested by the judge, on the grounds that they have already agreed that the contract is void, and hence the case is now moot. Avenatti filed his reply to those motions on October 26, and these motions will be heard on December 3.

2. The defamation case against Trump. This case was premised on claimed economic harm to Daniels arising from Trump's statement that her claim of being threatened in 2011 was a "con job". That case was dismissed under the Texas Anti-Slapp provisions pertinent to defamation claims, because Daniels is a Texas resident. The court has also ordered Daniels to pay Trump's legal fees in that case. Avenatti has filed a notice of appeal.

[Perseus]

3. Thank you for the clarification

You are correct that he is not "defending" her, she is the plaintiff, but what I was referring to was the second point, he lost that case, I understand that Avenatti filed a notice of appeal, but if he does not succeed and Daniels is actually ordered to pay, that will be a very high mountain to climb for Avenatti. Don't get me wrong, I like Avenatti, and I am hoping that he succeeds in all his cases, mostly against the man-child, but he does need to win those cases to have a positive impact in his political career.

[jberryhill]

5. It depends on how you define "succeed"

The defamation case was doomed from the start. Even taking all of the allegations as true, the notion that her dispute with Trump has harmed her economically is just plain nuts. It is pretty much the core of her career at this point.

On the contract case, the problem is that that they have already succeeded. The defendants have agreed to everything the plaintiff was seeking in that case. While you say that he has to "win" it, that is also a problem. He's already "won" that case in any practical sense. The other side has conceded. The problem is that the case is itself a publicity vehicle (see above). The worst thing is neither winning nor losing, but simply ending either way - or at least it is once one has gotten pretty far afield from "serving one's client's best interests".

On balance, Daniels is better off. Leaving aside the external stuff like her book sales and appearances, she started at several million dollars down because of the arbitration decision, and was originally suing for the right to simply pay back the $130k. As things will likely turn out IMHO, she's not going to have to pay back the $130k in the contract case, but will end up having to pay something less than that in the defamation case. "Reasonable" in that case shouldn't be too far north of $50k max.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

4. I say let him do all the dirty work against Trump so that a sane Democrat can win

[iluvtennis]

6. +++ agree.

[LiberalLovinLug]

8. Kind of what, I'm sure, Republicans were saying about Trump.

Use him to get out the popular vote. But hey, he's not actually going to win right?

I mean, voters don't want brash, fighters, not afraid to say whats on their mind and go low with their opponents if need be. I'm sure some more monotone, party sanctioned, technocrat will be the one in the end right?

[bucolic_frolic]

7. It's a good ad, he really does understand that Trump is juicing turnout with anger

and this matches the Orange Menace's tactics

Dozens of races will be close, we can't allow race-baiting anger to defeat us