After weeks of eager praise from the dishonest media, Stormy Daniels’ attorney Michael Avenatti was finally exposed for the cheap publicity stuntman that he truly is.
The moment came on CNN of all places, when legal expert Paul Callan decided it was time for someone to be the adult in the room with respect to the laughable legal sideshow that the media has treated with the gravity of Watergate.
Many observers had long been asking what exactly Stormy Daniels was after. What we all knew with relative certainty is that President Trump probably did have sex with her, and that Trump’s attorney — Michael Cohen — probably did negotiate a legal agreement with Daniels that traded cash for silence.
With all the most salacious details already leaked back in January, Daniels eventually went on 60 Minutes and personally revealed all of those same details on the record for the world to hear.
At that point many were left wondering: “Okay. And?” Even liberal Kirsten Powers was unimpressed with the story, given the constant coverage it had received.
What was left? Why was this still a story? Yes the President probably had sex with her, and yes a deal was probably negotiated to keep that indiscretion out of the headlines. No one was actually shocked by any of this. For most people, the only real question that came up amid the whole ordeal was how Daniels could sign a non-disclosure agreement, accept the cash that was negotiated in that agreement, and then months later break that agreement without any repercussion. And I’m guessing, unfortunately, we’ll never get an answer to that question because substantive intellectual curiosity is entirely moot for the media if they can exchange it for an opportunity to trash President Trump.
But as she and her attorney noted for so long, all she wanted was for people to be able to hear her story. And I think it’s safe to say that after the 60 Minutes interview with an enthusiastically supportive Anderson Cooper, her story had been told.
So what’s left? Why were we still talking about it? Why are media consumers stuck listening to 8 person panels on CNN take turns talking about how “brilliant” Daniels’ attorney is?
“He’s navigated this perfectly,” they’d often begin. “He’s got this drip drip drip and you know it’s just destroying Trump who is no doubt sitting in the White House watching it all play out. In many ways, he’s out-Trumping Trump.” That was the drumbeat for weeks from literally every host and guest on CNN. Intellectually honest viewers saw right through it, of course. We knew that the only reason Avenatti was able to “keep it in the headlines” was because the people who write the headlines, and set the agenda for CNN’s broadcasts, all hate Trump and will do anything they can to hurt him. It had nothing to do with a substantive legal matter and it certainly didn’t have anything to do with Michael The Ambulance Chaser Avenatti being some brilliant legal mind.
But again, the question persisted: What in the hell are we still talking about it for? Well on Monday night, legal laypeople like yours truly finally got at least some kind of answer.
Apparently Daniels’ latest legal grievance is predicated on President Trump calling her a liar. She is claiming, through her “brilliant” attorney, that he defamed her.
CNN’s Paul Callan, presumably tired of seeing Avenatti on the receiving end of entirely undeserved praise, dropped an array of unforgiving hammers…
He grilled Avenatti on everything from his choice of venue for the lawsuit, to the improbability that any jury would ever in a million years side with Daniels, to the actual motivation for bringing the lawsuit.
On the venue, Callan suggested that Avenatti only chose New York City because that’s where the TV studios are — and it’s more star-studded to walk in to a studio and sit with Anderson Cooper, than it would be to broadcast in via satellite.
On the chances of a jury ever agreeing that defamation took place, Callan noted that no jury of 12 normal people would ever conclude that a woman who had done literally hundreds of porno films was defamed by someone calling her a “liar.”
And the big hit, the one so many of us have waited weeks for, the evidence that Avenatti and Daniels’ fifteen minutes may finally be up, came when Callan noted that the preponderance of evidence suggests that what Avenatti and Daniels are doing has nothing to do with legal integrity or justice, and is simply a publicity stunt.
You can watch the nearly 9 minute exchange in the clip below. Of course Anderson Cooper, still an eager media enabler for the ridiculous sideshow, does his part to give Avenatti cover and credibility. But Callan, who is often a reliable propagandist right alongside Cooper and the rest of CNN’s anti-Trump hosts, just wasn’t having it tonight. He was done mincing words and playing games, and it was a joy to finally see Avenatti called out for being the cheap, lazy hack that he is.
It should also be noted that while Callan expertly navigated the treacherous waters that Cooper and Avenatti tried to drown him in (“You’re saying a porn star can’t be defamed?”), Cooper himself several months ago — for reasons that I still legitimately can’t understand — was unusually cruel about Daniels’ line of work. He and Don Lemon both repeatedly qualified their description of Daniels’ profession, noting (and I’m paraphrasing), “She’s a porn star…but that’s not really an accurate description because it glorifies a profession that doesn’t warrant glorification.” So while Callan tonight successfully worked around Cooper’s newly enthusiastic defense of porn stars, it’s worth noting that just a few months ago Cooper was anything but respectful regarding Daniels’ profession. (And I wish I had the clips to share but I don’t. They’re out there somewhere, of not only Cooper but also Don Lemon, both on the same night in back-to-back broadcasts angrily qualifying that “porn star” was far too glamorous of a description for Daniels’ work.)
A few points about this case that remain outstanding…
1). What the hell does she want? Tonight’s segment helped explain the recent lawsuit. But what about the initial lawsuit? I admittedly still don’t have a clue what they’re suing for. Is it that the non-disclosure agreement is invalid, and thus Daniels should be able to freely tell her story? She told her story. I’m just at a loss on what the initial point is to all this, other than sullying Trump’s name (for the media) and elevating Daniels (for her career). I guess it goes back to Callan’s observation that this is all a publicity stunt. And I guess it shouldn’t surprise any of us that the media are such eager and willing participants in its ongoing front page coverage.
2). In this important #MeToo moment that has awoken our national conscience with respect to assault and abuse, how come this blog post is probably the first time you’re hearing that Stormy Daniels has a violent track record of domestic abuse? Any time anyone in the public domain has a history that includes any type of abuse or assault, the allegations drown out everything else. Stormy Daniels is an accused domestic abuser and the praise being heaped on her by a complicit media sets a horrible example of tolerance for domestic violence. (Right?)
3). Saving the best for last: How hilarious is it that the sketch she released, supposedly of a “thug” hired by Cohen to threaten her, is a spitting image of her husband; Glendon Crain.
That literally no one in the media has brought up this hilariously discrediting subconscious snafu, is just more evidence that their goal has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with trying to bludgeon Trump. But as Avenatti’s star fades and Daniels’ paper thin grievances collapse, the media will yet again be handed a giant loss while an unphased President Trump rides off in to the sunset with Melania by his side and probably a stable of more discrete bad girls somewhere in the wings.
Still not tired of winning.
Make sure to check out WhatFinger News for all the best right-minded media content from around the web.