Cocktails & Popcorn: Stormy! - Avenatti Rips Her Off - Prosecutors Look At 300 Years

Stormy!

She got him.

There is hope when it comes to holding the legal community to responsible when there is a breach of the public trust.

He broke Canon Law.

That is Ethics.

Michael Avenatti charged with defrauding Stormy Daniels

NEW YORK (AP) — Michael Avenatti, the attorney who rocketed to fame through his representation of porn star Stormy Daniels in her battles with President Donald Trump, was charged Wednesday with ripping her off.

 Federal prosecutors in New York City say Avenatti used a doctored document to divert about $300,000 that Daniels was supposed to get from a book deal, then used the money for personal and business expenses.

Only half of that money was paid back, prosecutors said.

 Daniels isn't named in the court filing, but the details of the case, including the date her book was released, make it clear that she is the client involved.

 Avenatti denied the allegations on Twitter.

 "No monies relating to Ms. Daniels were ever misappropriated or mishandled.

She received millions of dollars worth of legal services and we spent huge sums in expenses.

She directly paid only $100.00 for all that she received.

I look forward to a jury hearing the evidence," he wrote.

 Avenatti added in a later tweet that his agreement for representing Daniels "included a percentage of any book proceeds."

 The charges pile on top of previous allegations of legal misconduct by Avenatti, who represented Daniels when she sued to be released from a nondisclosure agreement involving an alleged tryst with Trump.

The president denies an affair took place.

 Avenatti was previously charged in New York with trying to extort up to $25 million from Nike by threatening to expose claims that the shoemaker paid off high school basketball players to steer them to Nike-sponsored colleges.

And in Los Angeles, he's facing a multicount federal indictment alleging that he stole millions of dollars from clients, didn't pay taxes, committed bank fraud and lied during bankruptcy proceedings.

 Avenatti has denied the allegations against him on both coasts, saying he expects to be exonerated.

The Los Angeles charges alone carry a potential penalty of more than 300 years in prison.

 "I look forward to a jury hearing all of the evidence and passing judgment on my conduct," Avenatti wrote in a text message to The Associated Press. Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, initially hired Avenatti to handle a lawsuit she filed last year in which she sought to invalidate the nondisclosure agreement she'd signed with Trump's then-lawyer Michael Cohen in exchange for $130,000.

 The money was supposed to buy her silence during Trump's run for president about an alleged affair between the two. In August, Cohen pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance laws in connection with the payment. In announcing the new charges Wednesday, prosecutors said that Avenatti sent a "fraudulent and unauthorized letter" to Daniels' literary agent, instructing the agent to send payments not to Daniels but to a bank account Avenatti controlled.

They said he used the stolen funds to pay employees of his law firm and pay for hotels, airfare, dry cleaning and his Ferrari. "Far from zealously representing his client, Avenatti, as alleged, instead engaged in outright deception and theft, victimizing rather than advocating for his client," Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman said in news release. Avenatti "blatantly lied" and stole to maintain his "extravagant lifestyle," Berman said.

 Daniels raised concerns with Avenatti about late payments around the time her book, "Full Disclosure," was published in October, according to the indictment.

 "When is the publisher going to cough up my money," she asked Avenatti in early December, according to the indictment.

 Avenatti responded that he was "working them and threatening litigation," prosecutors said, but he did not tell Daniels he had already received the money.

 Daniels began publicly raising concerns about Avenatti's conduct in November.

In a statement, she said Avenatti had launched a fundraising effort to raise money for her legal case without telling her.

She also said he had filed a defamation lawsuit against Trump, on her behalf, against her wishes.

 "For months I've asked Michael Avenatti to give me accounting information about the fund my supporters so generously donated to for my safety and legal defense. He has repeatedly ignored those requests," she said.

"Days ago I demanded again, repeatedly, that he tell me how the money was being spent and how much was left.

Instead of answering me, without my permission or even my knowledge Michael launched another crowdfunding campaign to raise money on my behalf.

I learned about it on Twitter."

 At the time, Avenatti responded that he was still Daniels' "biggest champion."

 He said that under his retention agreement, she had agreed to pay him just $100 for his services, and he was entitled to keep all the money he raised for her legal defense to defray what he said were substantial costs of her case.

 The defamation case initiated by Avenatti against Trump backfired, with a judge ordering her to pay the president's legal bills.

 When Avenatti was first charged with defrauding other clients and extorting Nike in March, Daniels said she was "saddened but not shocked."

 She added on Twitter that she had fired Avenatti a month earlier after "discovering that he had dealt with me extremely dishonestly."

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

INDICTED: Michael Avenatti Accused Of Stealing and Not Paying Taxes

He stole from a paraplegic. 

I am done.

So much for that attorney client privilege immunity thing.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DEFANGO: Michael Avenatti arrested on federal charges of wire fraud and extortion - The "Attorney Client Privilege" Stripping Commences

Michael Avenatti

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Michael Cohen Lies To Congress, Pleads Guilty To Russian Real Estate Fraud & Stormy Is Mad At Avenatti For Suing Trump Without Her Permission

My sincerest apologies for failing to remind my loyal readers that #perkinscoiesucks.

Stormy Daniels: Michael Avenatti Sued Trump For Defamation Against My Wishes

Michael Avenatti sued Donald Trump for defaming Stormy Daniels against her wishes, Daniels told The Daily Beast in a statement on Wednesday.

Avenatti also started a new fundraising site to raise money for her legal defense fund without telling her, Daniels said. She said she is not sure whether or not she will keep Avenatti on as her lawyer.

Here is her full statement, provided to The Daily Beast:

“For months I’ve asked Michael Avenatti to give me accounting information about the fund my supporters so generously donated to for my safety and legal defense. He has repeatedly ignored those requests. Days ago I demanded again, repeatedly, that he tell me how the money was being spent and how much was left. Instead of answering me, without my permission or even my knowledge Michael launched another crowdfunding campaign to raise money on my behalf. I learned about it on Twitter.

“I haven’t decided yet what to do about legal representation moving forward. Michael has been a great advocate in many ways. I’m tremendously grateful to him for aggressively representing me in my fight to regain my voice. But in other ways Michael has not treated me with the respect and deference an attorney should show to a client. He has spoken on my behalf without my approval. He filed a defamation case against Donald Trump against my wishes. He repeatedly refused to tell me how my legal defense fund was being spent. Now he has launched a new crowdfunding campaign using my face and name without my permission and attributing words to me that I never wrote or said. I’m deeply grateful to my supporters and they deserve to know their money is being spent responsibly. I don’t want to hurt Michael, but it’s time to set the record straight. The truth has always been my greatest ally.

“My goal is the same as it has always been—to stand up for myself and take back my voice after being bullied and intimidated by President Trump and his minions. One way or another I’m going to continue in that fight, and I want everyone who has stood by me to know how profoundly grateful I am for their support.”

The Daily Beast shared this statement with Avenatti. He provided the following statement:

“I am and have always been Stormy’s biggest champion. I have personally sacrificed an enormous amount of money, time and energy toward assisting her because I believe in her. I have always been an open book with Stormy as to all aspects of her cases and she knows that. The retention agreement Stormy signed back in February provided that she would pay me $100.00 and that any and all other monies raised via a legal fund would go toward my legal fees and costs. Instead, the vast majority of the money raised has gone toward her security expenses and similar other expenses. The most recent campaign was simply a refresh of the prior campaign, designed to help defray some of Stormy’s expenses.”

Stephen Gillers, a New York University Law School professor and expert on legal ethics, said Avenatti could face serious problems if he sued Trump against Daniels’ wishes.

“If he filed the case with her name when it was clear that she told him not to, then he could be sued for that,” Gillers said. “He could be sued for malpractice. If true, she has a malpractice case against him. I emphasize if true. And if true, he would be subject to discipline but not as serious as disbarment.”

The current CrowdJustice site is one of just three fundraisers highlighted on CrowdJustice’s homepage as of Wednesday afternoon. An earlier CrowdJustice site raised more than $580,000 for Daniels’ legal defense and no longer accepts contributions.

When The Daily Beast contacted Avenatti on Tuesday and asked about Daniels’ two active Crowdjustice sites, the lawyer said, “We reset the page as the focus of the case changed from when we first launched the site.” The Daily Beast also asked on Tuesday for a breakdown of expenses. In response, Avenatti said via email, “The money has gone toward the areas identified on the page. For instance, Stormy's security detail has cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, especially due to the high level of death threats. The other out-of-pocket costs of the litigation are also extraordinary (and I'm not speaking of attorneys' fees). Trump and Cohen have spent millions in their defense].”

Avenatti claimed at the time that he hasn’t “received a dime in attorneys’ fees” from the crowdfunding effort. He said his firm has “spent well over a thousand hours of attorney time on the case at a value of over $1,500,000 (and no, we do not count interviews or media as attorney time).”

Avenatti’s legal work for Daniels hasn’t always succeeded. In the April defamation lawsuit against the president, Avenatti argued Trump hurt her by tweeting that she participated in a “total con job.”

But in November, a judge dismissed the suit and ordered Daniels to pay the president’s legal bills. Trump’s lawyers asked for almost $350,000 in legal fees; Daniels is now fighting to try to lower that bill.

Daniels and her lawyer have become household names since the revelation that Michael Cohen—then Trump’s personal attorney—paid her hush-money during the presidential campaign. Daniels says she had an affair with Trump years before he ran for office (a claim Trump denies), and accepted $130,000 from Cohen to stay quiet.

Cohen admitted in court in August that he made illegal payments during the campaign at Trump’s direction. He pleaded guilty to eight criminal counts and is awaiting sentencing.

Avenatti, meanwhile, has become a darling of the #Resistance, traveling to Iowa, raising money for Democratic candidates, and openly touting a potential 2020 presidential bid. But his White House dreams have faced major challenges; earlier this month, he was arrested under suspicion of domestic violence—allegations he roundly denies. And when he represented migrant children whom the Trump administration separated from their parents earlier this year, long-time immigration lawyers told The Observer he was “fantastically irresponsible.”

And as The Daily Beast reported in October, court records reveal that the lawyer and his companies owed millions to the IRS in unpaid taxes and judgments.

President Donald Trump’s former attorney lied to Congress about his role in pursuing a business deal in Russia for his old boss, covering up that discussions stretched into the 2016 presidential campaign and even reached the Kremlin.

Michael Cohen pleaded guilty in a Manhattan federal courtroom on Thursday to one count of making a false statement to Congress last year when he told lawmakers about his efforts to secure a deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Cohen’s plea was part of a deal he struck with special counsel Robert Mueller’s office that included significant cooperation with the investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia during the presidential campaign.

In an August 2017 letter sent to the House and Senate intelligence committees, Cohen said plans for a Moscow tower had ended shortly before Trump competed in the Republican presidential primaries. “By the end of January 2016, I determined that the proposal was not feasible for a variety of business reasons and should not be pursued further,” Cohen wrote.

But prosecutors say Cohen continued to discuss the proposal throughout the primaries and into the general-election season with Trump’s former business partner, the real-estate developer and convicted felon Felix Sater.

Cohen also told the Senate Intelligence Committee he did not discuss the project extensively within the Trump Organization. In fact, Mueller’s office said, Cohen discussed the project with Trump more than three times and “briefed family members of” Trump about it.

Cohen told Congress that he “never agreed to make a trip to Russia” about the proposal, but emails with Sater show Cohen repeatedly agreeing to Sater’s proposal for a trip to Moscow to seal the deal.

“ASSUMING the trip does happen the question is before or after the convention,” Cohen wrote to Sater in May 2016, two months before the Republican National Convention, adding Trump might potentially go to Moscow and meet Russian President Vladimir Putin around that time.

House Intel Panel Hiring Money-Laundering Sleuths

Cohen also allegedly lied about his communications with Dmitry Peskov, a spokesperson and close adviser to Putin, about the project. Cohen’s letter to Congress said he did “not recall any response to my email, nor any other contacts by me with” Peskov after he emailed him in January 2016 looking for help with the real-estate development plans.

But prosecutors say Cohen followed up with Peskov’s assistant in a phone call and “requested assistance in moving the project forward, both in securing land to build the proposed tower and financing the construction.”

In a court appearance Thursday, Cohen explained his lies by saying he “made these statements” to Congress to be consistent with Trump’s “political messaging” and to be loyal to Trump.”

Just a few weeks after Cohen’s last discussions of the tower project in June 2016, Trump tweeted: “For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia.”

It was also revealed Thursday that Cohen has entered into a cooperation agreement with Mueller’s office as part of his plea deal. ABC News reports that Cohen sat with members of the office for a combined 70 hours, fielding questions about possible contacts between Russia and the Trump campaign, Trump’s business dealings in Russia, as well as possible obstruction of justice by the president.

Cohen’s cooperation with the Mueller inquiry on potential Russian collusion is significant because it shows that Cohen has been spilling more information to the Mueller investigation than previously known.

In August, Cohen pleaded guilty to tax evasion and bank-fraud charges to Manhattan federal prosecutors as part of an illegal scheme to pay hush money to Trump’s alleged former mistresses, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.

Cohen is scheduled to be sentenced for those crimes on Dec. 12. In exchange for his guilty plea and cooperation with the special counsel’s office, Cohen may hope to receive a lighter sentence than he otherwise would.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: #MeToo Is Being Due Processed In Referral To FBI For Lying & Stealin'

"Was it blackmail, bribery or just sheer stupidity?"

Not only did these #MeToo, highly paid professionals make a complete mockery of those whose voices have been silenced when it comes to the realities of the trafficking of "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth), but they did it for personal inurement while destroying the legacies of civil rights in the annals of history.

Now, whether that was through blackmail, bribery or just sheer stupidity, we shall have to wait for the FBI to complete their conjugal collaboration with multiple other law enforcement and investigative entities to find out what is the most plausible reason why these individuals thought it wise to lie into the public record.

But, hey, what do I know?

I am going with sheer stupidity.

I wonder how Marion Brown and her family are doing right about now.

Someone should go do a wellness check on her.

That would be considered due process, so would referral to investigate license revocation of an attorney.

Oh, I have not forgotten that #perkinscoiesucks.

WOMAN SAYS SHE MADE FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT KAVANAUGH, NOW SHE’S BEEN REFERRED TO THE FBI

A woman who acknowledged falsely accusing Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of rape is being referred to the FBI and Department of Justice for investigation, according to an official letter.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said in a letter sent Friday to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Jeff Sessions that the woman, Judy Munro-Leighton, admitted Thursday that she falsely claimed in an email to committee staff on Oct. 3 that Kavanaugh and a friend had raped her.

In the email, Munro-Leighton claimed to be the author of an anonymous letter sent to California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris on Sept. 19. In that letter, a person who signed the letter as “Jane Doe” claimed Kavanaugh and a friend raped her in the back of a car.

Grassley, an Iowa Republican, said investigators quickly discovered that Munro-Leighton was a “left-wing activist” who is decades older than Kavanaugh. (RELATED: Grassley Refers Avenatti, Swetnick To FBI For Investigation)

But after reaching Munro-Leighton on Thursday, she admitted “that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original ‘Jane Doe’ letter.”

Munro-Leighton said that she “just wanted to get attention” for her “ploy.”

“In short, during the Committee’s time-sensitive investigation of allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, Ms. Munro-Leighton submitted a fabricated allegation, which diverted Committee resources,” Grassley said.

Grassley asked Wray and Sessions to investigate Munro-Leighton for making materially false statements and obstruction.

The criminal referral is the fourth issued by Grassley during the Kavanaugh confirmation process.

Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court on Oct. 6. Three women came forward publicly to accuse the conservative judge of sexual misconduct in high school and college. Kavanaugh denied all of the allegations.

Grassley submitted FBI referrals on one of those Kavanaugh accusers, Julie Swetnick, and her attorney, Michael Avenatti. Swetnick claimed in a Sept. 26 declaration that she witnessed Kavanaugh drugging girls’ drinks at parties in the 1980s. She also claimed Kavanaugh was present at parties where girls were gang-raped.

Grassley also referred one man for investigation who claimed in a letter to Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse that he witnessed Kavanaugh raping a woman in the 1980s.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: The Kavanaugh Porn Is Coming

The porno is coming!

 The porno is coming!

Wait!

Then this happened.

Stormy’s Lawyer Has Accounts Frozen By Judge

But, this is much more interesting because we may be looking at the first reveal of foster care and adoption.

Yes.....you must have cocktails and popcorn on hand once we get to Detroit.

Hmmmmmmmmmm................yeeeeeeeeesssssss............Detroit.................

Read the full sworn statement from Julie Swetnick, the third woman to accuse Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct

• Accuser Julie Swetnick, in a sworn declaration tweeted out by her lawyer Michael Avenatti, alleges that Kavanaugh and others while in high school spiked the drinks of girls at parties to make it easier for them to be gang raped.
• "I witnessed Brett Kavanaugh consistently engage in excessive drinking and inappropriate contact of a sexual nature with women during the early 1980s," Swetnick says in her statement, which she signed under penalty of perjury.
• Kavanaugh has said he categorically denies ever sexually assaulting anyone. His lawyer and the White House did not immediately respond to CNBC's requests for comment on Swetnick's claims.

A third woman stepped forward Wednesday to accuse Supreme Court hopeful Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct.

Accuser Julie Swetnick, in a sworn declaration tweeted out by her lawyer Michael Avenatti — who is also representing porn star Stormy Daniels in her lawsuit against President Donald Trump — alleged that Kavanaugh and others, while in high school, spiked the drinks of girls at parties to make it easier for them to be gang raped.

"I witnessed Brett Kavanaugh consistently engage in excessive drinking and inappropriate contact of a sexual nature with women during the early 1980s," Swetnick says in her statement, which she signed under penalty of perjury.

Michael Avenatti, attorney for Stephanie Clifford, also known as adult film actress Stormy Daniels, speaks to reporters as he leaves the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 24, 2018 in Los Angeles, California. Avenatti claims to have information pertaining to allegations concerning Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

The three-page declaration was sent to the counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is set to hear testimony from Kavanaugh and another woman, Christine Blasey Ford, as early as tomorrow. A spokesman for committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley said the committee is currently reviewing the document.

Kavanaugh has said he categorically denies ever sexually assaulting anyone.

On Wednesday, Kavanaugh responded to the latest accusations in a statement released by the White House: "This is ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone. I don't know who this is and this never happened."

s Wet Nick Statement by on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Kavanaugh Accuser Julie Swetnick Used To Date George Webb

They used to do the nasty.

Now, he is officially part of the U.S. Senate Confirmation Hearings investigation.

Much more to cum.

Go get me some more popcorn.

This is too juicy.

Here Is the Full Text of the Declaration by Julie Swetnick, the Third Women to Accuse Kavanaugh of Sexual Misconduct

In her sworn statement, Swetnick says that she "fully understands the seriousness" of her accusations and charges that she was "gang raped" when she was a high school student at a party where Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were both in attendance.

WHO IS JULIE SWETNICK, THE AVENATTI CLIENT ACCUSING KAVANAUGH OF ATTENDING GANG RAPE PARTIES?

• Little is known about Julie Swetnick, the woman who came forward on Wednesday to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in high school.
• Swetnick, who is being represented by Michael Avenatti, claims that Kavanaugh spiked drinks at parties where women were gang-raped.
• Kavanaugh vehemently denies the claims.

Julie Swetnick, a 55-year-old IT professional living in Washington, D.C., leveled serious allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday, a day before the Senate Judiciary Committee is poised to hear testimony from the judge and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, another woman accusing him of sexual misdeeds when he was in high school.

In a declaration released by her attorney, Michael Avenatti, Swetnick alleged that Kavanaugh and a friend spiked girls’ drinks with alcohol during parties in the early 1980s. She also suggested the conservative judge was present during gang rapes, which allegedly took place in the suburbs of Washington, D.C.

Swetnick claimed that Kavanaugh was at one party in 1982 where she was gang raped, though she does not accuse him of taking part in the attack.

Of particular note in Swetnick’s declaration is the age difference between she and Kavanaugh. Swetnick said the events described in her declaration occurred between 1981 and 1983, when she was between 18 and 21 years old. Kavanaugh would have been between 15 and 18 years old at the time.

She graduated from Gaithersburg High School in 1980, according to Swetnick’s resume. She was born in December 1962, according to publicly available records. Kavanaugh was born in February 1965 and graduated from Georgetown Prep School in 1983.

(RELATED: Woman Repped By Avenatti Claims Kavanaugh Attended Gang-Rape Parties)

Swetnick’s eleventh-hour emergence has come under scrutiny, as has her representation by Avenatti, the lawyer for Stormy Daniels, the porn star who claims to have had an affair with President Donald Trump.

(RELATED: Kavanaugh Responds To Accuser Represented By Avenatti)

In her own complaint against Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford alleged that Mark Judge, a longtime friend of Kavanaugh’s, was present when Kavanaugh attempted to rape her during a house party in the summer of 1982. Ford claimed that Kavanaugh and Judge trapped her in a bedroom, and that Kavanaugh forced himself on her and attempted to remove her clothes.

Both Kavanaugh and Judge have denied that the incident occurred. A college classmate of Kavanaugh’s has also come forward to claim that he thrust his penis in her face at a party when they both attended Yale. Before coming forward, the accuser, Deborah Ramirez, told friends that she was not entirely certain that Kavanaugh was the person who exposed himself to her.

Swetnick’s allegations are vague on details and specifics, though she claimed that unnamed eyewitnesses will back up her claims.

She alleged that she attended more than 10 house parties with Kavanaugh and Judge. During the gatherings, Swetnick says she witnessed Kavanaugh “drink excessively and engage in highly inappropriate conduct, including being overly aggressive with girls and not taking ‘No’ for an answer.” She alleged that the conduct “included the fondling and grabbing of girls without their consent” and that Kavanaugh was “abusive and physically aggressive” towards girls.

She alleged that Kavanaugh and Judge would spike drinks at parties in order to lower victims’ defenses.

“I also witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be ‘gang raped’ in a side room or bedroom by a ‘train’ of numerous boys. I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their ‘turn’ with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh.”

Swetnick further claimed that “in approximately 1982,” she was the victim of a gang rape at a party where Kavanaugh and Judge were present. Swetnick would have been 19 or 20 years old at the time, while Kavanaugh would have been 16 or 17.

Kavanaugh denied the allegations as “ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone.”

“I don’t know who this is and this never happened,” Kavanaugh said in a statement issued through the White House.

Little else is known about Swetnick, other than items included on her resume and several court cases she has been involved in over the years.

A credentialed web developer, Swetnick lists security clearances with the U.S. Department of Treasury and U.S. Mint. She previously held clearances at the “Secret” level (“Top Secret” is the highest) for the State Department and Department of Justice.

Swetnick also claims to have a security clearance with the IRS despite having recently had a $40,000 judgement against her for unpaid taxes. She settled a $40,303 IRS judgement on March 23 of this year, according to a public records search. Maryland court records show a $62,821 tax lien filed against her on Oct. 2, 2015.

Swetnick has also been involved in civil cases in Maryland and Oregon.

Swetnick filed a personal injury lawsuit against the Washington, D.C. Metro in September 1994. The outcome of that case is also unclear.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: What Do Kavanaugh & Conyers Have In Common?

Q: What do Kavanaugh & Conyers have in common?

A: A menagerie of privileged psychotic zoo animals who fail to understand that making false claims into the public record under oath is a fraud, which just so happens to be a federal crime to be referred to the Office of Special Prosecutor for further action.

So, that is why there will be trials in 2019.

Oups, j'ai dit une bétise!

I am biting my pearls to find out what these people are going to do when the parents testify, under oath, of the screams of their children who were ripped from their arms in the middle of the night to be drugged, raped and tortured in foster care for years.

I wonder if the Congress and the public will give this much attention to the children when they tell their stories, and it is not 35 years ago, it is going on, still, to this day, as we speak, and no one cares.

Priorities, you know.

Bill Cosby his sentence for sexually assaulting
Andrea Constand

Just to properly frame the Kavanaugh Psyoptic in a more down to earth light, allow me to introduce a counter argument to spotlight, again, the need for everyone to tell their stories, under oath, in Senate Judiciary Hearings.

The Latest: Cosby accusers say he got what he deserved

Mary Zolkowski, 21, pleaded guilty to falsely reporting a felony

There is one common factor in the Cosby conviction and the Zolkowski conviction: there was a police report.

Woman who lied about rape at Michigan college sentenced to jail

Yes, at no time have any of the women who have accused Kavanaugh of attempted rape and rape, or whatever the new story of the day is, have ever filed a police report.

You would think, instead of going online and starting a fundraising campaign, even though these are weathly, professional women, who have access to legal representation, have never, ever, ever filed a police report.

Nope.

So, let me explain to you the role of the police since it seems we are dealing with "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending).

Police are keepers of the peace, civil servants, which means they have the duty to preserve the public record, as keeper of the record.

Police are civil servants to preserve civility of society, which includes protecting the civil rights of individuals who have been accused of any transgression, because it is the role of the officer to investigate, gather evidence and process it to prevent any future harms to society.

Law enforcement is more than just body armor and guns.

Law enforcement records the claims in the annals of history.

Law enforcement is supposed to enforce law, like the U.S. Attorney General, and we have civil rights laws on the books that have yet to be stripped by these "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending).

So, this means that, in the event these transgressions happened when they were juveniles, under the age of 18, the legal guardian, in this instance, the parents were supposed to bring forth claims to law enforcement, due to privacy issues in child welfare law, which is just another reason to have congressional testimony.

If no one has brought forth claims against Kavanaugh, then, the responsibility defaults to Congress to report it to law enforcement for full investigation and prosecution, whether valid, or invalid.

If law enforcement finds the enough evidence that there are grounds for prosecution, then, the U.S. Attorney General can take action, if the accusers have given false testimony in a congressional hearing, then, there are grounds for criminal prosecution, just like Mary Zolkowski.

Deborah Ramirez

KAVANAUGH HIRES AWARD WINNING FEMALE LAWYER OVER ASSAULT ALLEGATION - Beth Wilkinson

Then, the New Yorker, that you must pay to read unless you know who to circumvent the paywall, comes out with the story of the latest Kavanaugh accuser, Deborah Ramirez, who has also hails from the hermetically sealed ivory tower of society, came out with an even more salacious 36 year old suppressed memory.

New Yorker Publishes Accusation Containing ZERO Evidence to Support, and 100% of Evidence To Refute…

Then Avenatti jumps into the mix.

New Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick details parties where girls allegedly were drugged and raped

Kavanaugh denies being part of prep school party culture, but evidence seems to contradict claim from CNBC.

Then, Kavanaugh goes on FOX to make the statement that he was a virgin in high school.

Then, Avenatti got trolled on 4chan.

I see you 4chan! pic.twitter.com/rqElGHnrkQ

— Jordan Sather (@Jordan_Sather_) September 25, 2018

Then, Trump trolled Avenatti on Twitter.

Avenatti is a third rate lawyer who is good at making false accusations, like he did on me and like he is now doing on Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He is just looking for attention and doesn’t want people to look at his past record and relationships - a total low-life!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 26, 2018

Then, Avenatti trolled Trump back.

“False accusations?” Like those crimes your fixer Cohen pled to? You are an habitual liar and complete narcissist who also is a disgrace as a president and an embarrassment to our nation. You are so inept that your “best and brightest” are Cohen and Giuliani. Let’s go.

— Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) September 26, 2018

Then, this happened.

Michael Avenatti Goes Into Hiding After He Got Punked By 4Chan

What these "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) fail to understand is that the Office of Special Counsel has all their "encrypted" chats.

Then, this happened.

Latest Kavanaugh Allegations Send Senate Into Chaos

If you think this is dramatic, just wait until we arrive in Detroit.

Public clowning will be taken to an entirely new level because in Detroit, it is always "ghetto fabulous".

#needmorepopcorn

Feds question UAW officials' spending on Palm Springs trips

#perkinscoiesucks

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Trump v. Omarosa -The Great Whistleblower Election Collusion

"Go do your thang, gurl."

Trump and Omarosa have a long history together.

I like to call Omarosa Trump's "Ride or Die".

This is why I am calling this public fallout "The Great Whistleblower Collusion".

Trump & Omarosa in Detroit

Omarosa was presented a Non Disclosure Agreement.

Omarosa was kicked out the White House for recording conversations with staff, John Kelly, going back and telling Trump.

Interesting to note that former Secretary Clinton did the same exact thing of recording in the SCIF and nothing has come of it....to date, that is.

Omarosa claims John Kelly played her a recording of Trump saying some "negative terms" and Lara Trump blasts the tape.

John Kelly secretly recorded POTUS and Omarosa has the evidence.

When you give a crazed, crying lowlife a break, and give her a job at the White House, I guess it just didn’t work out. Good work by General Kelly for quickly firing that dog!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 14, 2018

Then, she put out a "tell all" book about what staff told her about Trump.

So, now we await Avenatti.

It is a near certainty that Michael Avenatti is going to end up representing Omarosa and all of our absurd timelines are going to collapse on one another

— Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) August 14, 2018

Omarosa is going to make a boat load of money, but I believe it will be in the form of a whistleblower lawsuit, setting up all those attorneys and people around Trump, who like to cover up nasty things that make them a whole lot of money from their public offices.

Stay tuned and watch Omarosa "do her thang" because I will be focused to see if the other players in this reality show drama are going to be held to the same standards, like John Kelly.

Before the reading of the follow article, claiming to be "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending), you must first be aware that Omarosa was correct in calling that agreement illegal for the simple fact that there are found to be 11 corporations in the name of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. registered in various states across the country as foreign non-profits, where, I am betting, Trump was not even aware that people were opening up these other domestic and foreign corporations, which, by the way, are not even registered with the FEC as campaign committees and, more than likely, had Trump's electronic signature, that he did not sign.

Timothy Jost, Corporate Shape
Shifter of the  Donald J. Trump
for President, Inc.,
foreign non-profit money
laundering operations

It seems the gentleman who set up all these foreign corporations named Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., goes by the name of Timothy Jost, the treasurer in some listing, who used private corporation filing services, to launder money.

I will go so far and assert that the foreign incorporated Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., is not even registered under FARA.

How much do you want to bet money laundering was going on to Russia, Ukraine or even Germany, hence, another layer of that Mueller collusion?

So, how is it this campaign NDA was presented to Omarosa when the agreement itself does not even state which Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. it is?

This truly reminds me of the work of "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) who go by the name of Perkins Coie.

I can smell the political fraud schemes of #perkinscoiesucks from any county in the world because they ran the same game on my Sweetie.

I wonder what John Roberts is doing right now?

OMAROSA SAID A HUSH MONEY AGREEMENT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFERED HER WAS ‘UNLAWFUL’ – WAS IT?

Omarosa Manigault Newman, former aide to President Donald Trump, said that a contract she was allegedly offered by the Trump campaign after being fired from the White House was an attempt to buy off her silence. She called the offer “unlawful.”

Verdict: Unsubstantiated

Legal experts disagree about whether such an agreement could have prevented Manigault Newman from discussing her time in the White House. Precedent says that the government cannot keep former employees from discussing non-classified information, and that principle might apply to the proposed campaign agreement.

Other parts of the agreement could have been enforceable, though, and “hush money” contracts are not unlawful in principle.

Fact Check:

Manigault Newman, a former contestant on “The Apprentice,” served as the director of communications for the White House Public Liaison Office before her departure in December 2017. Her recently released book about her time in the White House, “Unhinged,” alleges that Trump campaign adviser Lara Trump offered Manigault Newman a $15,000 per month campaign position in exchange for keeping quiet about her time in the White House.

She discussed the agreement on “Meet The Press” on Aug. 12. “I worked my butt off to make a difference in this country and they were looking for ways to frame me, and then, they tried to buy off my silence, which is also unlawful,” Manigault Newman said.

“Hush money” agreements, in which one person agrees to stay silent about a topic in exchange for money, are often valid and enforceable if both parties willingly enter into the contract. But legal experts disagree about whether the contract that Lara Trump offered Manigault Newman could keep her from discussing her time in public service.

The contract included a broadly-worded provision that prohibited her from disclosing any “confidential information,” including “appointments, meetings, conversations, notes and other communications” about Trump, Vice President Mike Pence or either of their families, even after the campaign ends. It did not specifically mention her time in public service, but it could be interpreted to apply to Manigault Newman’s time in the White House. She says that she did not sign the agreement.

Trump has reportedly required employees to sign other broad nondisclosure agreements. A Washington Post column from March said that senior White House staff members were asked to sign agreements prohibiting them from revealing information about their time in the White House, even after Trump’s presidency. A different nondisclosure agreement from the 2016 campaign included a provision to not “demean or disparage” Trump during the term of employment and “at all times thereafter.”

The alleged agreement that Manigault Newman declined to sign included a non-disparagement clause as well.

Legal precedent says that ex-federal employees cannot be required to promise silence on non-classified matters. For that reason, some experts say that the nondisclosure provisions in the White House contracts could violate the First Amendment.

“The government has no legitimate interest in censoring unclassified materials,” the 1983 District of Columbia Circuit Court case McGehee v. Casey explained.

The agreement offered to Manigault Newman after her time in the White House is different, though. The contract, along with its nondisclosure clause, would have been with the Trump campaign, not the federal government.

Which "campaign"?  There are 11 foreign non profit filings.

But Bradley Moss, a partner at the Mark S. Zaid, PC law firm and contributor to Lawfare, thinks that the $15,000 per month agreement would still not be enforceable because he says it is a poor attempt to get around legal precedent.

“They were effectively trying to circumvent the existing case law on the subject by having the campaign, not the Government, impose the retroactive NDA,” Moss told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an email. “I would argue that such a contract is constitutionally unenforceable no matter if coming from the campaign or the government itself. To permit the former to pull that off would be contrary to public policy.”

Ken White, a partner at Brown White & Osborn LLP who blogs as Popehat, also argued on the “All The President’s Lawyers” podcast that this type of agreement would fail the test of “unconscionability” – a legal doctrine that makes a contract unenforceable if it violates public policy or is otherwise inappropriate.

“A nondisclosure agreement may well be enforceable by a private entity, but it’s extremely dubious that you could enforce one to get people to stop talking about their public service, their paid work as a government employee,” White said on Aug. 15. “The idea is that restricting a public employee or a former public employee from talking about public service like that is unconscionable.”

University of Florida law professor Mark Fenster told TheDCNF that he was not as convinced that a court would find the agreement unconscionable, however.

“If an arbitrator proves sympathetic to her argument, then I can see that if she wants to speak publicly about an issue of great public importance, it might be deemed against public policy to enforce the agreement. Might,” Fenster told TheDCNF in an email.

He said that even if a court found that the agreement could not stop her from speaking about her time in the White House, other parts of the agreement would be enforceable.

“She was clearly wrong to state that it was unlawful to present her with the agreement, especially as it clearly would be ok to have her agree to be silent and non-disparaging during her employment by the campaign regarding issues that arise during the campaign,” Fenster said. “In that regard, it would clearly be enforceable, just perhaps not as broadly as the campaign and President might wish. It’s therefore clearly not unlawful.”

The experts noted that even broad nondisclosure agreements that are not fully enforceable are often still effective at intimidating employees into silence when they lack the resources to defend themselves or seek legal advice.

There is a lack of consensus about whether a private agreement could prevent individuals from talking about their public service in part because it is a new legal question. “There is – to my knowledge – no precedent for a campaign seeking to contractually silence a former federal employee with respect to the work that person did while serving in the government,” Moss said.

While Manigault Newman says she did not sign the “hush money” agreement, whether the Trump campaign can prevent former public servants from discussing their time in the White House remains a relevant legal question. The Trump campaign filed an arbitration case against her last week for allegedly breaking a 2016 campaign agreement.

A representative for Manigault Newman did not respond to a request for comment.


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: "Q" Black Psyops Has Successfully Crossed Over Into Weaponized Reality - The Avenatti Threat

Have you ever wondered how propaganda campaigns are manufactured?

Well, if you have been following along for the last 10 years, you should, at this point, be able to spot a propaganda campaign in the blink of an eye.

In this case, this is how anonymously funded groups are forming in the dark web, I mean really, really dark web, coming up with propaganda campaigns to rally vulnerable populations, with the intent of executing their nefarious schemes, which more than likely, as seen in this live case study, for the purposes of privateering, or probably a legal defense smear campaign.

Speaking of smear campaigns... it feels like Perkins Coie has there hand stuck in the batter of this psyop.

I am going to just go out there, on a limb, and make an "unfounded assertion" that this "Q" might be a familiar, "spurious correlation" somewhere, floating around, in a financial transaction.

Rumors have it the U.S. Senate Judiciary has taken up this "anonymous" source called "Q".

But, hey, what do I know?

#perkinscoiesucks

This is not a "peaceable assembly", and as such, disturbs the tranquility of the public, making this a mob activity of insurrection.

This is getting violent.

That is not cool.

Avenatti Targeted in Person by QAnon, the Crazy Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theory

Police are investigating a man photographed outside the office of Stormy Daniels’s attorney after ‘Q,’ the theory’s leader, sent followers there.

Stormy & Avenatti

Stormy Daniels’ lawyer Michael Avenatti is the latest target for supporters of the pro-Trump conspiracy theory QAnon, with police investigating a man’s appearance near Avenatti’s office after the building was mentioned in QAnon posts.

QAnon believers claim that a series of cryptic clues posted to internet forums 4Chan and 8Chan are coming from a high-level Trump administration insider, describing a world where Trump has teamed up with the military to take on a global cabal of powerful elites, celebrities, and pedophiles.

“Q,” the online poster whose messages make up the basis of the QAnon theory, targeted Avenatti on Sunday by posting a link to Avenatti’s website and pictures of his Newport Beach, California, office building.

“Buckle up!” the post, made on 8Chan, read.

About 45 minutes later, Q posted a picture of a man standing in the street near Avenatti’s office. The man, who has his back to the camera, is holding what appears to be a cellphone in one hand and a long, thin object in the other.  

We are trying to identify the man in this picture, which was taken outside my office yesterday (Sun) afternoon. Please contact @NewportBeachPD if you have any details or observed him. We will NOT be intimidated into stopping or changing our course. #Basta pic.twitter.com/YIKS6D0Grq

— Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) July 30, 2018

Avenatti said that the man in the picture might be holding a shank.

“That’s not a set of keys,” Avenatti told The Daily Beast. “It also looks like he’s wearing a toupee of some sort. And not a very good one, I might add.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Al Sharpton, Michael Cohen, Lanny Davis & The Attorney Client Privilege

Optics, pure optics, but for what?

Lanny Davis is now representing Michael Cohen, former attorney for Trump, who is a financial conduit for Perkins Coie, that paid for the attorney Michael Avenatti. who representing Stormy Daniels and suing Cohen because she alleges that he colluded with her former attorney Keith Davidson to make sure she did not break her Non Disclosure Agreement, or something like that.

So, why would Michael Cohen reach out to Al Sharpton, a media representative of MSNBC, for a very public meeting, that they actually both tweeted, without legal counsel?

Where was Lanny?

I would hope Cohen does not believe good old Al is going to do anything to jeopardize that lucrative contract he has over there at MSNBC.

I most certainly hope Cohen was not shopping around for the services of the National Action Network for the purposes of launching a civil rights propaganda campaign for hire.

What I think is that Mueller found other stuff when Cohen was raided.

I think Cohen was caught with some other surreptitious stuff that is "civil rights" related, but only realized, post hoc. that he did not use his law license very wisely, where Lanny had Cohen reach out, thinking that Al would provide his assistance in plotting and scheming to preserve his Attorney Client Privileges.

Well, at least that is what I see out of this, but, hey, what do I know.

MICHAEL COHEN’S MEETING WITH AL SHARPTON WAS INTENDED TO SEND ‘SIGNAL’ TO POTUS

Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s meeting on Friday with Al Sharpton was intended to send a signal to the president, the civil rights activist says.

“Out of all the people he could reach out to, reaching out to me is sending a signal to Mr. Trump and I think, probably, to prosecutors that he was not one who would not deal with someone who has been fighting Donald Trump for decades on social justice issues,” Sharpton said in an interview on MSNBC on Friday.

Sharpton and Cohen met at a restaurant for over an hour on Friday morning, shortly before news broke that months before the 2016 election, Cohen secretly recorded a two-minute conversation with Trump regarding Karen McDougal, a Playboy playmate who allegedly had an affair with Trump in 2006.

The Washington Post reported that Cohen suggested purchasing the rights to McDougal’s story from AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer. AMI paid McDougal $150,000 in August 2016 for her story.

According to The Post, Trump is mostly silent in the recording. At one point he asked Cohen how the payment would be made.

“I received a text from him saying he wanted to meet,” Sharpton said on Saturday. “We met at a public restaurant and we spoke for over an hour. He was very troubled and felt in many ways cast wrongly.”

“And I feel he was saying that he had been abandoned by Mr. Trump,”  Sharpton continued, adding: “He was adamant that he was opposed to things that Mr. Trump was doing.”

Sharpton tweeted about his meeting with Cohen shortly after it ended.

“Just spent an hour w/ Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney,” Sharpton wrote. “I bet you’re wondering what we could be talking about! Stay tuned.”

Cohen confirmed the meeting, writing that “I have known Rev for almost 20 years. No one better to talk to!”

Trump blasted his former attorney in an early-morning tweet on Saturday.

“Inconceivable that the government would break into a lawyer’s office (early in the morning) – almost unheard of. Even more inconceivable that a lawyer would tape a client – totally unheard of & perhaps illegal,” he wrote.

(RELATED: ‘Perhaps Illegal’: Trump Rails Against Cohen For Taping His Private Conversations)

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan is reportedly investigating Cohen over his business dealings and possible campaign finance violations. Cohen’s payments to women are reportedly a part of the investigation. Just before the 2016 election, Cohen paid $130,000 to Stormy Daniels, an adult film star who also allegedly had an affair with Trump in 2006.

The FBI raided Cohen’s home, office and hotel room on April 9.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©