Avenatti indicted on 36 counts of tax dodging, perjury, theft from clients and other crimes

[brooklynite]

Source: Los Angeles Times

In a sweeping expansion of the criminal charges against Michael Avenatti, a federal grand jury has indicted the Los Angeles lawyer on 36 counts of fraud, perjury, failure to pay taxes, embezzlement and other financial crimes.

Avenatti stole millions of dollars from five clients and used a tangled web of shell companies and bank accounts to cover up the theft, the Santa Ana grand jury alleged in an indictment that prosecutors will make public Thursday.

One of the clients, Geoffrey Ernest Johnson, was a mentally ill paraplegic on disability who won a $4-million settlement of a suit against Los Angeles County. The money was wired to Avenatti in January 2015, but he hid it from Johnson for years, according to the indictment.

In 2017, Avenatti received $2.75 million in proceeds from another client’s legal settlement, but concealed that too, the indictment says. The next day, he put $2.5 million of that money into the purchase of a private jet for Passport 420, LLC, a company he effectively owned, according to prosecutors.


Read more: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-avenatti-indicted-fraud-theft-charges-20190411-story.html

[ProudLib72]

1. So, no Avenatti 2020?

[brooklynite]

2. Dunno, sounds on par with Trump.

[bluestarone]

5. EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!

[TommyCelt]

29. Oops. nt

[ancianita]

46. Glad now that I never said it!

[MosheFeingold]

95. I got a post deleted

Because I dared to point out the guy was a scum bag, and we shouldn't put any faith or hope in him just because he bashes Turnip, er, I mean Trump.

Scum are scum, regardless of political persuasion.

[jberryhill]

96. One longtime member was banned

[MosheFeingold]

99. Yeah, the "don't talk bad about Democrat"

Rule is a little overbroad. I get it when it is THE candidate.

But not vetting out scum like Avenatti is just stupid.

He blew any chance we had getting rid of Kavenaugh by getting his clearly fake (or nuts) accusers equal time with legitimate accusers.

[ProudLib72]

100. I had three posts deleted because of him

I had the audacity to disparage the golden boy during his 15 minutes of glory.

[democratisphere]

101. I'm sure Democrats don't want to be accused of being prejudiced

against alleged criminals.

[BlueIdaho]

3. Flew too close to the sun... nt.

[Stuart G]

76. Yes, but more, He was sure that he could get away with it...That is, "I am invinsible, and

I can fly close to the sun and I can get away with it" Flying close to the sun ain't nothing...

[BlueIdaho]

104. Don't they all think that? nt.

[DavidDvorkin]

4. Basta!

[rainin]

6. Hid money from a mentally ill paraplegic on disability? OMFG

Innocent until proven guilty, but that is bad!!

[FarPoint]

17. Yes...

Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt....

I smell a GOP attack mission...

[onenote]

23. I simply smell a crooked lawyer.

[FarPoint]

39. Maybe.....

I'm going to reserve my judgement.....

[jberryhill]

120. .

Link to tweet

[rainin]

32. One must always have a healthy suspicion since the GOP

has become nothing more than a criminal cabal who will never let the truth get in the way of an effective attack against an opponent.

[reACTIONary]

93. what does the GOP have to do with...

... a federal grand jury?

[DirtEdonE]

7. Make snide comments now but in the near future

When the political pogrom begins in earnest against trump's "enemies", looking back, Avanati will be seen as one of their first victims.

Right now, we're just one gop planned event away from this:

"The Reichstag Fire Decree (German: Reichstagsbrandverordnung) is the common name of the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State (German: Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat) issued by German President Paul von Hindenburg on the advice of Chancellor Adolf Hitler on 28 February 1933 in immediate response to the Reichstag fire. The decree nullified many of the key civil liberties of German citizens. With Nazis in powerful positions in the German government, the decree was used as the legal basis for the imprisonment of anyone considered to be opponents of the Nazis, and to suppress publications not considered "friendly" to the Nazi cause. The decree is considered by historians as one of the key steps in the establishment of a one-party Nazi state in Germany."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. He's a criminal, FFS. He stole from people. If he goes to jail it's because he deserves to,

not because he filed a lawsuit against Trump and flapped his gums on TV. He's not a political prisoner; he's just another grifting lawyer who stole from his clients.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

34. It looks bad, but it has not been proven. Keeping open mind, but guilty wouldn't surprise me. . . nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

48. The crimes he's been charged with are easily proved because they leave a wide paper trail.

Tax returns, bank records, emails. Unless the IRS and the banks are falsifying records, which is highly unlikely, Avenatti is toast.

[jberryhill]

97. .

[DirtEdonE]

67. Pretty funny how so many people around here say the exact opposite

When it's about mueller's bullshit 'report' just about all I heard was innocent before proven guilty.

Now it's someone who went after trump who is just guilty.

No wonder this country is so fucked up. People can't recognize what's right in front of their eyes.

[The Mouth]

85. Quite easy to consider both parties guilty

with histrionics nor paranoia.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

86. There is no presumption of innocence except during a criminal trial.

[DirtEdonE]

113. Bingo!

Yet we've been fooled into being handcuffed by that standard in every day speech.

And investigations into criminal activity are now known as spying! LOFL!

That reminds me, we all kept hearing about "individual 1" and we all knew "individual 1" is trump so he was obviously the target yet mueller couldn't seem to come up with any indictments against the number 1 target?

I call complete bullshit. If you or I commit a crime prosecutors will and do throw the book at us with every charge they can think of. But when it's these gop criminals we have to be 110 percent certain of guilt before charges are even brought!

I thought the job of the investigators and prosecutors is to bring charges based on that evidence to a jury. I thought deciding guilt was the job of the jury. If the new standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before charges are ever brought then why do we need courts, judges and juries?

[tymorial]

102. Oh for ffs

Mueller was required to give the report to Barr. I am so sick of the reactionary comments.

[DirtEdonE]

114. You're sick of reactionary comments

I'm sick of the reactionary gop.

Keep playing by the rules. It's working out so well.

[tymorial]

115. If Mueller released the report to congess that would give Trump all he needed to fight in courts

It lends credence to his argument that this was a Democrat plot to unseat him.

I am done arguing this point. If people dont get this yet, nothing I write will change that assumption.

[The Mouth]

83. Sorry, *ANYBODY*

who has EVER said anything negative about, or tried to damage Trump is a saint and beyond reproach.

After all, we are facing the End Of The World here

[Archae]

12. I seriously doubt this is any sort of political "persecution."

Avenatti is a corrupt son of a bitch, simply.

Jumping on the "Nazi Reichstag fire" bandwagon is an excuse used by conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, to excuse rotten actions by guys like the New Zealand mosque shooter.

[ancianita]

50. Hard to tell at this point. See post #49. nt

[FarPoint]

19. I totally agree..

[njhoneybadger]

43. Your right, and tRump is not going to give up the presidency.

There won't be an election if doesn't think he will win. He has been testing the waters in regards to removing judges. Judges that don't play ball will be removed and charged with crimes. There is nothing tRump, Barr or McConnell won't do to stay in power. We are in deep shit!

[Codeine]

94. You're utterly ridiculous. nt

[Power 2 the People]

8. The accusations could be true but it's amazing how the one guy who put Trump up against the wall

now has the full force of the US government coming after him.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. He didn't "put Trump up against the wall." He filed a lawsuit that didn't go anywhere

and that was so frivolous and badly researched that it ended up costing his own client $300,000 in attorneys' fees awarded against her (and she finally fired him). The FBI had been investigating Michael Cohen for almost a year before Avenatti got involved; he just tried to take credit for it. Don't make him out to be a victim. He deserves what he's getting.

[Power 2 the People]

20. Really? He didn't produce the documents that showed the hush money payment?

He didn't get Trump to admit the hush money was paid after denying it for so long? He didn't produce documents that Cohen was running an influence scam with major corporations? Nobody is making him out to be a victim but it's very convenient that a Trump adversary and someone that exposed corporate influence peddling is now being buried by Trump appointees.

Nike said they weren't funneling money to recruits and Avenatti has evidence they were.

Trump's friend Harvey Levin's organization TMZ was conveniently on scene when Avenatti was arrested for domestic violence against his girlfriend last fall. After reviewing the evidence the case was dropped.

Like most big time lawyers he is no saint but that doesn't mean that powerful entities inside and outside of our government are trying to make an example of him. You're naive if you don't think that's not standard operating procedure for scumbags like Trump.

Let the evidence be heard and let the chips fall where they may.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. Which of the various judges who have ruled against Avenatti are Trump appointees?

[Power 2 the People]

30. Obviously talking about the federal prosecutors bringing the charges since the cases

haven't been heard yet. Like I said,let the evidence be heard and let the chips fall where they may.

[onit2day]

64. Trump celebrated his arrest at a campaign rally saying MAGA meant Make

Avenatti Go Away. He's not convicted yet but Trump's so called charity foundation was shut down for being a scam enriching Trump only. His university fraud cost him $25mil. This is just what we know about. And here he is celebrating Avenatti's arrest. Pot meet kettle? I have no doubt that guilt or innocent, Trump ordered his investigation because Trump is petty and extremely vindictive

[Power 2 the People]

70. +1

[jberryhill]

28. Yeah, the guy who gave him those bank records is also going to jail

Because the federal prosecutors in NY ALREADY HAD THE GOODS ON COHEN long before Avenatti very nearly fucked up the criminal prosecution of Cohen.

Avenatti stole credit for other people's work, and you STILL believe it. That's how effective a con man he is.

[Power 2 the People]

31. Like I said,let the evidence be heard and let the chips fall where they may.

[jberryhill]

40. A lot of these charges are entirely document-based

Last edited Thu Apr 11, 2019, 01:14 PM - Edit history (1)

He didn't file income taxes for several years. That's not something that you would be charged with if there were really much of a dispute over whether you did, nor did not, file your taxes.

It's not like the IRS is going to tell the DOJ, "We don't have tax returns for him" and then come back and say, "Oops, we found them. They fell behind the refrigerator."

There is a reason why attorneys are required to handle client funds in special bank accounts (called IOLTA accounts) which are subject to special accounting procedures. EVERY attorney who handles funds on behalf of a client knows this - and the reason is specifically to prevent what Avenatti did, without leaving an unambiguous paper trail.

If a lawyer receives a $4M settlement for a client, doesn't pay that client, and uses the money for something else... again, that's not something that is going to require a shitload of head-scratching and pondering to figure out.

Here's the summary:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/attorney-michael-avenatti-named-federal-grand-jury-indictment-accuses-him-stealing

In the case of a victim called Client 1 in the indictment, Avenatti represented the man in a lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles that alleged, among other things, Client 1 became a paraplegic as a result of the county violating his constitutional rights. The county paid a $4 million settlement in January 2015, but within months Avenatti had drained the entire settlement payment from his law firms’ trust account and used portions of the settlement to finance his coffee business or pay personal expenses. Avenatti concealed the receipt of the settlement from Client 1 and instead gave him periodic “advances” of no more than $1,900 and paid the rent for his assisted living facility, according to the indictment.

Client 2 obtained a $3 million settlement in a matter, which included a payment of $2.75 million in early 2017. The indictment alleges that Avenatti took the bulk of this money – $2.5 million – and used it to purchase his portion of a jet, while falsely telling Client 2 that the settlement called for monthly payments over eight years. Avenatti made 11 monthly payments, making them appear to come from the individual who paid the settlement, but then Avenatti allegedly stopped paying Client 2.

Client 3 is the client-victim discussed in the criminal complaint who was to receive a $1.9 million settlement in an intellectual property dispute. Avenatti allegedly embezzled the first installment of $1.6 million in January 2018, in part by providing Client 3 with a bogus settlement agreement indicating that the payment was going to be made two months later. The indictment alleges that Avenatti used the money to pay expenses at his coffee business and to pay his own legal expenses.

Clients 4 and 5 divested shares in a company after Avenatti negotiated a “Common Stock Repurchase Agreement” for the sale of nearly $27.5 million worth of shares and then another sale of approximately $8.15 million worth of shares. When the first payment was made, Avenatti took his fees for the overall $35 million sale and sent the balance to Client 4. But when the second stock sale was finalized and the company sent nearly $8.15 million, Avenatti kept $4 million for himself and used this money to pay some of his law firm’s bankruptcy creditors, including the IRS; to provide funding for his various businesses; and to make lulling payments to Client 1 and Client 2. When Client 4 and Client 5 demanded their money, Avenatti falsely told them that the purloined $4 million already had been wired to them and provided them with a wire transfer confirmation document which actually documented the transfer of an earlier $4 million payment.

Take a look at that bolded part. You think the DoJ just made that up? Or do you think they have the actual communications from the clients he ripped off, and also have those clients ready to go?

Because it would be a heck of a thing for a US Attorney to charge those things and have the clients show up and say, "Oh, none of that happened."

These, like not filing taxes, are fairly binary things which are so simple to disprove that it is extremely unlikely to make them up. Aside from which, if you've been following the litigation over his former firm, a lot of the bank records themselves have been made of public record in that case.


And here's the indictment:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/press-release/file/1153526/download

[Lulu KC]

82. +1

[jberryhill]

98. Aaaaand he is literally tweeting evidence against himself

He didn't read the indictment before he started tweeting:

Link to tweet

[Greybnk48]

11. Bingo!! n/t

[RKP5637]

13. I'm not trying to say anything either way ... but just that the same thought hit me ... how the

sky fell in on him.

[jberryhill]

18. If idiots on DU hadn't hidden all the early critical posts about him...

Then none of this would be a surprise to anyone.

Avenatti has been a shitstain on the legal profession for years, but because he was trash-talking Trump, people chose to stick their fingers in their ears and shout "I can't hear you!"

He had ripped off everyone he'd ever done business with, fucked over the employees of Tully's coffee shop and his former partners - and it was all known as a matter of public record before he'd ever met Stormy Daniels.

Daniels, by the way, also has choice words for him now, since she finally woke up to the reality of what this man is.

[onenote]

21. Avenatti. HA Goodman. Louise Mensch.Claude Taylor.

Examples of hucksters that some gullible DUers have fallen for.

My guess is that there will be others. I guess its human nature for folks to believe what they want to believe.

[jberryhill]

26. Assange, Snowden, Stein

[Bernardo de La Paz]

35. Are sure Stein isn't spelled Stain?

[LanternWaste]

42. LSAT scores...

[jberryhill]

44. I regret to inform you

That I don't understand your insult du jour.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

47. What do LSAT scores have to do with the price of potatoes

or the indictment of Avenatti? If you're suggesting that his LSAT scores were so good that he couldn't possibly be ripping off his clients, guess what: good LSAT scores don't mean someone is honest. A lawyer in my state who'd graduated first in his law school class went to prison and was disbarred for exactly the same kind of crimes Avenatti is charged with, and after he got out he did more fraud and ended up committing suicide. Smart doesn't mean honest.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

37. He also became a fixture on some MSNBC shows.

Ari Melber will interview anybody - lately he seems to be especially fond of former Trump tools Sam Nunberg and Jerome Corsi - but for awhile he was a frequent guest on Lawrence O'Donnell's show as well. I would have thought LOD was savvy enough to see through him, especially when he tried to intervene in the Cohen case in SDNY, which was so obviously just an attempt at showboating. But it's been only crickets from those guys now.

[ancianita]

68. So far. But in the context of lawyer wars we're in, I'm sure Ari will bring this prosecution up.

[RKP5637]

38. Yep, and on top of that, FFS, he was becoming some type of national hero. Good cover, rotten book!

[Power 2 the People]

22. +1

[ScratchCat]

14. There were two things

That should have told you he was a charlatan:

1) When he released that picture of an open safe and a CD/DVD... followed by nothing.

2) When he kept claiming he had more women willing to state on the record that Trump paid them off... followed by nothing.

Dude played everyone because he thought he'd get to depose Trump(his only goal). Sad part is, he should have made so much money over his career that he didn't need to steal from his clients. Avanatti and Trump are two peas in a pod.

[RKP5637]

16. Yep, that's about the time I started wondering ... was another showman. The open safe and a CD/DVD

episode ... a showman like many attorneys, but he never followed through.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

33. The reason he refused to dismiss his case against Trump and Cohen

even though Daniels had already been released from the hush-money deal - and therefore there was no longer a justiciable controversy - was because he wanted to take Trump's deposition, something that he thought would have brought him even more fame and fortune. But, since there was no longer anything to litigate and no reason to depose anybody, the court dismissed the case, leaving Avenatti with egg on his face. His client was stuck with an attorneys' fees debt to Trump of almost $300K, incurred as a result of Avenatti's inexcusable failure to research the merits (or lack of them) of the defamation claim against Trump for claiming Daniels had lied about being threatened to keep quiet about her unsatisfying one-night stand.

He's not only a fraud, he's not a very good lawyer.

[vsrazdem]

15. He should rot in jail, right alongside Trump.

[DirtEdonE]

24. But trump won't rot because it's "his justice department"

trump makes the rules. Avenati will rot in jail while trump is playing another round at mar-a-shithole.

[ancianita]

51. Maybe, but don't discount that it's Trump's prosecutor appointee who's after him.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

56. There are multiple prosecutors in multiple cases - in CA and SDNY.

And a grand jury returned an indictment based on a wide paper trail consisting of bank and IRS records. Where's the bias? I am absolutely baffled by the desire of some to defend this grifter and blame his indictments on some alleged political bias. Avenatti claims to be a Democrat. So what? Not all Democrats are good people, and Avenatti is a crook and a disgrace to the legal profession.

[ancianita]

59. Don't accuse me of defending him; he gets a presumption of innocence. I'm pointing out there's

more to it than everyone here says.

I was the first one to point out that this is a DOJ prosecution by a Trump appointee.

That's all.

Chill.

[jberryhill]

75. The "presumption of innocence" is merely a rule for assigning burden of proof at trial

It is not some general societal obligation.

There is no rule, law, or even custom, by which people are not free to form and express their opinions as the guilt or innocence of someone charged with a crime.

Neither you, me or anyone else owes him or anyone else any presumption whatsoever in what I might post to an internet forum.

You know what? I think Julian Assange dealt in illegally-obtained material for the purpose of interfering with the US election. I think he did it in coordination with, e.g., Roger Stone. And I'm not waiting for a trial to figure out the bleedingly obvious.

The civil proceedings relating to these charges against Avenatti have been going on a long time, and there's been a lot of evidence produced in them.

Stormy Daniels even calls him a liar now. I believe her.

[ancianita]

79. Sure. My societal rule about presumption of innocence errs on the side of Miranda, which gives him

a shot at defending against "case building" that's more hearsay than evidence.

I believe Stormy, too. But she's got to have the evidence.

I don't want to distrust this DOJ, but I don't trust them. I'm with the lawyer Pelosi, who trusts lawyer Mueller over lawyer Barr.

And I don't trust lawyer Hanna.

Otherwise, I might as well go with Trump's societal rules about calling everyone before him "spies," because his lawyer said he thought our government would do that -- as if huge number of Russian contacts were innocent and he's a patsy for the "deep state."

But I want evidence. Law citations. I want a judiciary that's not compromised by executive politics, bagmen, money or the power of anyone who sees themselves above the law.

Avenatti will take his punishment. This lizard president and his legal warriors won't.

[real Cannabis calm]

36. here's a 5th recommendation

[calimary]

45. Welcome to real Cannabis calm!

Sigh... I always had this little feeling that he was too good to be true.

He did make for some uncomfortable publicity for trump, and was mighty good at that kind of perception manipulation. He made a lot of noise. But he did also say "those who have nothing to hide - hide nothing."

[Solly Mack]

41. Is anyone really surprised?

Seriously. He swam in the same waters as Trump.

Sure, he was very good at going back at Trump - but then they came up in the same waters. Both used to a certain style of attack.

Both used to a certain way of doing business.

Is he being "set-up"? Very doubtful.

Avenatti had his own stench - he just threw it at Trump a lot and that was funny.

Could someone close to all of them - Trump/Avenatti - pointed the way for a criminal investigation?

Sure. Easily.

It's how that game is played with people like Trump and Avenatti - point out my wrongs/crimes and I'll do the same for you. A bloody tit for tat.

Avenatti had to know this was coming. He had to know he was leaving himself exposed by exposing himself so publicly.

People need to remember - the enemy of your enemy does not a friend make.

I think it's hilarious when two human sharks go after each other. Especially when I know I don't like one of them - doesn't mean I want the other one over for dinner though.

[The Mouth]

87. "People need to remember - the enemy of your enemy does not a friend make. "

Needs to be said again and again.

[ancianita]

49. Twelve of the 23 judges for the Central District (Los Angeles) are Bush or Reagan appointees.

The United States Attorney for the Central District represents the United States Government in civil and criminal cases.

The United States Attorney has been Nicola T. Hanna since January 5, 2018. United States Attorneys are appointed to their positions by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

They work in the Executive Branch of government under the Department of Justice and are not officials in the Judicial Branch.

United States Attorneys report to the Attorney General of the United States.

Trump nominated the chief prosecutor of the Central District, Nicola T. Hanna.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Central_District_of_California#United_States_Attorney_for_the_Central_District

This could be relevant, yes?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

53. Which means that 11 of them are not.

Pretty much a fifty-fifty split. But I doubt very much that a federal judge, regardless of who appointed him/her, would be politically biased against someone who has been indicted by a grand jury on easily-proved charges based on IRS and bank records. However, they might come down hard on him because he's a lawyer who stole all the settlement money from a paraplegic client and lied about it. Honest lawyers really, really don't like crooked ones.

[Crabby Appleton]

54. Relevant, no

Care to enlighten us of the role judges play in a grand jury bringing an indictment?

[ancianita]

57. I hear you. But the Trump appointee, Hanna, runs the grand jury to get the indictment.

If you watch the PBS video link on FB, you'll see his attitude.

Look, everyone can jump on Avenatti being guilty as hell, I get it. However.


1. This is NOT the IRS or the Feds' investigation.

It's the executive branch's DOJ department.

2. That's Nicola T. Hanna, Trump's appointee.

Hanna's team works for the Executive branch -- that's Trump -- not the judicial branch.

3. And so, 50-50 chance or not, the judges will probably put Avenatti away.

4. Even if there's evidence, don't discount that Trump and Barr are behind this prosecution, and not to see justice done for these victims.

No one is above the law. Yes.

Including the Lizard Prez who's after him.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

60. Have you read the indictment? Do you seriously believe the charges,

which are based on paper records from banks and the IRS, were illegitimate and politically-motivated? The guy stole all the settlement money from his paraplegic client, FFS! He didn't file tax returns, let alone pay his taxes! I'd happily throw his slimy ass in jail, just for that! I do not understand why anybody defends this scumbag.

[ancianita]

63. We'll have to see the evidence, won't we. All you need to understand is that scumbags get a

fair trial. That no one is above the law.

It's all we'd want for Trump, too, isn't it.

[jberryhill]

69. No. Most of the time, scumbags make a plea deal

Most criminal prosecutions do not go to a trial.

There is very little to actually dispute in this indictment.

The IRS and the DOJ have charged him with, among other things, not filing his taxes.

Now, do you think he's going to somehow prove that he DID file his taxes? When there is no record of him having filed them? That's the kind of thing the IRS would know if he did.

Similarly, he obtained a loan from a bank using forged income tax returns for his law firm, to overstate his income; and those forged returns were different from the ones he filed with the IRS.

Do you think the IRS has a copy of the actual tax returns from the firm, and the loan application from the bank? Because one of the charges is identity fraud, since he used the name of his tax preparer on the fake tax returns. You think maybe they checked with the tax preparer to ask before filing charges?

This is not rocket science here. The IRS is not going to charge you with not filing your taxes for several years, and then somehow find out that they slipped behind the refrigerator in the IRS break room. That's not how this works.

He collected settlements for his clients, and didn't pay his clients. Most of the relevant bank records, if you are interested in the evidence, has already been produced in the In re Eagan Avenatti civil case. You think maybe the DoJ looked at those records, saw the settlement of, in one case, $4M come in, and then maybe saw the subsequent payments from that account? Do you think maybe they checked with the clients to ask, "Hey did you get paid?"

Or do you actually think these clients are going to show up and say, "Oh, no, none of that shit happened. We got paid just like we were supposed to" and their bank records are going to show that?

Dream on.

[ancianita]

71. Not going to think any of the things you think I'd think til the plea is made and/or a trial starts.

If you're impugning my judgment, better check your antipathy at the thread door.

So just relax.

Take a breath.

[jberryhill]

72. People wonder how Trump supporters were able to ignore his obvious ethical issues

I don't wonder about that at all.

I'm simply saying that this "I'll wait for a trial and a verdict" thing is utter nonsense. Most criminal prosecutions do not go to trial.

And if that's the standard, then I can't imagine what the fuss was over Judge Kavanaugh.

[ancianita]

73. In this context, you're throwing me in with them here, aren't you.

[jberryhill]

74. No

I didn't say a word about you at all.

I was merely pointing out that "I'll wait for a trial" does not apply to most criminal prosecutions.

He'll make a deal, and then those who still believe in Peter Pan will say that he only did it because he couldn't fight against the onslaught of federal prosecutors, etc., and he was simply railroaded into making the deal.

But you? No. I know nothing about you.

[ancianita]

77. I understand that his failure to file is evidence. We'll see how he pleads on the rest. I have a

sympathy for lawyers who go after crooked lawyers.

But in the larger context of political and legal theater, I'll credit him with firing us up about Trump's criminality.

I'll be glad to see him lose his license when they prove he stole from his clients. I'm already pissed that Stormy has suffered loss with him, and she does lend credibility to the other clients' claims.

Is there some reason this case would ever not have been adjudicated through the regular judiciary? Probably. It's because lizard prez chose his moment and his men.

Even when they do get a crook, it's to fluff up distraction in the news cycle.

This very minute, look at how lizard prez already uses the cameras to impugn the FBI, Obama and intel of spying.

Just don't think for one minute that I trust the way this lizard president uses his DOJ.

[jberryhill]

80. ?

"Is there some reason this case would ever not have been adjudicated through the regular judiciary?"

I don't understand what you believe to be the "regular judiciary". The guy committed a number of federal crimes, and long before any involvement with Trump. This is the "regular judiciary" to the extent that I can make any sense out of that phrase.

His engagement with the IRS in a bad way started back in 2017 when he was stiffing them for taxes owed from the Tully's business, came to an agreement with them, and then hid funds to avoid performing that agreement. So, yes, he was going to go down for that for sure.

If you have sympathy for lawyers going after crooked lawyers, there's been a shedload of them going after Avenatti for a while now.

[ancianita]

84. I hear you. I thought there are prosecutors at state levels more distant from the DOJ. Lots of

federal cases are prosecuted at state levels at the discretion of prosecutors. Michelle Alexander explains this in The New Jim Crow. Trump family cases are now being handled at various state jurisdictions because of state laws allegedly broken.

And so, not being a lawyer, I thought that there didn't need to be federal prosecution if this could have been optionally handled under state of California law in this case.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

88. The state of California doesn't, and can't, prosecute IRS cases or other cases

arising under federal statutes; and the federal courts don't prosecute cases based on state law. The state and federal systems have entirely separate jurisdictions. All states have federal prosecutors who work in the federal district(s) in those states - for example, the Southern District of New York is the federal district court system that handles federal cases arising in Manhattan. The Manhattan D.A.'s office handles cases in Manhattan that involve violations of state law. But they are entirely different systems.

It is not true that federal cases are prosecuted at state levels at the discretion of prosecutors, because federal cases - those which arise under a federal statute - are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. There are some offenses that are both state and federal crimes, such as many drug crimes. In some of those cases, especially the less serious ones, the federal prosecutors will leave prosecution to the state, but the crime will be a state crime and the defendant will not be prosecuted under the corresponding federal statute.

[ancianita]

90. I'm aware. I don't have her book, but I recall that Alexander clearly stated that prosecutors had

the discretion to make a case either federal or state; and that with black defendants and white defendants charged with identical crimes, prosecutors chose to make federal cases with black defendants and state cases with white defendants. Which affected their subsequent voting rights and possibly, employment. Not all were about drugs, some were weapons charges, and none, that I can remember, were drawn from grand juries, either.

[jberryhill]

89. States do not prosecute for federal income tax fraud, interstate bank fraud, etc.

He is charged with a bunch of federal crimes which were under investigation for quite some time, since his fraud involving Tully's goes back two years. They are federal crimes.

Likewise, the bankruptcy fraud is an offense committed solely within the federal bankruptcy system.

[ancianita]

91. Right.

[Polybius]

106. And 11 are not

Seems both sides know he committed crimes.

[ancianita]

109. Yeah, somebody already said that.I can do the math & you're kinda late. Got anything informative?

[Polybius]

110. You didn't reply to the person who "already said that"

If you can do the math why did you post it? Complaining about 12 out of 23 doesn't make much sense.

[ancianita]

111. Niggling about a 50-50 chance of Avenatti getting a Republican appointee doesn't make sense, either

[Polybius]

116. It's only fair

Besides, whoever he gets will convict him anyway.

[Vinca]

52. Wow - "mentally ill paraplegic" is Trump-level cruel.

[dewsgirl]

78. It sure is. Yikes.

[Doodley]

55. Does anyone here doubt that the same sort of charges could be made against Trump?

But never will the same standard be applied to Trump than everyone else.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

58. Trump, unfortunately, is a sitting president. Different rules do apply to sitting presidents.

But the fact that Trump is a crook who isn't being prosecuted doesn't mean other crooks shouldn't be prosecuted.

[ancianita]

62. That's arguable. Legal scholars say a sitting prez can be indicted. It's not about "rules."

Right or wrong, we have to take into account that Trump, no lawyer, but with over a thousand court battles in his past, isn't one who loves the law but wields it as a weapon.

And any one in the future who's his target will get his Goliath v David treatment.

I don't like Avenatti, but he did bring out some horrible truths about the criminality of this sitting president, and I'm glad he had the temerity to do it before the public.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

65. Avenatti took credit for the FBI's investigation of Cohen, which started almost a year

before the Daniels lawsuit was filed.

Do you think prosecutors and judges appointed by Clinton and Obama can or will treat Republican criminal defendants fairly?

[ancianita]

66. So what. He showed Trump's dirt to the nation. Re your last question, are you saying "both sides"?

My position as a Democrat is that Republican appointees might have political leanings, and because these aren't FBI, they have less trustworthiness.

Our party's history shows us to be the less corrupt. That's my position. It's about trust.

Yes, if pushed to the wall, I'd say that judges appointed by Clinton and Obama can treat a Republican criminal more fairly than Bush and Reagan judges would treat a Democratic criminal.

We're in lawyer wars now.

There are lawyers who love the law and lawyers who use both the law and "legalities" as weapons. Judges know this. We all know this.

I will wait to see what their evidence is.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

117. You've already seen the evidence; it's in the indictment. That's the evidence a jury would see

if the case ever went to trial, which it probably won't. Paper cases are rarely tried because there's rarely a credible defense to them. Kroner to kruggerands Avenatti will plead to some of the charges in order to receive a lesser sentence. I do not think he will be treated unfairly by the prosecution or the judge; what would be unfair is if they didn't throw the book at him.

[Sapient Donkey]

61. I'm all in with the innocent until proven guilty stuff

but I have a feeling this isn't going to work out too well for him, and I don't think it's just some revenge from the Trump admin. I don't recall exactly what it was, but there was some stuff he said/did last year that made me think twice about his character. So yeah, innocent until proven guilty, but I won't be surprised if/when evidence of scumbaggery starts leaking out.

[Socal31]

81. With the Feds batting .950 on pleas/convictions.......

He's only going to do 200 years or so.

[Crabby Appleton]

92. The link below has a link to the indictment at the bottom of the DoJ PR

https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/attorney-michael-avenatti-named-federal-grand-jury-indictment-accuses-him-stealing

If anyone is interested.

[Gretto]

103. He's in big trouble

To say the least.

[amywalk]

105. Avenatti sounds like someone who might want to be Trump's

running mate for 2020. He’s got the bald head, the arrogance and just the right amount of
corruption and past criminal acts to warrant being a Republican now.

[GulfCoast66]

107. The only reason I did not get post hidden about him months ago...

Was I did not post what seemed obvious to me.

The guy was obviously a grifter.

The fact that there was a committed cadre of folks on DU who supported a porn star lawyer for president, and would allow no dissent, really opened my eyes.

And of course there are still some here who still defend him against obvious evidence he is crooked to the core. It’s all a conspiracy, of course. Implied sarcasm thingy.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

119. I'm still amazed that I didn't get posts hidden,

since I've been busting on this guy as a fraud for months now. And the fact that some are defending him by insisting that we "wait for the evidence," all of which is described in detail in the indictment, is pretty funny considering that some the same people wanted the heads of Manafort and Cohen on a plate before trial because, um, all the evidence was in the indictment.

[GulfCoast66]

121. Yep. DU is supposed to be a fact based site

But anyone who goes on MSNBC or CNN and slams trump is automatically a hero. Facts be damned.

Same with the Mueller report. If he does not show a conspiracy with the Russians then it is obviously a cover up. Mueller has already proven and it is accepted that the Russians interfered for Trump. And while it is apparent trump welcomed that, proving that he conspired is much harder.

The fact remains; the only way to beat them is at the polls. Too many people want a savior to free them from trump.

Either we win elections, or they do.

Many of us have known that since 2016.

[YOHABLO]

108. It's a wait and see. We don't know if all the allegations are substantiated, do we?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

118. Federal prosecutors avoid charging cases they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt,

and in cases like this, based almost entirely on bank and IRS records, it will not be very difficult to prove the elements of the offenses, if it went to trial - which it won't, unless Avenatti is stupid enough to insist on defending himself. The evidence is laid out in the indictment and I don't know how he can possibly claim the bank and IRS records are not true or accurate.

[Stuart G]

112. While the show ain't over...for the "in crowd", It sure ain't a pretty show !!!

..I think we will see a whole lot more about more people. Yes, Avanti is "innocent till proven guilty" of course. But the show goes on. Who will be next?, When? Why? I could be wrong..maybe this is the end of the show..no more....I don't think so.
...Early in this group of threads on whether or not Avanti is a "crook" someone said ..Trump is a crook. Maybe someone didn't say that ..Ok..I will say "Trump is a crook". The big crook or the head of the gang.
...What a gang?..When the leader of the gang is a "crook" and does illegal things, and thinks he can get away with it, then the members of the gang think the same thing. Why? That is how the gang works...

...So was Nixon a crook? He said, "I am not a crook" Was he?
...So is Trump a crook?...He has not said , I am not a crook.. Do you think Trump does crooked things?
.. So if we believe that Trump has done some "crooked things" (or his gang has) then will Mueller get them? or will Mueller get Trump if he has done something crooked? Hell I don't know.. Is it act 2 or Act 3? How many Acts?...What kind of play is this, anyway? Maybe 4 Acts?

...So as "The World Turns" stay tuned for the next episode in this show of shows. Who will it be? How will it be?
When will it be?........Same time, and same station...for the next episode of ..."I Am Not a Crook"

(are 4 enough?) couple more OK?

[Cha]

122. Not very smart, is it? How ever did

he think he could get away with all of that?!