Once again Rush is asking the pertinent question regarding Avenatti!

Guarantee you it's a democratic group ran by the Clintons with the tentacles of Soros

quote:

---

Cohen character who IS going to jail

---

quote:

---

nah lets not ask about Cohen' attempt at profiting off of access to the Whitehouse,....nah that wouldn't be a more pertinent question at all. lets not ask why this Cohen character who IS going to jail is the personal attorney of the President...this is the guy the leader of the free world chooses to represent him and he is a 'billionaire'. This is just another notch in the low class, low T, low intelligent people Trump surrounds himself with and that lead our country. Im sure Rush posited that question to his listeners....No....Im shook

---

So now you’re concerned about what you perceive to be “pay to play” with Trump? Where were you when Hilldawg, Slick, Obammy and countless other Dims undoubtedly enriched themselves through their political persuasions. You don’t need to answer SnoozerHawg. Lol!

quote:

---

once again you guys always bring up the Clintons and Obama when the topic isn't even about them.

---

Well they are paying for his services so you are wrong like always

quote:

---

nah lets not ask about Cohen' attempt at profiting off of access to the Whitehouse,....nah that wouldn't be a more pertinent question at all.

---

There is nothing wrong with it since he is a private citizen and not on the government payroll. So if AT&T wants to pay him 1.2 million dollars, that is their business....nothing illegal about it, or for that matter sleazy

quote:

---

ets not ask why this Cohen character who IS going to jail is the personal attorney of the President

---

Cohen got results in his capacity as personal attorney for Trump.....anything else?

quote:

---

once again you guys always bring up the Clintons and Obama when the topic isn't even about them.

---

Bringing up a recent example of a similar situation and discussing the similarities, differences and hypocrisy as it relates to the current topic is undoubtedly relevant.

Nice try.

quote:

---

Who the hell is paying this Dim operative?

---

he is doing this strictly for publicity.

He is on tv multiple times per day.

I am sure this has raised his profile quite a bit for future litigation.

Soros tentacles with ginger soy sauce is a delicacy in Singapore. Don’t hate.

quote:

---

What is it pertinent to?

---

You are saying that an former employee of trump inc selling access to trump isn't problematic? Seriously?

quote:

---

Who the hell is paying this Dim operative? [img]It was reported[/img] that Avenatti owes the IRS over 5 million in back taxes

---

I do not care about Avenatti, one way or the other, but this summary is yet another example of reporters who have no understanding regarding the matter on which they are reporting.

I am sure that you read some article in which some reporter said this. The problem is that it is wrong.

Avenatti bought a business (Tully Coffee) and is alleged by a partner (Patrick Dempsey) to have then leveraged the company to cover much of the acquisition cost. Dempsey is suing Avenatti, claiming that he was not told this this would be done. This is interesting, but not related to the tax debt.

Then, Tully started slowly failing, and it is alleged to have failed to remit employee withholdings to governmental entities. Probably used the money to cover operating expenses. The tax debt (against the corporation, not Avenatti) arises from from this failure BY THE corporation and AGAINST the CORPORATION. I have not seen anything to indicate that this is a personal debt of Avenatti, though I would certainly consider any reporting to the contrary.

There has also been reporting that Avenatti put his law firm into bankruptcy. This too is incorrect. The firm did not file bankruptcy. A small creditor (less than $30k) filed an involuntary petition against the firm. The creditor has since disappeared, and the firm is seeking dismissal of the petition. Apparently, the dispute related to terms of payment. The firm is a contingent-fee plaintiff’s shop, and it claims that payment was due upon settlement of the case on which the work was done. The creditor claims he was entitled to immediate payment. Certainly not the first time that fight has been fought.