Michael Avenatti Says He Will Testify FOR Trump

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: CarlLaFong

Nothing says innocent more than having a convicted liar testify for you.

OR having one testify against you.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

OR having one testify against you.

Probably better to have one testify against you given their lack of credibility bring as they're a convicted liar.

What could Avenatti even testify on? Anything told to him by Stormy would be covered by attorney-client privilege.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: CarlLaFong

OR having one testify against you.

Probably better to have one testify against you given their lack of credibility bring as they're a convicted liar.

The prosecution seems to believe that being a convicted serial perjurer is worthy of 'Star Witness' status.
How could they think any less of one testifying for the defense?

a reply to: Threadbarer

Does that privilege extend to the bedroom?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
What could Avenatti even testify on? Anything told to him by Stormy would be covered by attorney-client privilege.

DOh! I forgot how ethical Avenatti is.

BTW...Wasn't Cohen Trump's lawyer?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
What could Avenatti even testify on? Anything told to him by Stormy would be covered by attorney-client privilege.

That's all out the window. 🤣

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: Threadbarer
What could Avenatti even testify on? Anything told to him by Stormy would be covered by attorney-client privilege.

DOh! I forgot how ethical Avenatti is.

BTW...Wasn't Cohen Trump's lawyer?

That privilege was waived because of ‘reasons’.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

If he tried to testify on privileged information the prosecution would immediately object and it would be sustained.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: CarlLaFong

If he tried to testify on privileged information the prosecution would immediately object and it would be sustained.

And yet, Michael Cohen, Trump's ex-lawyer, is the prosecution's star witness.
Do you think objections to Cohen's testimony on privileged information will be sustained by the judge?

Two lawyers and a porn star. That fact the case is reliant on those type of people makes it sound more like the punch-line of a joke. All that is really missing is an actual politician, then we would have the most useless parts of society covered.

It would be illuminating to hear the judge explain why a convicted serial perjurer is acceptable as a star witness for the prosecution, while a convicted serial perjurer is NOT acceptable as a star witness for the defense.

originally posted by: Boomer1947
a reply to: CarlLaFong

If "Individual-1" had been anyone other than Donald Trump, the case would have gone to trial 4 years ago.

And the punishment for the crime would have been a hand slap; as in the case of these people who are people other than Donald Trump.

Obama 2008 campaign fined $375,000

President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign was fined $375,000 by the Federal Election Commission for campaign reporting violations — one of the largest fees ever levied against a presidential campaign, POLITICO has learned.

Politico

FEC fines Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC over Trump-Russia dossier research

Washington(CNN)Federal election regulators fined Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee earlier this month for not properly disclosing the money they spent on controversial opposition research that led to the infamous Trump-Russia dossier.

The DNC was fined $105,000 and the Clinton campaign was fined $8,000, according to a letter sent by the Federal Election Commission to a conservative group that requested an inquiry.

CNN

originally posted by: CarlLaFong
It would be illuminating to hear the judge explain why a convicted serial perjurer is acceptable as a star witness for the prosecution, while a convicted serial perjurer is NOT acceptable as a star witness for the defense.

Cohen lied out of blind loyalty to Trump. I would of thought most of you guys could relate.

Avenatti is a slippery little weasel who has one thing in mind : He thinks that if he helps Trump get the charges dismissed, he will get a pardon when Trump is elected. It has nothing to do with Trump being innocent or guilty, it's about how he can twist it to his own benefit.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: WiiDemBoyz
It would be a mistake by the defense. Avenatti a Trojan horse for the prosecution.

This. I wouldn't call him. No matter what he tells you, you have no guarantee what he's gonna actually say once he gets on the stand. And he's a known sleazeball stooge of the Left.

I would just cover that is reported he would do that, and leave it at that alone, if I had a choice in the matter.

a reply to: DAVID64

Yea, the 'what's in it for me' apsect of this makes me think he will say anyhing to get his pardon. But to pardon him would be a bad thing, hes a scummy person who deserves to be in prison.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: CarlLaFong

Nothing says innocent more than having a convicted liar testify for you.

Never use known liars for prosecution. We have seen over the years that the appeal will be a slam dunk. Nothing says fake case like convicted liars caught lying on the subject red handed being the Prosecution's star witness. I would destroy either of them in the closing statements if I was on either side and I was an attorney. Just stay away from uncredible people if you can.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: CarlLaFong

OR having one testify against you.

Probably better to have one testify against you given their lack of credibility bring as they're a convicted liar.

Appeals court will use it as a fact against any conviction, normally.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: DAVID64

Yea, the 'what's in it for me' apsect of this makes me think he will say anyhing to get his pardon. But to pardon him would be a bad thing, hes a scummy person who deserves to be in prison.

Are you speaking of Cohen or Avenatti?
The shoe fits 'em both.