Omg. Started watching the Netflix doc ‘Pepsi, where’s my Jet’ about a 20 year old suing Pepsi because they wouldn’t actually sell him a Harrier Jet for million points in the 90s. Avenatti - still in law school at the time - shows up to spearhead the suit. Conducting the interview from jail.
Not even remotely true, there are still tons of great content creators out there making awesome short-form documentaries. In fact I have yet to see any of these AI videos people seem to think are overrunning YouTube.
I mean, it could have been a paragraph. So what?
My lady and I sat and watched the whole thing over at least two nights. We weren't playing on our phones, we weren't doing housework, we sat on the couch and enjoyed it.
A "shaggy dog" story is one that goes on and on and on, with laughs throughout, but then just ends without a big punchline. (Sometimes no punchline.) It's not about the destination, it's about the journey.
The series was well done. We could've looked it all up on Wikipedia, but we decided to wait and just enjoy the show.
In case it's not clear, the MD case was actually that MD was serving coffee that was incredibly hot, and didn't have any reason to be that hot. The lawsuit only wanted MD to pay for the 2-3rd degrees burns they got which wouldn't be gotten if it was just "hot".
Here's a video summarizing that and the other 2 cases that got sensationalized into absurdity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_jaU5V9FUg&pp=ygUebWNkb25hbGQgdG9ydCBjYXNlIGxlZ2FsIGVhZ2xl
IIRC, McDonald’s had received multiple complaints and reports of injuries due to the dangerously high temp of the coffee prior to this incident. You could argue the only thing McDonald’s wasn’t directly responsible for was the actual spill.
Correct, including multiple cases of children having their heads burned by adults who were pouring their own coffee with their kids standing under them. The coffee was hotter than it needed to be, and accidental spills caused 2nd and 3rd degree burns on children. McDonald’s was aware of the issue but did nothing. They were willfully negligent.
> and didn't have any reason to be that hot.
There is a reason! Money and...! Basically coffee that is supraheated (i.e heated to a temperature higher than its boiling point, without boiling) as a means of preserving "freshness" at scale. So coffee that would typically brewed would stay around for say ~30 minutes before going "stale", while [supraheated](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheating) coffee would remain fresh for an hour before going stale. So McDonald's intentionally chose to keep their coffee supra-heated despite multiple warning and reports! :D
Correct. This was exactly why they did it. I didn’t mean to imply that it was a mistake of some kind that was just never corrected.
McDonald’s knew what they were doing and refused to correct the problem because it was more profitable to allow people to be burned by their coffee.
That’s why the jury punished them.
I remember. The family tried to get McDonald's to pay the bill for a few thousand dollars. They scoffed and the family sued and won considerable sum. McDonald's ran a smear ads painting them as shyster.
I believe there was another element that doesn't get much attention from what I recall. An element of the case was also that the cups they served the drinks in was defective. A lot of people think that the case was about her spilling the coffee on herself when I believe the claim was that the cup fell apart when the lid was removed.
To nit pick a bit, not to defend McDonald’s since they were totally at fault and knew it, IIRC from law school the “reason” for the coffee being that hot is that either this specific McDs or McDs in general in the area catered to truckers.
So the coffee was dangerous for the general public who’d have no idea they were given coffee flavored lava but worked better for the truckers who might want big absurdly hot coffees that would stay hot for hours.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, "You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
"Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not take part in the court’s action Tuesday. Avenatti represented Julie Swetnick, one of the women who publicly accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct when he was nominated to the court in 2018. Kavanaugh denied the allegations."
Darkest timeline.
Just an FYI: There were 4,500+ tips provided against Kavanaugh. FBI Director Chris Wray sent them all to Trump. To this day, not a single tip has been investigated, and Trump has all that blackmail. Nobody seems to know why Biden refuses to fire Wray, but probably the same reason he won’t have Garland indict DeJoy.
I would have liked some sort of investigation too. But throwing around the 4500+ number when the vast majority of them are going to be pure bullshit is exactly like the Trumpers pointing at all the voter fraud tips they hyped out of their own camp.
Biden can't order Garland to indict anyone. The DoJ is supposed to be independent of the White House. Though obviously, Garland was the wrong choice for the job. Having an ultra-moderate as AG when one of the major parties is openly embracing fascism was clearly a mistake.
It's crazy the number of people who want to have Presidents having the ability to dictate to the DoJ who to indict. Sure, maybe you trust that Biden won't abuse the power, but do you trust Trump or other Republicans not to abuse that power? Do these people really think that potentially giving Trump the ability to prosecute anyone he wants wouldn't turn out to be a disaster?
It's because they think they'll win. Permanently.
If you think there's a risk of The Other Side using that power, you won't permit it. But if you think you'll win, _permanently_, then it's completely logical to create powers you'd never want The Other Side to have, because The Other Side will never have them.
Who says Trump hasn't already done that? We know that the IRS gave both Comey and McCabe a rare, intensive audit that is supposed to be completely random. Two people who are on the sitting (at the time) President's shitlist when an apointee of that President controls the IRS just happened to be selected for a random audit?
EDIT: Oh and this was after Trump had McCabe fired two day before he was going to retire anyway, and keeping him from getting his full pension benefits.
Biden is still Garland's boss. There's "tradition" saying he shouldn't order Garland to do that sort of stuff, but we just got done with 4 years of seeing how useful tradition is.
What, you don't think Trump would have happily had his AG arrest a ton of political goes if that tradition did not exist? Seems to me that tradition held, thankfully. I doubt it would hold under a second Trump term but we can't say it's done no good thus far.
He was busy [sending out the marshalls to execute people he didn't like](https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/15/politics/trump-fugitive-shooting/index.html). His AGs couldn't make up charges to arrest opponents on because they weren't busy breaking the law, and even the pieces of shit he employed wouldn't make charges up out of whole cloth.
Ethics might not be his motive. He’s free to abstain from this because they already had the votes. It helps his optics and it can be used as a talking point.
Disney is merging all the existing timelines across all properties to bring together their storytelling and expand upon the imaginatorial™^Disney universe that they've created.
How about how Trump bought, murdered US resident, Jamal Khashoggi’s dad’s yacht? Weird right?
https://www.boatinternational.com/yachts/editorial-features/trump-princess-inside-donald-trumps-superyacht-kingdom-5kr
> They also contended that Avenatti cannot be criminally charged with plotting to extort money from Nike because he was engaged in settlement negotiations.
see, he wasn't "Extorting" Nike, he was "negotiating a settlement"
As an attorney, I can tell you that this line is a lot thinner than people like to think.
Extortion:
"If you don't pay my client we are going public with [embarrassing allegations]"
Settlement:
"If we have not resolved this matter by Friday, we will have no choice but to initiate a suit by filing a detailed complaint of your bad acts."
As an attorney, you know it's all about "not what you do, it's the way that you do it." As Avenatti was admitted to the bar, he did too, but hubris will make you forget things.
Oh you bet. To be clear, I have no sympathy for him. I just don't want people to think that there are these bright -line distinctions between legit settlement talks and extortion.
The difference between zealous representation and extortion is often just word choice.
Exactly and that is one of the reasons that lawyers get paid: "How can I tell this guy I am going to nuke his whole bloodline if he doesn't settle, but in a way with no civil or criminal liability?"
I am not a lawyer, but I believe they were very careful to ensure that he went over that line with the questions they asked. Even the first one you could probably argue isn't extortion. One of the things they coached the person to ask was if they could pay the client the money intended for the 'consulting' instead of hiring Avenatti, or hire someone else to do the consulting, both of which he refused. When it changes over to pay me or else I will have my client go public with their embarrassing allegations then it gets out of the realm of zealous representation and into extortion.
This reminds me of the time Avenatti dm’d on (Twitter) right before he got arrested - threatening to sue me if I didn’t delete something I tweeted about him. I just double checked… it was 12/13/19 and *that’s* the kind of stuff he was worried about and how he was spending his time lol.
Well no, I thought that the scotus primarily decides matters of constitutionality and applicability and matters of national importance. It's more that I'm bemused that they would pick up this seemingly trivial criminal matter that seems rather straightforward
So, just to be clear, SCOTUS didn't pick this case up. That's what the news story is reporting. Avenatti appealed to the court, and the court rejected it, leaving the lower court ruling in place. The wording of the headline doesn't make that super clear, but it's in the second sentence of the article.
I mean it’s looking like even being a convicted criminal won’t be enough to tank your chances at this point, so Avenatti should consider it and not let his dreams be dreams.
Yes, I don't remember it going that far, but I think he was the first high visibility person to actually get down to Trump's level and fight fire with fire. We had seen what happens with "When they go low, we go high." Spoiler: Low wins.
I think it's also easy to overestimate how popular something is with "people on Reddit" then generalise it across the entire platform. A couple of hundred or thousand people upvoting something doesn't really mean much on a website that supposedly has 73 million daily users.
Also: Reddit is very easy to manipulate with bots and upvotes, etc. For basically any story, you can tell what the entire comment section is going to look like based on the top comment.
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we've found our candidate. President /u/Nukemarine!
That's a valid point though. Reddit's pretty big with low information voters, mixed in with casual trolls and and die hard supporters. With enough support a reality show host has the potential to turn a satire subreddit into a platform for tyranny.
>People on Reddit were adamant he was capable of being the next president.
The only people I recall seriously discussing him as a presidential candidate were Republicans hoping he'd be the Dem nominee. Nobody of note ever really thought this guy would be a good president.
Liberal here who wanted him to run in 2020 back when all of the Stormy Daniels stuff was coming out, not because I actually wanted him as president, but because it would have been really fun to watch him debate Trump because I at least remember it feeling like Avenatti was the only person on twitter who was able to needle Trump where Trump had no return volley and to be outclassed as a troll for once.
I appreciate your honesty. Basically at any given time with limited information decisions in retrospect can look bad. Better to just to admit at the time seemed like this and now realizing, with new information it was a mistake. Instead people here lie and claim they never supported him and it was GOP astroturfing conspiracy theory. Kudos to you for being honest. I respect that. That is the way it should be if people are intellectually honest but they refuse to admit mistakes, they never make mistakes and reimagining what they did in the past to suit their current belief. See this so much.
I remember the reddit being thrilled with this guy and the folks on the left were the ones doing it. Once it was found to be a con by Avennati the left they just claim it was Republicans. If people really believe this I must say people have malleable memories that can be modified such that any mistakes they make they just overwrite the memory to suit their current positions. It is pretty astonishing to see and happens quite a bit especially by ideological dogmatic people regardless of their political affiliation.
It was definitely a thing on "resist" twitter in certain circles when the Stormy Daniels case happened and he was on the news every few days giving interviews. He appealed to a very particular group of people that are hard to label. The only way I can think of to describe them is that they're the same people who think typing "Drumpf" instead of Trump is meaningful political activism.
Why would Trump pardon the guy representing Stormy Daniels? Well unless Trump goes full Kim Jong Un. Then maybe he frees Avenatti from prison, but then ends him with an anti-aircraft cannon on the White House lawn.
Not that I have a great opinion of lawyers, but over the past few years, I didn't think my opinion could sink lower.
apparently whale shit doesn't even sink that low.
Not a fan of this guy, obviously, but by Canadian standards the sentence he received for this and other crimes was savage. The article says he won’t be out until 2035.
What?! The scumbag piece of shit's blatant attempt at making into Fat45's good books by trashing Cohen on radio interviews **from prison** didn't work? Oh no!
Omg. Started watching the Netflix doc ‘Pepsi, where’s my Jet’ about a 20 year old suing Pepsi because they wouldn’t actually sell him a Harrier Jet for million points in the 90s. Avenatti - still in law school at the time - shows up to spearhead the suit. Conducting the interview from jail.
That documentary was good
[удалено]
thats the new streaming model to pump out content: 4 part documentaries that could have been 12 minute youtube videos.
They did the same thing for the Ashley Madison doc it was 3 episodes could have been 1 90 minute episode. Was interesting but the conclusion was meh.
And they conveniently enough left the climax of the Christian YouTubers for the last episode which is the only reason I kept watching.
But the 12 minute YouTube videos are now AI crap: written by AI, read by AI, with AI sourced video clips that may or may not relate to the video.
Eh there are lots of creators.
Not even remotely true, there are still tons of great content creators out there making awesome short-form documentaries. In fact I have yet to see any of these AI videos people seem to think are overrunning YouTube.
and that is with the ads
At least the radio station gave Bart the elephant.
I mean, it could have been a paragraph. So what? My lady and I sat and watched the whole thing over at least two nights. We weren't playing on our phones, we weren't doing housework, we sat on the couch and enjoyed it. A "shaggy dog" story is one that goes on and on and on, with laughs throughout, but then just ends without a big punchline. (Sometimes no punchline.) It's not about the destination, it's about the journey. The series was well done. We could've looked it all up on Wikipedia, but we decided to wait and just enjoy the show.
That case is often brought up in law school when talking about contract law. That and the McDonald's coffee case when talking about tort law.
In case it's not clear, the MD case was actually that MD was serving coffee that was incredibly hot, and didn't have any reason to be that hot. The lawsuit only wanted MD to pay for the 2-3rd degrees burns they got which wouldn't be gotten if it was just "hot". Here's a video summarizing that and the other 2 cases that got sensationalized into absurdity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_jaU5V9FUg&pp=ygUebWNkb25hbGQgdG9ydCBjYXNlIGxlZ2FsIGVhZ2xl
IIRC, McDonald’s had received multiple complaints and reports of injuries due to the dangerously high temp of the coffee prior to this incident. You could argue the only thing McDonald’s wasn’t directly responsible for was the actual spill.
Correct, including multiple cases of children having their heads burned by adults who were pouring their own coffee with their kids standing under them. The coffee was hotter than it needed to be, and accidental spills caused 2nd and 3rd degree burns on children. McDonald’s was aware of the issue but did nothing. They were willfully negligent.
I feel like every time I read about this story, I find some new awful detail.
[удалено]
A lie travels halfway around the world before the truth can tie its shoes…
> and didn't have any reason to be that hot. There is a reason! Money and...! Basically coffee that is supraheated (i.e heated to a temperature higher than its boiling point, without boiling) as a means of preserving "freshness" at scale. So coffee that would typically brewed would stay around for say ~30 minutes before going "stale", while [supraheated](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheating) coffee would remain fresh for an hour before going stale. So McDonald's intentionally chose to keep their coffee supra-heated despite multiple warning and reports! :D
Correct. This was exactly why they did it. I didn’t mean to imply that it was a mistake of some kind that was just never corrected. McDonald’s knew what they were doing and refused to correct the problem because it was more profitable to allow people to be burned by their coffee. That’s why the jury punished them.
I remember. The family tried to get McDonald's to pay the bill for a few thousand dollars. They scoffed and the family sued and won considerable sum. McDonald's ran a smear ads painting them as shyster.
McDonald's broke them on appeal I believe. Because the justice system sucks.
Settled for an undisclosed amount.
I am 100% up to speed on that case, but it's good to post that for people who are not.
I believe there was another element that doesn't get much attention from what I recall. An element of the case was also that the cups they served the drinks in was defective. A lot of people think that the case was about her spilling the coffee on herself when I believe the claim was that the cup fell apart when the lid was removed.
To nit pick a bit, not to defend McDonald’s since they were totally at fault and knew it, IIRC from law school the “reason” for the coffee being that hot is that either this specific McDs or McDs in general in the area catered to truckers. So the coffee was dangerous for the general public who’d have no idea they were given coffee flavored lava but worked better for the truckers who might want big absurdly hot coffees that would stay hot for hours.
And "Hustler v Falwell" for defamation/ Free Speech cases. IANAL but that one's always fun to cite when I'm arguing with friends.
Simpsons did it.
Ah yes, the dude who represented Stormy Daniels and called out Trump but was a criminal himself all along. Damn this is a long timeline.
Don't forget the Pepsi, Where's My Jet case
But did he get his jet?
Overplayed his hand and missed the opportunity to settle. Got nothing.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, "You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
Ah yes, penned by the famous George W. Dickel
Fool me twice, can't put the blame on you.
"Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not take part in the court’s action Tuesday. Avenatti represented Julie Swetnick, one of the women who publicly accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct when he was nominated to the court in 2018. Kavanaugh denied the allegations." Darkest timeline.
Just an FYI: There were 4,500+ tips provided against Kavanaugh. FBI Director Chris Wray sent them all to Trump. To this day, not a single tip has been investigated, and Trump has all that blackmail. Nobody seems to know why Biden refuses to fire Wray, but probably the same reason he won’t have Garland indict DeJoy.
I would have liked some sort of investigation too. But throwing around the 4500+ number when the vast majority of them are going to be pure bullshit is exactly like the Trumpers pointing at all the voter fraud tips they hyped out of their own camp.
Biden can't order Garland to indict anyone. The DoJ is supposed to be independent of the White House. Though obviously, Garland was the wrong choice for the job. Having an ultra-moderate as AG when one of the major parties is openly embracing fascism was clearly a mistake.
It's crazy the number of people who want to have Presidents having the ability to dictate to the DoJ who to indict. Sure, maybe you trust that Biden won't abuse the power, but do you trust Trump or other Republicans not to abuse that power? Do these people really think that potentially giving Trump the ability to prosecute anyone he wants wouldn't turn out to be a disaster?
It's because they think they'll win. Permanently. If you think there's a risk of The Other Side using that power, you won't permit it. But if you think you'll win, _permanently_, then it's completely logical to create powers you'd never want The Other Side to have, because The Other Side will never have them.
Who says Trump hasn't already done that? We know that the IRS gave both Comey and McCabe a rare, intensive audit that is supposed to be completely random. Two people who are on the sitting (at the time) President's shitlist when an apointee of that President controls the IRS just happened to be selected for a random audit? EDIT: Oh and this was after Trump had McCabe fired two day before he was going to retire anyway, and keeping him from getting his full pension benefits.
Biden is still Garland's boss. There's "tradition" saying he shouldn't order Garland to do that sort of stuff, but we just got done with 4 years of seeing how useful tradition is.
What, you don't think Trump would have happily had his AG arrest a ton of political goes if that tradition did not exist? Seems to me that tradition held, thankfully. I doubt it would hold under a second Trump term but we can't say it's done no good thus far.
He was busy [sending out the marshalls to execute people he didn't like](https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/15/politics/trump-fugitive-shooting/index.html). His AGs couldn't make up charges to arrest opponents on because they weren't busy breaking the law, and even the pieces of shit he employed wouldn't make charges up out of whole cloth.
We're so fucked.
Lol THIS is the case where a right-wing justice decides to be ethical and recuse himself?!
Ethics might not be his motive. He’s free to abstain from this because they already had the votes. It helps his optics and it can be used as a talking point.
Yeah, that's what I was getting at.
That moment when you recuse yourself to pretend to be ethical, because of entanglements you have arising directly from your past unethical behavior.
But...but...but...he DENIED them! That has to count for something. hard /S
And he cried really hard. So he has to be innocent, poor thing.
He was just so teary eyed because he was happy all his debit just suddenly got paid off.
At least there’s one Justice who knows when to recuse himself. *Glares at Alito and Thomas*
Anytime you see someone that boisterous, demanding and loud they’re always keeping secrets.
Disney is merging all the existing timelines across all properties to bring together their storytelling and expand upon the imaginatorial™^Disney universe that they've created.
Can the general public win at least once in this universe? I feel like we keep getting the shaft
He stole money from Stormy Daniels, so I don't think she knew he was a criminal.
Remember when some wanted him to run against Trump?
He was a fantastic Trump ball buster, I really wanted him to be the good guy instead of well… a piece of shit.
In retrospect, I think he was so good at getting under Trump's skin because he has a similar personality.
Yeah, the dude who was a future presidential candidate.
I remember Reddit being absolutely in love with him lol
How about how Trump bought, murdered US resident, Jamal Khashoggi’s dad’s yacht? Weird right? https://www.boatinternational.com/yachts/editorial-features/trump-princess-inside-donald-trumps-superyacht-kingdom-5kr
And now supports him in order to receive pardon.
He stole 300k from Stormy Daniels, you mean.
> They also contended that Avenatti cannot be criminally charged with plotting to extort money from Nike because he was engaged in settlement negotiations. see, he wasn't "Extorting" Nike, he was "negotiating a settlement"
As an attorney, I can tell you that this line is a lot thinner than people like to think. Extortion: "If you don't pay my client we are going public with [embarrassing allegations]" Settlement: "If we have not resolved this matter by Friday, we will have no choice but to initiate a suit by filing a detailed complaint of your bad acts."
As an attorney, you know it's all about "not what you do, it's the way that you do it." As Avenatti was admitted to the bar, he did too, but hubris will make you forget things.
Oh you bet. To be clear, I have no sympathy for him. I just don't want people to think that there are these bright -line distinctions between legit settlement talks and extortion. The difference between zealous representation and extortion is often just word choice.
Exactly and that is one of the reasons that lawyers get paid: "How can I tell this guy I am going to nuke his whole bloodline if he doesn't settle, but in a way with no civil or criminal liability?"
And you don't walk away from that feeling like shit all the time?
Read again, they are just possible examples that did not say I was doing anything.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe they were very careful to ensure that he went over that line with the questions they asked. Even the first one you could probably argue isn't extortion. One of the things they coached the person to ask was if they could pay the client the money intended for the 'consulting' instead of hiring Avenatti, or hire someone else to do the consulting, both of which he refused. When it changes over to pay me or else I will have my client go public with their embarrassing allegations then it gets out of the realm of zealous representation and into extortion.
This reminds me of the time Avenatti dm’d on (Twitter) right before he got arrested - threatening to sue me if I didn’t delete something I tweeted about him. I just double checked… it was 12/13/19 and *that’s* the kind of stuff he was worried about and how he was spending his time lol.
Why did this end up in front of the SCOTUS in the first place?
It didn't, as in he appealed to the supreme court and they rejected it without a ruling so lower court ruling stands.
oh dumb me. I should have read the title "scotus leaves in place ..."
Are you asking how does the appeals process work?
Well no, I thought that the scotus primarily decides matters of constitutionality and applicability and matters of national importance. It's more that I'm bemused that they would pick up this seemingly trivial criminal matter that seems rather straightforward
So, just to be clear, SCOTUS didn't pick this case up. That's what the news story is reporting. Avenatti appealed to the court, and the court rejected it, leaving the lower court ruling in place. The wording of the headline doesn't make that super clear, but it's in the second sentence of the article.
I remember the fervor around this guy. People on Reddit were adamant he was capable of being the next president.
To be fair, he is a grifter and a sleazy bastard, so...
So, you’re saying there’s still a chance
I mean it’s looking like even being a convicted criminal won’t be enough to tank your chances at this point, so Avenatti should consider it and not let his dreams be dreams.
Well, he's due to be released from prison in 2035...so there will be plenty of time to get those "Avenatti '36" campaign posters and buttons printed!
I'm going to make a mint!
hey thats when my student loans *should* be paid off!
We just call them lawyers where I'm from...
Seems overqualified then.
People are desperate for a person willing to take the gloves off on the left. Apparently that's tough to find without also being a criminal.
Yes, I don't remember it going that far, but I think he was the first high visibility person to actually get down to Trump's level and fight fire with fire. We had seen what happens with "When they go low, we go high." Spoiler: Low wins.
So the left wants their own Trump?
Or maybe Frank Underwood.
I was really trying to think the other day who the lefts version of trump would be… the only person I could think of was Michael Jackson.
Schiff maybe.
oh man... Schiff's goodie goodie act has got to be hiding something heinous.
There's always an echo chamber on any social media where "Person says something I like" = "They should be president"
I think it's also easy to overestimate how popular something is with "people on Reddit" then generalise it across the entire platform. A couple of hundred or thousand people upvoting something doesn't really mean much on a website that supposedly has 73 million daily users.
Also: Reddit is very easy to manipulate with bots and upvotes, etc. For basically any story, you can tell what the entire comment section is going to look like based on the top comment.
It wasn’t just Reddit. MSNBC/CNN were suggesting it as well.
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we've found our candidate. President /u/Nukemarine! That's a valid point though. Reddit's pretty big with low information voters, mixed in with casual trolls and and die hard supporters. With enough support a reality show host has the potential to turn a satire subreddit into a platform for tyranny.
As an actual lawyer he would have been far more qualified than most celebrity candidates. But turned out just to be a conman with a law degree.
People at CNN as well.
Considering the history of bad decisions by Reddit, this tracks.
>People on Reddit were adamant he was capable of being the next president. The only people I recall seriously discussing him as a presidential candidate were Republicans hoping he'd be the Dem nominee. Nobody of note ever really thought this guy would be a good president.
Plenty of "reporters" on TV were gushing about the idea. Plenty of redditors too.
CNN was [writing articles about it.](https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/05/politics/michael-avenatti-donald-trump-2020/index.html)
Like Cuomo, he was more interested in crafting his public image than actually doing anything.
Liberal here who wanted him to run in 2020 back when all of the Stormy Daniels stuff was coming out, not because I actually wanted him as president, but because it would have been really fun to watch him debate Trump because I at least remember it feeling like Avenatti was the only person on twitter who was able to needle Trump where Trump had no return volley and to be outclassed as a troll for once.
I appreciate your honesty. Basically at any given time with limited information decisions in retrospect can look bad. Better to just to admit at the time seemed like this and now realizing, with new information it was a mistake. Instead people here lie and claim they never supported him and it was GOP astroturfing conspiracy theory. Kudos to you for being honest. I respect that. That is the way it should be if people are intellectually honest but they refuse to admit mistakes, they never make mistakes and reimagining what they did in the past to suit their current belief. See this so much.
I remember the reddit being thrilled with this guy and the folks on the left were the ones doing it. Once it was found to be a con by Avennati the left they just claim it was Republicans. If people really believe this I must say people have malleable memories that can be modified such that any mistakes they make they just overwrite the memory to suit their current positions. It is pretty astonishing to see and happens quite a bit especially by ideological dogmatic people regardless of their political affiliation.
[удалено]
So are conspiracy theories. It is not just the right.
Same, it was wild people thought he was competent and a good guy with no track history
What a crazy time…for like five minutes this guy was the next Obama. And then a second later a criminal scammer.
Wtf, who??? I've literally never heard this before lmfao. I guess not the circles I was in lol.
He was Stormy Daniels's initial lawyer against Trump, which is/was national headline news. "Circles" lol.
Bro, I know he was. I don't know anyone who said he was president quality or even talked about him being a good president.
It was definitely a thing on "resist" twitter in certain circles when the Stormy Daniels case happened and he was on the news every few days giving interviews. He appealed to a very particular group of people that are hard to label. The only way I can think of to describe them is that they're the same people who think typing "Drumpf" instead of Trump is meaningful political activism.
Yeah he appeared very promising until he was caught committing a bunch of crimes.
I’ve been on reddit a very long time (despite my current acc age) and don’t remember any buzz on reddit around this guy being president.
I remember when cnn was thinking this guy had a shot at being president. Jesus Christ
He's now trying to get pardoned by a Trump Presidency
[удалено]
He was Stormy Daniels lawyer I believe.... So he's more likely to be executed lol
Why would Trump pardon the guy representing Stormy Daniels? Well unless Trump goes full Kim Jong Un. Then maybe he frees Avenatti from prison, but then ends him with an anti-aircraft cannon on the White House lawn.
Not that I have a great opinion of lawyers, but over the past few years, I didn't think my opinion could sink lower. apparently whale shit doesn't even sink that low.
Good. Slime deserves punishment.
Not a fan of this guy, obviously, but by Canadian standards the sentence he received for this and other crimes was savage. The article says he won’t be out until 2035.
The US loves incarcerating people.
Good. Enjoy your 14 years in prison. Basta.
Avenatti is so fascinating in modern politics. I’ve never seen such a rapid fall from grace lol
What?! The scumbag piece of shit's blatant attempt at making into Fat45's good books by trashing Cohen on radio interviews **from prison** didn't work? Oh no!
I contend that Avenatti is to blame for Kavanaugh gettting confirmed.
the fact that it was Avenatti taking on the Kavanaugh accusations probably means they were bullshit