Stormy Daniels and Michael Avenatti are now feuding, and it seems this might very well be the end of their relationship. This seems related to Daniels’ complaint to the Daily Beast that Avenatti filed the Donald Trump defamation lawsuit without her consent (which she lost and was obligated to pay hefty legal fees on).
While all of this is leaving the question up in the air of whether Daniels and Avenatti have turned on one another, and if his advocacy of her is done for good, it also has me asking if Michael Avenatti’s use of the Twitter platform to preempt a series of incendiary cultural/political debates about sex and race — not to mention his use of it for potential financial malfeasance – might be sufficient grounds for him to be banned there.
I had recently done a quick year-to-date Google Trends analysis of Michael Avenatti, which was unrelated to the Twitter question. Surprisingly however, it shows just how correlated public interest is in him with Twitter. I think this objectively demonstrates how essential the platform is to the enablement of his campaign of apparent lies, hate, and division.
It was interesting to glean the identity of the woman Michael Avenatti allegedly attacked. It was Mareli Miniutti, a 24 year old apparent prostitute bit part actress and native of Estonia (legally married to a New Yorker named Michael Miniutti). She has been dating Avenatti since October 2017 and cohabiting in Century City California with him since January 2018. Their disagreement seems to have stemmed from Avenatti’s repeated inability to provide the financial security he had promised [Mareli] Miniutti as an apparent condition for their relationship. Documents filed by Miniutti substantiating the basis for the restraining order state that Avenatti “has made promises to “take care of” her financially and sometimes fails to follow through“, in addition to being “financially controlling” . Documents also seem to state that when Avenatti was unable to provide Miniutti with sugar daddy levels of security, he became “vehemently” opposed to her making money on her own.
Maybe we shouldn’t be so surprised that given Michael Avenatti’s tendency to stiff his landlords, business partners, and the IRS for small fortunes, he seems to have done the same to his lovely, young, unabashedly gold-digging, social climbing, Hollywood girlfriend?
The result of the financial argument appears to be that Avenatti was verbally aggressive (calling Miniutti an “ungrateful f****** b****“), hit her forcefully with pillows, and allegedly dragged her from bed which resulted in superficial scratches and bruising on Miniutti’s leg and side. The court documents around the restraining order allege this was not the first major fight between the two.
Despite the split; I wonder how much she’s been influencing Michael Avenatti in his recent media efforts, if at all? Could she possibly be an ‘agent of influence’ herself? It looks kinda like the cases of Richard Spencer and George Papadapoulos to me, in which similar questions have been asked.
I am not sure what to say about the Michael Avenatti domestic violence arrest. It is the kind of surreal schadenfreude normally reserved for happy dreams that you long for when you wake up; yet, it is all real (in the press anyway). However, I am fairly certain that regardless of whether it ends up being an increasingly common right wing political hoax — which would seem strategically intended to disprove Avenatti’s ‘believe all survivors‘ narrative — or if in fact he did commit felony domestic violence as the LAPD alleges — it is guaranteed to be ironic and damaging for Michael’s brand (and totally in line with the many ‘plagues’ which have befallen him of late for his apparent hubris). In the end, the Michael Avenatti case will prove either 1.) that all accusers cannot be believed and/or 2.) that Michael Avenatti is a dangerous advocate for women and a hypocrite.
Update: We can confirm that Michael Avenatti (DOB: 02-16-71) was booked this afternoon on a felony domestic violence charge (273.5 PC). His bail is set at $50,000.
Michael Avenatti is now having to deflect considerable criticism from both Democrats and Republicans that his actions around his representation of Julie Swetnick indirectly aided Brett Kavanaugh’s eventual ascendancy to the Supreme Court. While Avenatti has stood steadfastly by Swetnick, she has generally been eviscerated under public scrutiny. It is suggested that Avenatti’s actions in recklessly representing the flawed Swetnick and trying to grab the political spotlight for himself resulted in taking focus off of the more credible claims of Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez, allowing Republicans to focus on the ‘straw man’ of Swetnick’s weak character as a public figure. It seems in this case, that his tactics of social shaming rhetoric have backfired, perhaps permanently damaging his political standing.
In February 2018, YouTube started listing that ‘RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government’ on videos posted to RT’s YouTube channel. This change seems to be the consequence of attempts at enforcement of FARA-style regulation on social media in an attempt to curb the effects of state sponsored propaganda narratives. It also seems to be related to the near-unanimous assessment of the intelligence community as released in January 2017 that RT had been used as a malign influence vehicle for the Russian government campaign to subvert the 2016 US Presidential election.
Apparently, these findings were no ethical deterrent for the “Nostradamus of the legal scene”, Michael Avenatti – attorney for Stormy Daniels (aka Stephanie Clifford) – to appear on Larry King’s RT show on April 12, 2018 to make the case why he felt that it was common sense that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen would “roll over”; and that Cohen’s actions related to Stormy Daniels could lead to impeachment, or otherwise “end very, very badly” for the President.
In a back-to-back segment on the same program, Larry King also hosted former Congressman David Jolly (R-FL Pinellas). Jolly spoke on the matter of Paul Ryan’s announcement that he would not be seeking reelection (he had no on-air time with Avenatti, and the topics – although not necessarily the impeachment-orientated subject matter – of the discussions were different).