Or Donald Trump?
Do you think Shera Bechard got pregnant by Elliott Broidy?
|by Anonymous||reply 3||04/14/2019|
Her suit against Avenatti will go forward. I wonder if Avenatti and/or Cohen will spill the beans on who the daddy is (if there ever really was a baby)?
|by Anonymous||reply 1||04/14/2019|
Why would she endure abuse from such a small-time Republican toad? She's a beautiful woman who could have married a billionaire. But she settled for an abortion and a million- which she never even received.
And why do these girls always seek legal help from sleaze merchant Keith Davidson, who is a borderline extortionist? Is someone recommending him to them so he can deceive them?
"In May 2018 The Wall Street Journal reported that Shera Bechard, another former Playmate, had retained Davidson to negotiate a $1.6 million payment to her from an unnamed Republican Party official, supposedly after an affair that led to her having an abortion, according to a nondisclosure agreement that was among documents seized in the raid on Cohen's office the previous month. The Journal identified the official as Elliott Broidy, the party's deputy finance chairman, a financier who had been convicted of bribery in 2009.
The agreement had been signed "David Dennison", for Cohen's client, the same pseudonym that Trump had used when signing his agreement with Daniels while she had been represented by Davidson. New York magazine columnist Paul Campos suspected that, based on the timing of the arrangement, Broidy may have accepted responsibility that was in actuality Trump's. Campos noted that the first of eight $200,000 installments had been paid to Davidson in early December 2017, just before Bechard, like McDougal and Daniels before her, fired Davidson since she believed he was putting the opposing client's interest above hers. Two days later, Trump agreed to a hastily-scheduled meeting with Broidy, who shortly thereafter received a $600 million contract to lobby the U.S. government on behalf of the United Arab Emirates, whose leadership he had been telling all year he could get personal access to Trump if he were elected.
Campos had earlier noted that Trump already had a history of affairs with Playmates, once having bragged to Hugh Hefner at a party attended by many such women that he did not know which of them were his and which of them were Hefner's. Broidy, on the other hand, had once included as part of his bribes to an official of the New York State Comptroller's office the living and medical expenses of that official's girlfriend, concealed as a supposed loan to a relative of the woman.
According to the Journal's account, after Bechard retained Davidson, he got in touch with Cohen. Campos found this a strange thing for Davidson to do since Broidy was not a client of Cohen's, and Cohen therefore had no obligation to keep the information about the affair confidential. "[The call] had no conceivable legal justification, and was profoundly counterproductive to Davidson's client's interest." He also found it strange that Broidy, a man whose name was not widely known outside New York's financial community, would pay much more than Trump had for the silence of a past liaison, and retain a lawyer he did not know (when he already knew many who could have effectively represented him) who had called him on his own initiative about a claim which Bechard had, according to Broidy, provided no proof of, then quickly confess after the case became public knowledge. Campos believed it was much more plausible that it was Trump who had impregnated Bechard and paid to keep the abortion from becoming public knowledge to avoid alienating evangelical Christians who had been critical to his election.
Campos asked Avenatti, who had already publicly expressed doubt as to whether Broidy was Cohen's real client, whether his theory of a cut-out was likely. "There are considerable and serious questions as to this alleged settlement," Avenatti told him. "Many things about it simply do not appear to add up or pass the smell test."
|by Anonymous||reply 2||04/14/2019|
"In July 2018 Broidy announced he was ceasing payments, claiming that the agreement was no longer valid since Davidson had leaked information from it to Avenatti, a claim Davidson denies. Campos said this, too, makes no sense as the unauthorized disclosure of information would not be legal grounds to void the entire agreement; if that had happened, Broidy should have sued Davidson, since he had not represented Bechard since shortly after the agreement was concluded. After Campos wrote the column, Broidy's current attorney told Campos "this agreement was not on anyone else's behalf." Shortly afterward, Bechard sued Davidson, Avenatti and Broidy, alleging breach of contract; the details were not available as the complaint was under seal.
When Avenatti was able to review the complaint the next business day, he did not share details but said "being named in this lawsuit is frivolous and complete bullshit." He moved to have it unsealed, suggesting that he was included on the basis that he had leaked the agreement to the media after Davidson shared it with him. However, he said, Davidson had shared it without any inquiry on his part, and, Avenatti claims, never told him any of it was confidential."
|by Anonymous||reply 3||04/14/2019|