I believe Avenatti is getting swiftboated

[manor321]

In my opinion, the Trumpers have identified Avenatti as a threat, so they've begun spreading smears about him.

First we have Molly Ball of TIME, who is so far refusing Avenatti's request to release the full transcript of their conversation.

Then we have Chuckles Grassley starting an investigation, with Chuck Todd and NBC news using this development to go on the attack.

I'm withholding judgement on Avenatti, but this smells like the fake Benghazi and Clinton email investigations to me.

One thing I DO know is that the press loves strong Republicans but hates strong Democrats.

[OnDoutside]

1. It has taken time but yes it does seem as if they are trying to take him down. Avenatti left himself

open with the Swetnick allegations, when he been sure footed up to that.

[Squinch]

2. And they're getting help on DU from our resident long-term troll.

Republicans (and same troll) have done this before.

[monmouth4]

3. Thank you, was just thinking the same thing...n/t

[Lucky Luciano]

4. Ob______r?

[oberliner]

24. You are saying this person is a troll?

For posting critical pieces about Avenatti that are being written and tweeted by Democrats, liberals, progressives, and mainsteam media outlets.

That is fascinating that you think that.

[blue cat]

60. I was threatened with being banned

For criticizing Bernie, so shouldn’t the same rules apply for Avenatti?

[MadDAsHell]

83. Avenatti isn't even a politician. I don't think TOS apply. nt

[Lucky Luciano]

79. Nothing personal. I have seen others go at you. I'm mostly neutral though.

Sometimes I raised my eyebrows in the past at a few comments, but not lately.

[blue cat]

85. Avenatti may run

Then will rules apply? Bernie isn’t even a Democrat.
Biggest regrettable primary vote, my bad.

[Bluepinky]

90. Oh please, always a reason to bring up and bash Bernie.

Bernie is more of a Democrat than some of the actual Democrats.

[Achilleaze]

7. Troll-lo-lo-loooo (R)

For old-time's sake (you know you want to hear it again):

[Hotler]

15. That is creepy. I may have...

nightmares from watching 15-seconds of it.

[oberliner]

25. That is a classic

[robbob]

40. Mr. Beans father?

[magicarpet]

55. Is that Opera or a bowel movement ?

[mitch96]

82. "Is that Opera or a bowel movement ?"

Yeah, hemorrhoids are a bitch...
m

[MontanaMama]

65. Holy gawd!

That’s awful and wonderful at the same time. I spit coffee on my iPad, thank you very much.

[jberryhill]

74. The best version is this one

[Charlotte Little]

89. OMG

[smirkymonkey]

10. +1000

Amazing that we have let this go on for so long.

[oberliner]

27. Amazing that the Avenatti fan community cannot accept any criticism of him

Even from Democrats.

Or even the posting of his own words.

[USALiberal]

30. Your deep concern is amazing. Hmmmm. Nt

[dalton99a]

43. No shit

[FSogol]

14. +1 n/t

[oberliner]

23. That is a ridiculous claim

There are numerous Democrats and main stream media outlets that are respect at this site.

From Time Magazine to Bakari Sellers.

[Kingofalldems]

38. Yes. See Al Franken.

[pintobean]

52. It would be nice

to have a thread about Avenatti without the self-anointed troll hunters hijacking it.

[MrsCoffee]

57. Rather have troll hunters than trolls on DU.

To each his own I guess.

[Squinch]

59. One comment does not a hijack make.

[pintobean]

61. Yeah, there's a gang of stalkers

that follow him around. They couldn't even wait for him in this thread... the 2nd reply.

[Squinch]

73. A) its interesting how everyone knows exactly who is being referred to,

and B) just as one comment is not a hijack, discussing or responding to a very prolific poster is not stalking.

[Tipperary]

80. Of course everyone knows.

The same posters show up every time to make comments about him/her. I did not agree with that poster about Franken at all, but I try not to call people trolls simply because they disagree with me.

[Squinch]

87. Neither do I. But when someone only posts things, for years on end, that

are negative about Democrats, or things designed to divide Democrats, or if they tend to gloat when things go against Democrats, and when they are very prolific in these types if posts... well, then, the shoe clearly fits.

[LanternWaste]

91. I'm curiously drawn to idiocy and the absurd... regardless of the sobriquet attached to it.

Which then stands to reason, those posters may not follow any one particular person around, but simply comment on absurd posts regardless of who posts it.

If one or more posters consistently make absurd statements, it can be easy to confuse responses to them with "following him around..."

Rational thought and logic... it's not just for breakfast anymore.

[oberliner]

95. There is also this great rule here: "No personal attacks or flaming"

No personal attacks or flaming

Do not personally attack, insult, flame, threaten, bully, harass, stalk, negatively call-out, ascribe ugly ulterior motives to, or make baseless claims about any member of this community. Do not post in a manner that is hostile, abusive, or aggressive toward any member of this community.

Why we have this rule: Civility begets quality discussions. Democratic Underground members are highly passionate about politics which means discussions can get heated -- but they don't need to get nasty. There's no reason why a community of intelligent adults who agree on a majority of political issues can't have a conversation without insulting each other or resorting to other anti-social behaviors.

[R B Garr]

58. Yes, this has bean very obvious.

Thank you.

[Drahthaardogs]

93. This!

Eom.

[Chipper Chat]

5. Of Corsi he is

[PatSeg]

6. Good point about the press

"loves strong republicans but hates strong Democrats."

[Scarsdale]

18. Name ONE "strong

republican"? They are only strong in groups, like the special investigators for Benghazi, the judiciary committee and others. Alone, they fold like a tRump suit.

[PatSeg]

51. This is true

With republicans, it is all an act giving a perception of strength that some people keep falling for.

[JackInGreen]

8. Pretty sure pur circular firing squad has him in their sites

As we speak.

[watoos]

9. Of course Avenatti is getting smeared.

The right fears Avenatti because he can change the right wing narratives.

That Swift Boat bastard who was behind trashing John Kerry, I forget his name, is involved in the Wikileaks/Assange/Roger Stone conspiracy. The Swift Boat bastard is now in Mueller's crosshairs, may justice be served to those evil lying bastards.

[Catherine Vincent]

11. ...John O'Neil?

[oberliner]

28. Or maybe he just does/says things that deserve to be criticized?

[marylandblue]

41. Jerome Corsi.

[watoos]

49. That's him, thank you.

[jberryhill]

12. He isn't running for anything

So it’s unlikely he’s going to lose any votes over being criticized.

It’s not unusual for someone who has never spent a day of public service or held any office to make a few missteps in their first go at president.

[mucifer]

13. Who was it who said that only a white man can win the Presidency?

He's creepy.

[leftofcool]

17. That is not exactly what he said in it's original context

He was talking about taking down Trump on his attitude toward women, the racism etc... His contention that it takes one white man to stand up to other white men who sexual abuse women and if more white men stood up, we might be able to do something about it.

[jberryhill]

26. You might want to have a look at that original context

He said the Democrats need to nominate a white male.

http://time.com/5435310/michael-avenatti-trump-white-male/

Is there anybody that you like in the Democratic political class? Or do you think [the 2020 nominee] should be someone from outside politics?

I think it better be a white male.

Really?

100%. And I don’t say that because I want it to have to be a white male. I say that because of just the realities of the situation. I think if the Democrats nominate anyone other than a white male at the top of the ticket, they’re gonna lose the election. I’d be willing to bet anything. I feel highly confident in that.

As you are interested in context, there is more of the transcript at the link.

[leftofcool]

37. I did read it and Time won't release what he said after that

But, anything to take down a Democrat who is actually out there working to help in the midterms, going to the border, suing Trump over those kids in cages. We can't have that now can we?

[jberryhill]

39. He's "suing Trump over those kids in cages"?

Really?

Can you provide a link to that suit? Which court is it in, I'd like to look that one up.

[onenote]

76. Don't hold your breath.

[jberryhill]

78. It's that kind of thing at which Avenatti is a master

[marylandblue]

44. He's on videotape saying the same thing

I saw the video, but I can't find it now, it was a recent interview. He says that's the reality and that it shouldn't be that way.

My bigger concern with Avenatti is that he is not as smart as he thinks he is. He should really be taping these interviews himself to prevent problems down the road.

[kcr]

46. It's also not the literal transcription

When we read interviews, they aren't the literal transcriptions of what was actually said. No one talks in a readable way, plus they tend to be much lengthier than what we actually see. They're edited for length, plus things like filler words like um and ah are taken out. Avenatti is probably asking for the literal transcription of the recorded interview to show what he actually said.

[marybourg]

53. Only Bill Clinton talks in a readable way.

[jberryhill]

56. And whose job is it to transcribe this reporter's recorded interviews

Reporters record interviews all of the time.

I do not believe they hire independent transcribers to make literal transcriptions of them.

Whether you believe that "Avenatti is probably asking for the literal transcription" when a transcript has been produced already, as some sort of distinction of the type of transcript, and the subsequent claim it is being withheld, seems to assume that this reporter's notes are regularly transcribed in such exacting manner as to include guttural throat-clearing and pause-fillers.

In other words, any transcript provided by this reporter will not meet the test that it not be subject to any kind of editing by the reporter. Is that correct?

But you believe there is a document that is being withheld. Is that correct?

[kcr]

64. A transcript has been produced already?

Well, show me the link, please. I must have missed it.

Many if not most interviewers make a recording unless they can type really, really fast or know a form of shorthand. There are various ways they choose to transcribe it. They can do it themselves, use automated tools, or use a professional service.

I have made no assertions about any kind of test. I'm questioning why such a request would be refused.

[jberryhill]

67. You don't realize your hidden assumption

"I'm questioning why such a request would be refused."

I'm asking you why you believe there is a full transcript of this reporter's recording from June.

Demanding something that someone doesn't have, and then claiming the refusal is meaningful, is a rhetorical trick that works wonders.

The relevant portions of transcripts from THREE separate interviews are here:

http://time.com/5435310/michael-avenatti-trump-white-male/

"I'm questioning why such a request would be refused."

Go ahead and ask me for a copy of my "long form birth certificate". I can't give you one. I don't, in fact, HAVE one to give you. That does not mean I am hiding something from you.

You ARE making an assertion that there exists what you deem to be a "full transcript" of this interview.

There are various ways they choose to transcribe it. They can do it themselves, use automated tools, or use a professional service.

...and they must do this any time anyone denies anything in an interview? On their own time and at their own expense? Simply because someone now regrets what they said months ago?

[kcr]

69. "relevant portions of the transcript"

Speaking of tricks. But I'll go ahead and ask. What do you think the word portion means?

[jberryhill]

72. Transcribed relevant portions of the interview

Excuse my lack of precision.

There is an extended colloquy, and there are also extended comments from two other interviews. His view is consistent in each. This is not some torn-from-the-haystack one-off quip that has been twisted in some way.

His response was to categorically deny having made any such remarks at all.

So your basic point is that the Q&A which was published, along with the two other extended quotes, are made up, in the absence of someone going back and transcribing the entirety of the interview, regardless of whether it is relevant to what he said on this topic?

It's the same "long form birth certificate" thought process.

Do you find it at all difficult for someone who has long been fabulously wealthy and with no connection to any form of public service for many, many years, might be a bit confident in the limited worldview which that sort of environment engenders?

[kcr]

75. Wrong. Again, I'm not claiming anything is made up.

I know I'm being clear, but I will still give the benefit of the doubt and repeat myself again. I'm merely stating that they should release the transcripts per his request and I question their reasons for not doing so. That's it. I've even stated that if they were to do so it may not change anything. This should very clearly spell out my views here, so any further attempts to make it look like I'm claiming anything else from this point on will be taken as attempts to put words in my mouth to advance some agenda.

[jberryhill]

77. "I'm merely stating that they should release the transcripts"

The transcripts which you insist either must exist, or that they are required to now make.

I'm sorry, but it is a NECESSARY IMPLICATION from a demand that they release "the transcripts" that "the transcripts" exist, rather than her having gone back and transcribed the portion of the interview relevant to the discussion at hand.

If I demand that you give me the five dollar bill in your pocket, then I am also stating my belief that you have a five dollar bill in your pocket to give me.

Again, you seem blind to the fact that (a) reporters don't routinely produce full transcripts of the entirety of their interviews with subjects, and (b) this reporter has apparently transcribed the relevant portion of the interview at length, which Avenatti had categorically denied in the first place.

But, you will give the "benefit of the doubt" to Avenatti, if this reporter does not produce something which in all likelihood does not exist.

[kcr]

81. Has there been a statement that no transcript exists?

That would be revelatory as well. That means she wrote this article from memory and would give his claims a little more weight. Either way, the fact remains a partial release of edited material is not the equivalent of what he requested. It made me curious.

[jberryhill]

86. Why would there be?

Again, this is a common rhetorical tactic.

Avenatti denied making any such remarks. Any. Categorically. In response, the reporter posted this:

"Here’s what Avenatti told TIME in an interview on June 25 in New York City, before he began publicly considering a presidential run:"

...and then there is an extended portion of the conversation which the reporter has obviously transcribed from the conversation (complete with interruptions and dangling sentences) for the purpose of responding to Avenatti's statement, in effect, that she is a liar.

How much time is this reporter, or TIME, supposed to spend on some pissing match with Avenatti? He said he didn't say those things, and he is STILL doing the "White Man's Burden" routine in response to his having said those things.

Yes, yes, of course, oppressed people will get nowhere unless white men take up the fight for them. It's genius. Think about how much more effective, say, the National Organization of Women would have been all these years if it had been run by men instead.

[kcr]

88. Why would there be what?

A transcript? Are you saying that the act of making a request itself is a rhetorical tactic? How would you even find out if it existed without asking? But I'm not the one that made the request in the first place. Avenatti did. You aren't making any sense.

[The Liberal Lion]

19. agreed. They can say I'm a troll all they want. I still say Avanatti is a con man.

and I'm as liberal as they come

[kcr]

16. That makes me rethink how I feel about it

My original reaction to his claim that he was taken out of context was typical because so many people claim that when they say something stupid. But whenever anyone wants an investigation or requests evidence to clear their name and they get denied, something's up.

[jberryhill]

21. Perhaps you should refer to the transcript

What makes you believe it is not available?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/michael-avenatti-next-democratic-nominee-for-president-white-male-time-magazine_us_5bd1f5e7e4b0a8f17ef58216


Shortly after the profile came out, Avenatti told The Daily Caller that the quote is fake.

“I never said that. That’s complete bullshit,” he said. “That’s my comment, complete bullshit.”

...

Time responded later Thursday afternoon with a full transcript of that portion of the interview. It provides some more context to Avenatti’s argument ― namely, that he thinks President Donald Trump’s strengths lie in exploiting double standards against some groups.

Where "full transcript" links to the extended transcript released after he denied the remarks entirely:

http://time.com/5435310/michael-avenatti-trump-white-male/

Is there anybody that you like in the Democratic political class? Or do you think [the 2020 nominee] should be someone from outside politics?

I think it better be a white male.

Really?


....more at link.

[kcr]

33. Okay, but my point stands. Why not release the full transcript?

It might not reveal anything that changes things. But I don't like it when people make the request and it's denied. That smells of coverup.

[calimary]

20. Wouldn't surprise me. Obviously he's perceived as a threat.

[oberliner]

22. By Bakari Sellers?

Link to tweet

You perpetuated a myth of supremacy, do you get that? Do you understand how that makes nonwhite males feel?

Your theory of white male supremacy is easily disproved. Who is a better lawyer, Cochran or Avenatti? A better politician Obama or Avenatti?

I’m furious and disappointed.

[marylandblue]

47. He didn't say white males are superior

He said they don't face the barriers of sexism and racism that make it harder for them to get elected, especially under Trumpism.

[smirkymonkey]

84. Thank YOU!

That was exactly my take away. He was referring to people's prejudices and perceptions. But people will read into it what they want.

[Ferrets are Cool]

29. I agree 100% with you.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

31. He's hardly important enough to call it that.

[Roland99]

32. By himself

[watoos]

34. I know one thing for certain,

the point of this thread is spot on.

The right fears Michael Avenatti, the right wing media, the corporate media is trying to bring him down. I'm guessing that any help from the Left will be greatly appreciated.

United we stand, divided we fall. If Michael Avenatti is our nominee in 2020 I will gladly vote for him.

[samnsara]

35. i like him...NOT as a Prez.....heaven forbid...but as an attack dog...

...our side can use a few. ...and Im just damned glad he is on OUR side!

[world wide wally]

36. Trump got over 2 billion dollars in FREE advertising in 2016.

Avanetti knows how to steal the spotlight from Trump.
Give him his due, and consider how important that is.

[dalton99a]

42. +1.

[watoos]

50. Exactly,

this is the point I have been trying to make. It is more than just stealing the spotlight, it is changing the right wing narratives. Avanatti has that ability that few Democrats have. This is what strikes fear in the right wingers, their ability to control the narrative.

Hey, how about after we get done picking apart Avenatti here, someone start a thread about Michael Moore, he is another Democrat who has the ability to change the narrative and for sure he has done and said some things that people on the Left can find fault with. All it would take I am sure is if Moore stated he is considering running for president.

United we stand, divided we fall. Vote.

[oberliner]

63. That is definitely one of the similarities between those two white men

[FakeNoose]

45. Right now, he's the only declared candidate

We're seeing now what they plan to do to every Democratic candidate as soon as they declare they're running. Most of us think of Avenatti as a long shot. But they don't care, he's just target practice.

[oberliner]

62. That's a lie

[kcr]

66. No one is ever mistaken in your world, are they?

Must be nice.

[oberliner]

68. 1. He is not a declared candidate 2. There are declared candidates

Such as John Delaney.

[Bonx]

70. I don't think of Avenatti as a long shit

He's potentially a frontrunner

[Left-over]

48. The "main stream" press is owned by right wingers as well.

[watoos]

54. What you just posted is so important.

The right wing narrative is on all of the 3 cable news networks. CNN and MSNBC may put a progressive slant on the narrative but we are still talking about what the right wants us to talk about.

What happened to the big expose' that took a year and a half that exposed Trump's finances? What happened to the narrative that Trump is not a self made man? What happened to the narrative that Trump's daddy gave him 413 million dollars not 1 million? What happened to the narrative that Trump and his crime family made their money by laundering money, by not paying their taxes, by financial fraud? How long did that narrative survive?

Instead we are talking about a group of poor, hungry, afraid people from Central America trying to escape violence and starvation for their families. We are talking about our president sending our military to the border to confront these poor, hungry, afraid people.

One thing that Michael Avenatti has done is come up with a slogan that encapsulates what is going on and what we should do about it. MAKE AMERICA AMERICA AGAIN.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

71. He's making some statements that I vehemently disagree with

but I can't believe that he's not being targeted and smeared by the right with the help of Grassley, et. al

[Progressive dog]

92. No, Avenatti isn't being swiftboated

He made claims that he couldn't substantiate, he said things he shouldn't have said. That isn't "strong".
The midterm elections are in eleven days and Avenatti is not running.

[oberliner]

94. Thanks for this comment

Lots of people in la-la-land about this topic for some reason.

[GulfCoast66]

96. Why is this guy such a star on DU?

Lawyer representing a pornnstar that fucked Trump. Before that had anyone heard of him?

Realized he has a good thing going and amps it up.

I am not hating the guy and he has certainly given Trump problems, but has he done something to support the Democratic Party in the past I am missing?

If so, please tell me. From where I sit he just seems like the typical guy mining the gold he has found recently.

I’m not interested in some Media Sensation of the moment to support. I am looking for a good member of the Democratic Party who has fought the battles in the trenches.