Avenatti says it “reeks of desperation.” well, since their whole political act is fading away, whose desperation would that be? I’d say it’s Avenatti who is desperate.
I thought the most important line in the article was “who has represented....”
That implies that Avenatti is not presently representing her. That is the actual news.
Yes. And either there is a law or there is not a law about the touching. He doesn’t deny it happened. He doesn’t say “she’s innocent”, etc. He suggests that she should be exempt from application of the law by his “reeks of desperation” remark.
Meanwhile, he has enough troubles of his own, that she is likely taking a risk by keeping him on as her attorney, and (with any luck) that could all create problems for her down the road.