Plot Twist: Avenatti Claims Ex-Client Stormy Daniels ‘Guilty of Fraud’

(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) Disgraced former attorney Michael Avenatti has made startling allegations against his former client Stormy Daniels, the woman at the center of the Manhattan trial against former President Donald Trump. 

In a lengthy Twitter statement, Avenatti accused Daniels of committing “fraud and recently falsifying business records to cover-up a crime,” specifically, her failure to fulfill financial obligations to Trump resulting from dismissed lawsuits against him.

Daniels was previously ordered to pay Trump $100,000 in a failed defamation lawsuit she initiated against him in Manhattan. Subsequently, her attempt to file a separate lawsuit in California also failed, leading to a court order demanding she pay $293,000 to the former president.

While Avenatti did not provide evidence to support his allegations, he claimed the existence of a recorded conversation between himself and Daniels’s producer Sarah Gibson. According to Avenatti, Gibson inadvertently disclosed a plan to compensate Daniels covertly. 

Avenatti asserted that this conversation, dated June 2023, arose from Gibson’s efforts to enlist him for the controversial documentary Stormy. He maintained that his willingness to participate depended on whether Daniels would receive financial compensation for her involvement. 

Allegedly, Gibson admitted that Daniels “was being paid for the documentary, but that because she owed Trump hundreds of thousands of dollars from a judgement Trump was trying to collect,” the documentary’s producers “had to come up with a plan that would allow Daniels to be secretly paid.” 

Reacting to the revelation, Avenatti expressed purported shock.

He claimed, “To say I was shocked when I was told this would be an understatement. A woman I had never met or spoken to before he was admitting to me, on a recorded line, that Daniels, she and others had engaged in multiple overt criminal acts… all in an effort to defraud Trump and avoid paying him what he was legally due.” 

The former attorney declared his refusal to participate in the documentary due to the alleged “fraud.” The film was ultimately released on March 8, 2024, via streaming platforms Peacock. 

Two individuals connected to the film—Sara Bernstein and Meredith Kaulfers of Imagine Entertainment—did not immediately respond to Headline USA’s request for comments.  

Headline USA left voicemail messages inquiring whether the film producers would address or challenge Avenatti’s allegations. 

Avenatti’s accusations follow his sentencing to 19 years in federal prison for a litany of crimes to which he pleaded guilty, including tax evasion, wire fraud, identity theft and defrauding a former client. 

Daniels notably testified on Tuesday in the Manhattan trial against Trump. 

‘Constitution Is More Important’: Trump Is Willing to Face Jail Over Gag Order

(Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov, Headline USA) Donald Trump said on May 6, 2024, that going to jail for violating the gag order in his New York hush-money trial would be worth it because “our Constitution is much more important than jail.”

He said that while taking questions from reporters outside the Manhattan courthouse after the conclusion of another day in his criminal trial, the Daily Wire reported.

Trump has already been fined $10,000 for multiple violations of corrupt Judge Juan Merchan’s gag order, which prohibits Trump from talking about potential witnesses, jurors, court staff, attorneys and the judge’s family during the trial.

Merchan told Trump he would “consider a jail sentence” if he violated the gag order again, after issuing his latest fine on May 6, 2024.

“The last thing I want to consider is jail. You are [the] former president and possibly the next president. The magnitude of that decision is not lost on me. Your continued willful violation of the court’s order… constitutes a direct attack… and will not be allowed to continue,” Merchan said.

Trump discussed the gag order and Merchan’s threat of throwing him in jail after court hearings had concluded for the day.

“I have to watch every word I tell you, people [reporters]. You ask me a question, a simple question, I’d like to give [an answer], but I can’t talk about it because this judge is giving me a gag order and said I’ll go to jail if I violate it. And frankly, you know what, our Constitution is much more important than jail. It’s not even close. I’ll do that sacrifice any day,” he said.

Last week, Trump was fined $9,000 by Merchan after the judge said Trump spoke about people involved in the trial on nine separate occasions, mostly in his Truth Social posts. Trump was then fined another $1,000 on May 6, 2024, for another post on his social media platform.

TikTok Files Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of Recent ‘Ban’ Bill

() TikTok filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the constitutionality of a new law that requires a sale or ban of the popular app, setting up a legal battle over free speech and national security.

Last month, Congress passed and President Joe Biden enacted a law that requires China’s ByteDance to sell its ownership in TikTok or the app will be banned in the U.S.

Some experts have said China could use the app’s monitoring capabilities against Americans.

On Tuesday, TikTok and ByteDance filed a lawsuit that asks for a court order to stop enforcement of the bipartisan law. The lawsuit alleges the law is unconstitutional.

“Congress has taken the unprecedented step of expressly singling out and banning TikTok: a vibrant online forum for protected speech and expression used by 170 million Americans to create, share, and view videos over the Internet,” company lawyers wrote in the lawsuit.

“For the first time in history, Congress has enacted a law that subjects a single, named speech platform to a permanent, nationwide ban, and bars every American from participating in a unique online community with more than 1 billion people worldwide,” it added.

The company further said the law presents the company with a false choice because it can’t sell in the 270-day schedule allowed in the law.

“In reality, there is no choice. The ‘qualified divestiture’ demanded by the Act to allow TikTok to continue operating in the United States is simply not possible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally. And certainly not on the 270-day timeline required by the Act,” said the lawsuit.

“Petitioners have repeatedly explained this to the U.S. government, and sponsors of the Act were aware that divestment is not possible,” it continued. “There is no question: the Act will force a shutdown of TikTok by January 19, 2025, silencing the 170 million Americans who use the platform to communicate in ways that cannot be replicated elsewhere.”

Owned by China-based ByteDance, TikTok is an online social media platform that has gained global popularity by posting short, user-submitted videos.

The use and acceptance of TikTok has been debated in the U.S. over concerns of misinformation, data privacy violations, addiction by younger users, and its ability to spur reckless, sometimes fatal challenges.

During a March 23, 2023, congressional hearing, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew testified that the platform was not manipulated by any government and that it does not alter content at the request of Chinese authorities.

Some states and the federal government have prohibited the use of the TikTok by government employees.

Family of N.C. Teen Suspended for Correctly Using ‘Alien’ Sues School Board

() North Carolina parents withdrew their teen from school and sued a school district it says unfairly issued a suspension and “injected race” into a question of clarification from an English teacher about the vocabulary word alien.

The Davidson County School District Board of Education is the defendant sued by Christian McGhee, a 16-year-old at Central Davidson High in Lexington, and his parents Leah and Chad McGhee.

The Liberty Justice Center, based in Chicago, and Raleigh-area lawyers Troy Shelton and Craig Schauer are counsel for the plaintiffs for the case filed Tuesday morning in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

The lawsuit asks for full clearance and removal of the mark on McGhee’s record. Damages in an amount to be determined at trial are also being sought.

“It impacts, every student in the country, and their right to speak without fear of aggressive retaliation from their administration,” said Dean McGee (no relation to the family), educational freedom attorney at the Liberty Justice Center, in an exclusive interview Tuesday morning with the Center Square.

“In this case, our client, in the context of the conversation, asked a question that on its face was racially neutral,” he added. “It was earnest in the class discussion.”

As Leah McGhee previously told Headline USA, it was not until later in the day that her son was called into the office and accused of any wrongdoing.

“From there, the administration fabricated a racial incident, and had the audacity to tell a Hispanic student who said he was not offended that he should have been offended,” said McGee, the LJC attorney. “We want to make sure this doesn’t happen again.”

The lawsuit says McGhee’s right to free speech, right to education and right to due process have all been violated by the school district. Response from the school district is being sought by The Center Square.

According to McGhee’s lawyers, the situation unfolded in class on April 9. The sophomore raised his hand and asked if the teacher’s reference to “aliens” referred to “space aliens, or illegal aliens who need green cards?”

“Christian asked his question,” McGee said. “A boy in his class, of Hispanic heritage, jokingly said ‘Hey, I’m going to kick your …’” and used an expletive.

McGee said class continued in usual fashion, that the two teens are friends and there was “no legitimate threat of a fight.”

The teacher, afterward, called in administration regarding not the use of the words, but the appearance of a threat. Assistant Principal Eric Anderson, McGee said, talked to the teens.

“The kid said he was joking” about a fight, and that “he was not offended,” McGee said. “He said it was no big deal.”

In addition to telling the student he should have been offended, McGee said Anderson gave the student a suspension in school of less than one day and remarked about his Spanish grade being low despite his heritage.

“These two students, by all indications,” McGee said, “had no issues with each other. It’s the administrators at the school who escalated this into national news and a racial incident.”

McGhee’s suspension was for three days, no appeal was permitted, and he was kept out of a track meet.

His parents said he was branded a racist, ostracized, bullied and received threats upon his return to school. He’s finishing the academic year in homeschooling, having joined a growing trend in the state looking for alternatives to the traditional public school system.

“I have raised our son to reject racism in all its forms, but it is the school, not Christian, that injected race into this incident,” Leah McGhee said in a release from the Liberty Justice Center. “It appears that this administration would rather destroy its own reputation and the reputation of my son rather than admit they made a mistake.”

Buck Dougherty, senior counsel at Liberty, noted that Christian’s question was of direct relevance to the topic being discussed in class.

“Even though Christian asked a factual, non-threatening question—about a word the class was discussing—the school board branded him with false accusations of racism,” Dougherty said.

“The school has not only violated his constitutional right to free speech, but also his right to due process and his right to access education, a guaranteed right under North Carolina law,” Dougherty added. “We are proud to stand beside Christian and his family in challenging this egregious violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”

McGee said Liberty was ready to discuss damages with the school district.

A preliminary injunction is being sought that would clear McGhee’s record pending outcome of the litigation so that his quest for scholarships, college admissions and other actions typical of finishing high school and preparing for college will not be impacted.

The firm, which litigates cases on free speech, workers’ rights, education and government overreach, said it is ready to proceed with discovery and move toward a trial.

Cannon Delivers Stunning Rebuke after DOJ Mishandles Docs, Suspends Fla. Case Indefinitely

() Judge Aileen Cannon suspended a key deadline in former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case amid defense allegations that prosecutors failed to preserve critical evidence in the case.

The judge also set a series of hearings that appeared—according to some court-watchers, including investigative journalist Julie Kelly—to put the prosecution on trial, examining its overreach, selective prosecution and even the validity of special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment in the first place.

Trump’s defense team had asked the judge last month to suspend the May 9 deadline for expert disclosures and Classified Information Procedures Act notice until three weeks after the conclusion of the New York hush money trial.

This week, Cannon temporarily stayed the deadlines. The latest delay could make going to trial this year more difficult.

Trump’s attorneys also alleged that prosecutors “failed to maintain the integrity of the contents of at least some of the boxes obtained from Mar-a-Lago.” The case against Trump hinges on the documents in the those boxes.

“It is likely that President Trump will file additional motions for sanctions based on spoliation, including a motion to dismiss the charges if the [Special Counsel’s] Office cannot prove in a reliable way how it seized and handled the key evidence in the case, which will be a central issue at any trial,” defense attorneys wrote in a reply.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to 40 felony counts that allege he kept sensitive military documents, shared them with people who didn’t have security clearance, and tried to get around the government’s attempts to get them back.

Trump has repeatedly said that the civil and criminal charges he faces are the result of politically motivated prosecutions designed to keep him from returning to the White House.

The argument that Smith was improperly appointed first originated with former Attorney General Ed Meese, who submitted an amicus brief contending that unlike other special counsels who were appointed from within the DOJ, Smith’s appointment had not been appropriately vetted by the U.S. Senate beforehand.

The notoriously partisan prosecutor is known for his partisan attack-dog tactics, which have failed in court before, but not before achieving their political objectives.

Trump is gearing up for a rematch in November with President Joe Biden.

Headline USA’s Ben Sellers contributed to this report.

N.Y. Sen. Says Law Used to ‘Get Trump’ Unconstitutional after He Is Accused of Rape

(Molly Bruns, Headline USA) A New York Democrat snared by the same law that state legislators passed in order to go after then-President Donald Trump with what they hoped would be a barrage of spurious lawfare attacks has now declared the law he voted for to be unconstitutional.

New York State Sen. Kevin Parker denounced the Adult Survivors Act—after formally denying rape allegations recently levied against him, according to the New York Post.

The act allowed a one-year window for the revival of civil claims related to sexual offenses committed against people age 18 or older. It expired in November 2023.

The alleged incident involving Parker took place in 2004.

A woman named Olga Jean-Baptiste, who worked with Parker to provide flood relief in Haiti, accused him of raping her as they worked in her apartment one evening.

“These allegations are absolutely untrue,” Parker said. “My work and advocacy will continue.”

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul called the allegations “deeply disturbing.”

Parker had several previous run-ins with law enforcement, including assault of a traffic officer and the smashing of a camera belonging to a reporter taking pictures outside of his home.

The Adult Survivors Act enabled an estimated 3,700 claims involving decades-old allegations—some based on very little evidence.

New York based socialite and advice columnist E. Jean Carroll, a serial rape accuser, ultimately was the only one known to have brought an allegation against Trump, for an alleged assault in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s.

Carroll, who also was one of the law’s original lobbyists, had her lawsuit financed by LinkedIn billionaire Reid Hoffman. Although the Manhattan jury decided the hazy evidence failed to prove rape, it charged Trump with sexual assault, requiring a much lower threshold.

Carroll later received a massive payday for saying Trump defamed her by denying that it took place.

Another accuser, Liz Stein, claimed she faced abuse from Jeffrey Epstein as a young woman.

“I feel like I’ve been in jail for almost three decades,” said Stein. “And it’s more than time for me and the other victims to be free of that prison that we’ve been in, and for the people who are accountable to be held accountable.”

Legislators modeled the law after the state’s Child Victims Act, which opened a two-year window in 2019 during which almost 11,000 people sued churches, hospitals, schools, camps, scout groups and other institutions over abuse they said they suffered as children.

Top N.Y. Times Editor Admits No ‘Safe Space’ for Biden in 2024

(Jacob Bruns, Headline USA) Joe Kahn, the executive editor for the New York Times, admitted in a candid interview that the newspaper unilaterally backed now-President Joe Biden in its coverage leading up to the 2020 election but would take a more neutral approach in 2024, Semafor reported.

Calling the press “another pillar of democracy” whose role is to provide “impartial information to help people vote,” Kahn promised to become more impartial in tone, and claimed that Biden and his campaign team were going to have to figure things out on their own.

“It is not the job of the news media to prevent that from happening,” he argued of a potential Trump presidency. According to the editor, “it’s the job of Biden and the people around Biden to prevent that from happening.”

He even went so far as to suggest that he did not want the Times to become “an instrument of the Biden campaign,” which virtually describes the newspaper’s function for the better part of the last four years.

When asked what he believes a casual Times reader might think about the current state of affairs, Kahn admitted to media bias surrounding Biden, particularly regarding the nation’s foreign policy under his watch. The bias, he claimed, was an attempt to counter common misconceptions about Biden’s handling of foreign affairs.

The pro-Biden coverage appears to have gone hand-in-hand with anti-Trump coverage. Kahn went as far as to agree that the relentless assault on Trump “went too far,” calling it “overly simplistic” and one of the “excesses of that period.”

Still, he excused himself and his colleagues, suggesting that they fell prey to “a period of peak cultural angst at this organization, with the combination of the intensity of the Trump era, COVID, and then George Floyd,” concluding that “we still did good journalism through that moment.”

The rhetoric marks a dramatic shift from the newsroom’s declarations under former Executive Editor Dean Baquet in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s election that it intended to actively cast aside objectivity in order to aggressively fact check him.

That effectively cast off the last vestigies of plausible deniability that the Times might have laid claim to being a serious objective newsroom. It has since pushed several abjectly false stories, for which it has never fully corrected the record or accepted accountability.

It notoriously hit rock bottom when its newsroom revolted and demanded the firing of its editorial page editor for daring to run an op-ed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas.

The paper has clashed with the Biden administration several time recently as the president accused the Grey Lady of not making its coverage of him favorable enough while blaming the media for his poor poll numbers.

Headline USA’s Ben Sellers contributed to this report.

Vulnerable House Dems Turn against Biden over Handling of Border Crisis

(Headline USA) A group of House Democrats turned against President Joe Biden this week over his handling of the border crisis, accusing him of fracturing the Democratic Party and endangering the country, Fox News reported.

Fifteen House Democrats voted alongside Republicans in favor of a resolution “denouncing the Biden administration’s immigration policies,” which they said has created the “worst border security crisis in the nation’s history.”

The resolution also called for stronger border-security measures. 

Several of the Democrats who voted for the measure face tough reelection races this November in vulnerable districts. They admitted that the border crisis was one of their constituents’ top concerns.

In a letter to the White House, the Democrats wrote, “All of our constituents, no matter our congressional district, have felt the impacts of the current border situation.” 

A spokesperson for Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, one of the Democrats who voted for the resolution, said the Democrat lawmaker was concerned about the deadly “fentanyl” that has been trafficked across the southern border and brought into his district in Maine.

“He has consistently called on Congress and the Biden administration to meaningfully address the crisis at the border,” the spokesperson added in a statement. “The congressman will continue pushing the administration to act.”

Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., said in a statement that Biden should stop trying to blame Congress for the problems his policies created.

“President Biden has failed to end the crisis at our southern border, so I voted for H.R. 3602 to do what he won’t: secure our border and stop the violent drug cartels pumping fentanyl into our country,” she said.

The Democrats who signed onto the resolution include Gluesenkamp Perez, Golden, and Reps. Angie Craig of Minnesota, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Mary Peltola of Alaska, Yadira Caraveo of Colorado, Nikki Budzinski of Illinois, Sharice Davids of Kansas, Don Davis of North Carolina, Josh Harder of California, Steven Horsford of D-Nevada, Eric Sorensen of Illinois and Susie Lee of Nevada.

Maxine Waters Claims Trump Supporters Are ‘Training in the Hills’ to Attack if Trump Loses

(Headline USA) Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., claimed this week that former President Donald Trump’s supporters were “training up in the hills somewhere” to attack if Trump loses in November.

Waters made the comment during an interview with MSNBC on Sunday and said she planned to ask the Biden administration to take preemptive action to prevent “right-wing violence” ahead of the election.

“I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. I’m going to ask the Justice Department, and I am going to ask the president to tell us what they are going to do to protect this country against violence if [Trump] loses,” she said.

“I want to know about all of those right-wing organizations that [Trump] is connected with who are training up in the hills somewhere and targeting what communities they are going to attack,” she continued.

Waters claimed Trump is already “telling us there is going to be violence if he loses. We need to know what his plan is and how we are going to be protected,” she added.

“We have to be very concerned about a former president of the United States talking about attacking his own country, talking about perhaps a bloodbath, talking about perhaps there is going to be trouble,” she continued. “He said it in so many different ways.”

Waters did not cite a specific quote from Trump in which he supposedly called for violence, but she appeared to reference a comment he made during a campaign rally in Ohio, when he warned that the Biden administration’s policies would result in a “bloodbath” for auto workers. That comment has been taken out of context by several Democrats, including President Joe Biden’s campaign.

And though Waters now seems concerned about alleged threats from Trump supporters, back in 2018 she infamously called for her supporters to publicly confront and “absolutely harass” members of the Trump administration.

“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out, and you create a crowd,” she said at the time. “And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. We’ve got to get the children connected to their parents.”

Despite telling rallygoers to “get in [the] faces” of Trump officials, she recently complained about being heckled in a restaurant.

Waters’s accusations about a secret Trump army-in-training also come as radical leftist groups openly undertake to mobilize on college campuses in what many suspect is a dry run for a massive resistance movement to create violence and civil unrest should Trump win the election.

Although operatives with funding from George Soros and other leftist backers have begun to organize out in the open, some radical fringe militias of violent domestic terrorists may, in fact, be “training up in the hills.”

That includes one led by James “Fergie” Chambers, an heir to the Cox family fortune, who is using his $250 million inheritance to mobilize an army in the Berkshire mountains for what he hopes will be a neo-Bolshevik revolution.

And a group of militant black separatists known as the Not F**king Around Coalition appeared at several major racial events in recent years until its presumed leader, John F. “Grandmaster Jay” Johnson was arrested and sentenced to seven years for assaulting and brandishing a firearm at federal officers.

Headline USA’s Ben Sellers contributed to this report.

Rep. Gaetz: Prisons System is Blocking Interview w/ Jailed Ex-Trump Adviser Navarro

(Ken Silva, Headline USA) Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., took to the House floor Monday to accuse Bureau of Prisons Director Colette Peters of blocking him from interviewing former Trump White House official Peter Navarro, who’s in the midst of serving a four-month prison sentence for contempt of Congress.

“Her reason is that Peter Navarro is ‘too notorious’ to be interviewed by a member of Congress!” Gaetz exclaimed.

“John Gotti was interviewed in prison. The QAnon Shaman was interviewed in prison. Director Peters HERSELF brought NBC News THROUGH PRISONS to showcase the work of corrections that’s being done! This only vindicates the claim made by Peter Navarro that he is being held as a political prisoner.”

The BOP declined to comment on Gaetz’s allegations in response to a media inquiry from this publication. BOP spokesperson Randilee Giamusso did send this publication a copy of its definition of a representative of the news media, suggesting that Gaetz’s interview was denied perhaps because he isn’t an “official” media member.

The people running Navarro’s social media released a statement about the matter.

Navarro’s prison sting stems from him being found guilty of two misdemeanor contempt of Congress charges last September, and sentenced to four months imprisonment.

The former director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy under the Trump administration had argued that he didn’t flagrantly violate the law, but instead invoked executive privilege as his reason for not complying with the subpoena. Navarro noted that the courts are still reviewing the legal question of whether his actions were legal.

Nevertheless, an Obama-appointed federal judge ordered last month for him to begin his sentence, and the DC appeals court upheld that order in a Thursday decision.

Navarro’s case, along with that of former White House adviser Steve Bannon’s, marked the first time in roughly four decades that any such cases had been prosecuted by the DOJ, despite recent examples including Lois Lerner, Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton, all of whom brazenly disregarded congressional subpoenas during the Obama administration.

Bannon was convicted of two counts and was sentenced to four months behind bars, though he has been free pending appeal.

Navarro had previously characterized the imposed punishment as a “death sentence” given his age.

Ken Silva is a staff writer at Headline USA. Follow him at twitter.com/jd_cashless.