#FOTUS: Just A Little Idle Noodling About Elliot Broidy, Shera Bechard & Trump

by Shelton Bumgarner
@bumgarls

I feel confident that the theory that Trump, not Elliot Broidy, was Shera Bechard babydaddy has been put to rest. There’s totally no there there. Any number of things might ultimately save us when it comes to our tyrant American Caligula leader, but, alas, it’s not going to be Paul Campos of New York Magazine no matter how hard he may try or we may wish it.

Having said all that, there continue to be lingering, somewhat puzzling, issues with fact that it was, in fact, Elliot Broidy who is responsible for all this pointless, useless speculation.

1. There’s no proof of a Bechard – Broidy romance.
Someone who knows a lot more about this than me says, “meh” to this, saying he’s not surprised. That doesn’t stop me from cocking an eye, tapping my noggin and saying, “Hmmm.” You’d think that there would be some proof, somewhere that would put an end to all of this continued — and unfounded — speculation. A picture, a voice mail, hell, even a text or an email. No one stray email exists between the two of them that someone could leak? What the what?

2. Bechard picking Keith Davidson to represent her.
I used to think she was lying about this, but now I don’t. But all I gotta say is, history is pretty freaky. The entire Broidy Did It theory rests on Bechard picking Davidson completely independent of Trump. Apparently, that’s what happened. Doesn’t stop me from scratching my head incredulously, but that’s actually 100% apparently what happened.

3. Broidy picking Michael Cohen to represent him.
What really gets people talking about this is not so much Keith Davidson representing Shera Bechard, but that Elliot Broidy would have the president’s personal fixer Michael Cohen represent him in this legal matter as well. Of course, we know it happened because Davidson looked up Broidy, saw he was on the RNC with Cohen and the rest took care of itself. That’s why the notion that Bechard was casually referred Davidson by a friend grows in significance every time you find yourself reviewing this issue. That Broidy “wasn’t thinking straight” when he passed over his actual lawyer (yes, I know his wife represents him in most things) to use doofus Michael Cohen in an NDA that he felt was $1.6 million’s worth of embarrassment is unusual. (At least to me.) But that, apparently, is what actually, in fact, did happen.

4. That $1.6 million figure for the NDA.
I think that’s a lot of money, and given that Broidy’s stopped paying, apparently he does, too. He’s only paid, I think, $400,000 of the total and that seems generous to me. Given who he is and how chill his wife is, I would see him being a lot more comfortable with something closer to $200,000.

5. That Broidy stopped paying Bechard.
Why would Broidy stop paying Bechard if it was so embarrassing? But not paying, he only brings the whole thing back into the news again. Broidy has a knack for doing something really stupid PR-wise that stirs the pot and gets people talking again about the very subject he doesn’t want people to talk about: his relationship to Shera Bechard. But maybe sees his romance as a given now and he just doesn’t want to spend any more money than he has to. For him, to a certain extent, this is over for him.

This is over for me, too, but I keep going for my morning walk and finding reasons to if not doubt the Broidy Did It theory, at least have cause to revisit it. But I would definitely say that barring something really astonishing dramatic in the near term, that this will fade away. Broidy had better not screw up AGAIN if he wants everyone to forget about this.

Shelton Bumgarner is a writer and photographer living in Richmond, Va. He may be reached at migukin (at) gmail (dot) com.

Author: Shelton Bumgarner

I am the Editor & Publisher of The Trumplandia Report

One thought on “#FOTUS: Just A Little Idle Noodling About Elliot Broidy, Shera Bechard & Trump”

  1. Shelton — I’ve been following your site and Campos’s with interest on this intriguing story. Finally come around to the conclusion that the “Broidy not Trump” story is over. To the point that I actually don’t think any of your remaining questions really are even open questions. The essential insight is that the pattern of legal maneuvers and carefully worded statements are equally consistent with two scenarios. One is a cover up. Second is parties who are dancing around and trying to comply with non-disclosure obligations. Where the ultimate goal of the parties is to get someone into a legally compelled disclosure situation (which would be exempt from the NDA restrictions). On your questions:

    1. David Corn now presents evidence that Broidy was maintaining Bechard in a Beverly Hills apartment. That’s completely consistent with the original WSJ story (which WSJ still stands by and has doubled down on). Since Bechard was a kept woman, it isn’t really surprising that Broidy would take pains to keep it all on the down low. Makes sense that Corn’s source, therefore, is a private investigator.

    2. Bechard picking Davidson makes complete sense. Davidson is an LA-based lawyer specializing in sex tape and celebrity sex shake downs. Playboy playmates, aspiring actresses and models, celebrity girlfriends, celebrity mistresses and adult film stars are exactly who he represents all the time. I’m sure his name would get passed around within the playmate soriority all the time. Presumably places like TMZ and AMI would also know Davidson well. Since that is a pond Trump liked to fish in, it isn’t really a surprise that Davidson would have worked with Cohen multiple times.

    3. Broidy obviously knows both Cohen and Trump from the RNC. This legal situation is obviously unique and something Broidy wants to keep on the down low. It also isn’t that complicated. In fall of 2017 (before Stormy, McDougal, Avennati and the Cohen raid) this is something Cohen appears to be very qualified to do. Also, makes sense that Broidy would want to keep this all quiet and so might not want to expose his personal dirty laundry to his white shoe law firm. In fall 2017 Cohen is still a well-connected Trump whisperer, so the generous legal fee paid to Cohen could be a nice influence peddling opportunity for Broidy. Last, in fall 2017 Cohen is very aggressively trying to monetize his legacy Trump contacts. So no surprise that Cohen would have approached Broidy as a new client in his very specialized field of legal expertise.

    4. People really have missed the boat on this one big time. Bechard’s pay-off isn’t hush money for a one night stand ten years ago with a famous celebrity. It is a severance package to a now pregnant sex worker employee from a rich (but obscure) guy who wants to stay obscure. Broidy presumably was paying all of Bechard’s living expenses — the original WSJ report was of a paid, long term, exclusive sexual relationship. Which sounds, by the way, a lot like illegal prostitution. Since Bechard has little/no other visible means of support for her nice bi-coastal lifestyle, she’s going to want/need way more than a $150k spiff to transition to her whatever her new situation will be. So all the talk about what is “market” as compared to Stormy and McDougal is off-the-mark. The money needed to transition out an illegal (and also pregnant) sex worker employee is a completely different animal from a hush money payment to a self-supporting former girlfriend/mistress. Under those circumstances, $1.6 million (paid out over time just like a severance package would be) does not seem all the high.

    5. As noted above, the legal fight could be all about getting someone in a situation where they can finally tell the straight story without adverse legal consequences. Like a deposition would be. Maybe after some discovery to get the story out, Broidy will settle for a lesser amount than the remaining $1.2. Or he ends up paying the $1.2 worst case.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if there might be a Trump AND Broidy story here (rather than Trump not Broidy). Maybe Bechard is a former Trump GF. Maybe Broidy met Bechard through Trump somehow. But that’s not nearly as big/illegal story as the Campos hypothesis.

    Feel free to use any of this on your blog — no pride of authorship here. Or not. If you want, just say some of this was suggested by a reader.

    Good luck to you.

Leave a Reply