by Shelton Bumgarner
Now, before I begin let me get some stuff out of the way. I’m just some shmo with no life, no career and obsessive personality. That’s all I got. Meanwhile, Paul Campos is a law professor and he gets published in New York Magazine while I write a self-published blog that usually gets about 20 page views a day.
Having said all that, let’s get into it.
Campos, bless his heart, is still completely convinced that Elliot Broidy was Trump’s fall guy in the Shera Bechard matter to the tune of $1.6 million. I will give him this — the logic of his argument is absolutely, 100% airtight. Logically, Donald Trump, not Elliot Broidy banged Shera Bechard, got her pregnant ’cause he raw dogs and using his now well-established script, used Michael Cohen and Keith Davidson to fix the problem. Along the way, there was probably — so goes the argument — a quid pro quo for an abortion that may, or may not, have been coerced.
So why am I so sure that it was Broidy and not Trump? Good question. Let’s just say I have my sources and they are enough for me to pretty much feel completely comfortable thinking this all stems from the somewhat surreal co-incidence of Bechard picking Keith Davidson randomly to represent her.
Now let’s go through what Campos thinks and pick it apart.
(1) Broidy, who has a history of bribing public officials, met twice in the Oval Office with Donald Trump, to lobby for the interests of his client, the United Arab Emirates. The second of these meeting took place on December 2nd, 2017, that is, the day after the first payment was made to Shera Bechard. A few days after that, Broidy’s defense contractor firm signed a $600 million deal with the U.A.E.
This is a prime example of how the airtight internal logic of the Broidy as fall guy theory leads you to what you think are obvious conclusions. But in reality, if you work from the assumption that Broidy is the father, then the above is just white noise. Broidy also met Trump (as I understand it) BEFORE the first payment occurred to Bechard, so what we’re using as some indication that Trump is the father is really just another bit of circumstance that doesn’t really mean what we think it means. Remember, once you work on the assumption that Bechard randomly picked Davidson to represent her, then the sequence of events that disproves Trump as the father makes a lot more sense.
(2) Last week, Broidy suddenly announced that he considered the NDA “void,” and he wasn’t going to make any more payments (he had made two of the scheduled eight). Significantly, he announced his decision to do so to the WSJ.
The reason this is significant is, because, like so many other aspects of this strange case, announcing to the media his decision to stop making payments seems to make no sense in terms of basic litigation strategy. If Broidy’s lawyer on this matter, Chris Clark, thinks he actually has some legal ground for voiding the NDA, the standard tactic would be to approach Bechard’s lawyer Peter Stris, present the argument, and try to hammer out some sort of settlement that would make sense to both parties under the circumstances. Simply announcing to the world that you’re not going to pay any more guarantees that you’ll be sued. It also throws this story, which Broidy’s lawyers keep swearing he’s desperate to keep out of the news, back onto the front page.
I can honestly say Campos makes a very strong point with this point. Even though I feel this issue is settled and Broidy’s the father he keeps committing forced errors that make no sense what so ever. It’s like he wants to screw Trump over as much as possible by keeping the story in the news. It really doesn’t make any sense. But if you work on the assumption that Trump has nothing to do with any of this, then Broidy’s just a screw up.
(4) Two days later Bechard sued Broidy, Bechard’s original lawyer Keith Davidson, and Stormy Daniels’ lawyer Michael Avenatti filing her complaint under seal, meaning that, unless a judge ruled otherwise, the complaint would remain unavailable to the public. Yesterday, Avenatti went to court to get the complaint unsealed. The judge refused to do so, but did provide him with a copy (he hadn’t seen the complaint until then). Avenatti has already scheduled a deposition with Bechard for next week.
Per the Daily Beast, the lawsuit includes “troublesome claims that Broidy wouldn’t want to become public.”
To me, the fact that Avenatti would know what’s under seal and hasn’t said anything publicly to indicate that there might be some there there definitely seems to mean that there really isn’t any there there. Avenatti is a lawyer, he’d figure out some way to freak out, to get the speculation going without breaking the court seal. But as far as I know, he’s not said anything at all about what he may or may not have learned about any Trump connection.
A little later down the post, Campos writes:
(5) There is still not a shred of evidence that Elliott Broidy had ever met Shera Bechard, at least not before he started forking over huge tracts of cash to her last December.
This is another one where I will concede the point to Campos. It’s a head scratcher that there’s no photographic evidence of any affair between Bechard and Broidy given the continued interest in the matter.
Anyway, as I keep saying, if there was any rock hard evidence that Trump was somehow involved that came out, I might black out in shock for a few minutes. I totally, 100% believe Broidy is the father and I only keep writing about any of this because it’s interesting and Broidy keeps screwing up.
Shelton Bumgarner is a writer and photographer living in Richmond, Va. He may be reached at migukin (at) gmail (dot) com.