why is this funny?

do you think that he is not a credible lawyer because she is a porn star? fyi that job pays well at her level, Stormy can afford good lawyers....

how does who a lawyer takes on as clients have anything to do with how "credible" any evidence presented by that lawyer is?

are you implying that Stormy is not a credible source? this would have nothing to do with Kavenaugh being unfit to be a judge on the supreme court, and also??? you think the Donald and his Lawyers are more credible than Stormy, we have video proof that all of these men are significantly less than honest when it benefits them, we do not have the same for Stormy Daniels......

but this is off topic, still confused as to what is funny,

@TiernanMcCann (1) In 2006, she stated that she never had a sexual relationship with Trump;

(2) In 2011, she stated that she never had a sexual relationship with Trump;

(3) In January 2018 – this year – she stated that she never had a sexual relationship with Trump. She specifically put in writing, “My involvement with Donald Trump was limited to a few public appearances and nothing more.”
Three times, over an 11-year period, Daniels unequivocally asserted that she did not have a sexual relationship with Trump. Given these admissions, alone, it is not just disingenuous to make a claim that Trump had an affair with her, but it is patently absurd. However, there are more major credibility problems for Daniels.

The woman has consistently been seeking a payday for her tale of an affair with the president. In 2011, she was prepared to take a $15,000 payment from a magazine for a Trump-love-fest story that she offered. Much to Daniels’s dismay, her dream deal fell apart.

Ever resilient to make money off her brief meetings with Trump (it is uncontested that they knew each other), Daniels jumped on an assault band wagon against the president during the 2016 presidential campaign. Seeing that she could again obtain a sizable monetary check for an affair story, she began frothing at the mouth about it to many listeners. She wielded offers and finally settled on the NDA deal with Cohen. This landed her a whopping $130,000, a figure much greater than the $15,000 magazine payment from five years earlier. Now, it seems quite evident that this money-hungry-grub is convinced that she can far exceed the $130K by breaching the NDA (an agreement that forbids her from speaking about any alleged affair with Trump).

Daniels, who admitted on “60 Minutes” that she has gotten a lot more job offers after instituting her lawsuit, surely is awaiting major financial reward from her unsupported claims. Her greedy ambitions poke more holes in the porn gal’s credibility than those caused by her chosen career; it is rational to conclude that one who accepts money for sex is not a credible witness.

While Daniels’s monstrous credibility issues eviscerate her unsubstantiated she-said he-said claims, Avenatti’s lawsuit assertions are without any legal merit. The attorney’s legal proffers to nullify the NDA are rooted in two arguments, both of which are failures. His first claim –that Trump did not sign the agreement – on its face, sounds valid. This is a threshold legal issue (not one of fact), which, as it turns out, has no validity, and will be decided against Avenatti, causing the case to be dismissed. The reason: the agreement allows for it to be signed by Trump OR his attorney, Michael Cohen.

Since Cohen signed the document, it was unnecessary for Trump to execute it. Accordingly, with this threshold issue being a failure, the case is over right there and, although Avenatti might not be the highest quality of an attorney, he is not an idiot; he understands that he has a loser with the “lack of Trump signature” cause of action. This leaves him with his second argument, which is a desperate Hail Mary.

Claim number two is that Daniels signed the NDA under duress and/or coercion. This proposition is rooted in a ridiculous, unsupported story that was exposed in last night’s “60 Minutes” report. Daniels, in low-budget actress form, said, “I was in a parking lot, going to a fitness class with my infant daughter. Taking, you know, the seats facing backwards in the backseat, diaper bag, you know, getting all the stuff out. And a guy walked up on me and said to me, ‘Leave Trump alone. Forget the story.’” Upon giving the audience a quick look of distress, she added, “And then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, ‘That’s a beautiful little girl. It’d be a shame if something happened to her mom.’ And then he was gone.”
This story has about the same writing creativity of a porn flick, embossed in the typical cliche of an encounter with an unknown, threatening man in a parking garage. The mysterious culprit, of course, levies a veiled threat that an infant may lose her mommy. Then, he’s off into the darkness, never to be seen again.

Other than the bad acting performance delivered in her nationally televised story, Daniels has one glaring problem. None of the necessary evidence to support a credible account of an alleged criminal incident exists. There are no eyewitnesses. There’s no video evidence, nor audio. There is zero forensic evidence. No confessions or admissions of any kind by the supposed perpetrator exist. There are no written threats to buttress Daniels’s story. There isn’t even a police report following the alleged criminal activity.

What kind of mother would be threatened in front of her infant child – and then not report it to the police? Answer: a pornographer who fabricated a story as an effort to reap substantial monetary gain and public notoriety.

@TiernanMcCann Soooooooo..... no response at all, Mr. McCann?