Questions arise about Stormy Daniels’ attorney

The media is using Stormy Daniels’ attorney Michael Avenatti to wage war on President Trump.

The Washington Free Beacon found that he’d appeared on CNN and MSNBC 108 times since March 7, though it could be even more.

But just who is porn lawyer Michael Avenatti?

According to the Washington Free Beacon’s analysis, CNN and MSNBC have given Michael Avenatti nearly $175 million in free media.

But the publicity is leading to heightened scrutiny, and some are wondering if the mainstream media bothered to question or verify his credibility at all.

Fox News’ Jesse Watters says Avenatti’s report on Cohen’s finances may have been produced illegally, and the Treasury Department is now investigating his actions.

When Watters examined Avenatti’s public records, he found Avenatti owes $1.2 million in personal federal taxes, $4 million in taxes from his former law firm partnership, and his law firm itself at one point owed $2.4 million.

Watters speculates that perhaps his war on Trump is just a way for him to dig out of his own financial hole.

Watch what Watters found below:

While Avenatti claims he’s not a political operative, Watters found he’s donated to numerous Democrats, and at one point worked for Rahm Emanuel.

Now some are asking who’s paying Avenatti.

In an op-ed for The Hill, former pollster and advisor to President Clinton Mark Penn says Avenatti’s “report” on Cohen raises serious questions CNN and MSNBC are refusing to ask.

Is there a team of people digging this up? Are they paying off sources? Is Fusion GPS involved? Are there political donors behind making this campaign work? He can’t be both an attorney and then participate as an officer of the court in trafficking illegally obtained information.

Avenatti has been given a free, unfettered media perch on TV to spread his stuff without the networks forcing him to meet any disclosure requirements, saying that he is Daniels’s attorney when someone else entirely is paying for this operation is not true disclosure that allows the viewer to evaluate the source and potential conflicts. He is now being given deference as though he is a journalist interested in protecting unverified sources while he makes headline-grabbing pronouncements. Lawyers need to disclose the source of their evidence.

What are your thoughts about porn lawyer Michael Avenatti’s motives?

Is he simply trying to “save the republic” as MSNBC lauded him for?

Or is there something more nefarious at work?

Sound off in the comments below!