Michael Avenatti’s case for indicting the president is factless hogwash

In order to prosecute anyone in the United States, much less the president, there must be some evidence that a crime has been committed. Avenatti has none.

In his article, all he says about any factual basis for indicting the president is, “there are many indications that there is [sufficient evidence to support an indictment of President Trump]– the special counsel, Robert Mueller, who is investigating possible Russian interference in the 2016 election, and prosecutors from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, who are investigating payments to my clients, Stormy Daniels, and Karen McDougal, should present their evidence to grand juries.”

That’s it. That’s all he’s got: A wish. A desire. Never mind that the special prosecutor has admitted that he has yet to find any evidence of collusion. And never mind that the payments made to Avenatti’s client have a very high bar to clear before rising to the level of criminality.