Share, fair Shera!

Looks like I may have a blog after all. Or maybe not. Here's the deal: It seems that the existence of this site has caused a family squabble, and I'd rather give it all up than lose anyone dear to me. But if the loss is going to hit regardless, I should just keep writing. Right?

At the moment, Cannonfire is Schroedinger's blog, existent and nonexistent simultaneously.

Since the last post dealt with the Shera Bechard mystery, and since I was the very first to posit the theory that she aborted Trump's child...

(Have I mentioned that fact before? I believe so.)

...I feel obligated to discuss the latest. She is suing Elliott Broidy (the putative fetus-daddy) for non-payment of the promised hush money. That part makes sense to me, more or less. It also makes sense that she sued her former lawyer Keith Davidson, whose "secret team-up" with Michael Cohen strikes most people as pretty damned smarmy.

What does not make sense is the fact that she has included Michael Avenatti in this suit.

Avenatti is the lawyer for Stormy Daniels and has no obvious link to the Bechard case. In a statement, he has emphasized that he has never communicated with Shera Bechard in any way.

Mr. Avenatti said he didn’t know why he was named as a defendant, “unless it is a ploy by Ms. Bechard to get publicity.”

“I was never a party to any agreement with her and I never had any obligation to her,” he added.

Surreal! It's as if DC decided to sue Marvel Comics in a complaint which also named Barbra Streisand as a co-defendant.

Moreover, at the last moment the Complaint was sealed. God knows why. Avenatti has not yet been served and, at the moment, cannot make a proper reply.

The first hypothesis which popped into my cynical imagination is that Shera Bechard has been covertly promised that the money flow will return if she takes part in a scheme to smear Avenatti. The full nature of the smear will become clear only with the passage of time.

Let's be clear: I am not saying that this is what's going on; I'm saying that this was the first notion to pop into my fevered skull. One thing's for certain: The trolls and bots are engaged in a massive mud-slinging effort right now: Avenatti's a rapist! Avenatti's a tax cheat! Avenatti helped George Soros steal the Infinity Gauntlet from Thanos! And so forth.

(Incidentally, this anti-Avenatti effort is something I also predicted. The "He groped me" allegations should have hit by now. Soon, soon...)

Journalists covering Broidy/Bechard business have denounced the "Daddy Donnie" theory, claiming that there is no hard evidence that Bechard slept with anyone other than Broidy. As previous posts have detailed, there are plenty of soft indications that Trump is the actual father.

One under-discussed indicator is the bizarre way Shera Bechard has handled the matter in her own Twitter feed. When it comes to inconsequential matters, Bechard usually responds to reader comments. But when people accuse her of engaging in a cover-up for Trump, she just lets the accusation hang in the air, unanswered.

And yet she continually tweets about narcissists. She knows full well that most people in this country consider Donnie to be the King of the Narcissists. She knows full well how those tweets and retweets are interpreted. Yet she remains as silent as the Sphinx.

Absolutely nothing in that "hush hush" agreement prevents her from saying the words "I never had sex with Donald Trump" -- unless she really did. If Donald Trump is the "David Dennison" in that contract (as he was in other contracts), her silence becomes explicable.

Here are a few of the reader comments which Shera refuses to address:

@SheraBechard The truth, please. Either quickly put to rest the conspiracy that it was trump who impregnated her and Broidy paid via trump bribe, or confirm it, please. No games, no lies.

evidence points to the affair being between Donald Trump and Bechard, and that Broidy entered into the NDA to silence Bechard as a favor to Trump. Trump, according to this theory, repaid Broidy by agreeingto at least two Oval Office meetings, at which Broidy lobbied...

Simple question: was Broidy the father or trump. Discovery will be wonderful. Adding @MichaelAvenatti is pretty stupid imo

Find it extremely hard to believe you slept with this man. And without a condom. Girl bye. Tell the truth, move on and get your money. No one is buying your current story.

Writer Paul Campos is the journalist whom most people incorrectly credit as the originator of the "Daddy Donnie" scenario. He believes...

(Have I mentioned that I was first? I believe so.)

He believes that this current turn of events is explicable only when seen through the lens of that theory. He notes that Broidy isn't saving any money by not paying Bechard, since the current lawsuit pileup will no doubt cost more than whatever he still owes her. (Broidy uses very pricey lawyers, naturally.) If Keith Davidson screwed up by blabbing about a secret arrangement, then Broidy would be better served if he sued Davidson for damages.

(Does Davidson have that kind of money? Probably.)

Here's Campos' most interesting point:

Chris Clark is a white-collar criminal-defense lawyer. Indeed, Broidy employed Clark when he was prosecuted a decade ago for bribing officials in the New York State comptroller’s office (Clark worked out a plea deal, in which Broidy testified against seven officials in exchange for pleading guilty to a single felony charge). Why is Broidy using a criminal-defense specialist to litigate a contract dispute? One possibility here is that Broidy is backing out of the contract on Clark’s advice, because the NDA is actually a bribe to Trump, and, by not paying the rest of that bribe, Clark’s client would be lessening his criminal liability.

By claiming that their agreement is void, Broidy is putting Bechard in a position to tell her story — whatever it may actually be — in whatever forum she likes.

I suspect this last point contains a key to understanding why Broidy is trying to back out of the agreement now. Perhaps like so many other people, Broidy has concluded that Donald Trump is a bad business partner.

Here's where Campos and I part company. At this moment, I prefer the theory that Broidy is still in bed with Donald Trump, and so -- perhaps -- is Shera Bechard. Figuratively.

Please understand: She seems like a nice person. I have nothing against her, aside from the fact that at least one of her lovers was poorly-chosen. (Then again, who doesn't have a poorly-chosen partner in his or her romantic resume?) All I'm stating here is my belief that, between the polonium and the pay-offs, between the carrot and the stick, Donald Trump and his cronies can manipulate nearly anyone to do nearly anything.

I may be wrong, but I still think that this current twist in the story is all about Avenatti.

Avenatti has been making noises about running for president in 2020. In some ways, he'd be a strong candidate, although I'd definitely prefer someone else. The naming of Michael Avenatti as a defendant in this suit, and then the strange decision to seal the Complaint, tells me that we are about to witness an anti-Avenatti ratfucking op, the exact nature of which is impossible to guess at present.

Ending the pay-offs to Shera Bechard made no sense, financially. Naming Avenatti in the Complaint made no sense, legally. (At least, so it seems given our present information.)

Something else must be going on. I'm not sure what that "something" is. We'll find out soon.