The question of who is paying Michael Avenatti hasn't actually been answered.

The Hill had asked the question here.

And it is a very good question.

Stormy Daniels's lawyer gets a lot of free advertising on news shows who forget to question him, and take his every accusation as gospel, which was never the job of journalists.

He supposedly "answered" this question, according to dysfunctional and questionable media property Newsweek:

“Once again (for at least the 20th time)–ALL fees and expenses of this case have either been funded by our client, Ms. Stephanie Clifford, or by donations from our page,” Avenatti wrote in a statement he linked to a tweet through Dropbox.

“Further, no political party or PAC is funding this effort. No left wing conspiracy group is behind this. And no big fat cat political donors are leading the charge,” Avenatti added. “Get over it.”

Let's try this answer again.

It is the "donations" part that is cause for concern in light of the nature of the allegations.

Donations can be a very good way to circumvent the rules, particularly the Foreign Agents' Registration Act, or FARA, something I have mentioned on this site repeatedly.

There is a lot of renewed interest in FARA, and it is something that is very relevant to US lawyers. If a foreign agent wished to make trouble and foot the bill for someone who could, in theory, take down a nation's leader, they would -- if they paid the bills directly -- have to register with FARA.

But if you channel the money indirectly, through donations, or even crowdsourcing, it is a way to keep your role out of it, all while the client in question can pretend everything is above board and no foreign interests are involved.

So Newsweek didn't answer The Hill's original question, and given the stakes, I seriously doubt there isn't vested and foreign interests getting involved.

FARA hasn't been much enforced, but it is an important law that is supposed to bring transparency, and considering Avenatti's free pass in the media, he is far more than just an attorney -- he is acting in the capacity of a PR flunkie.

If we had actual journalists, they would be grilling every shark they net. They don't. They pick sides, and spew gullible propaganda because it is the lazy way of doing their jobs.

And this is a question that needs to be answered because it hasn't been answered yet.