Shera Bechard just sued Trump donor Elliott Broidy over a scuttled hush money deal

The sprawling saga of Michael Cohen’s hush money payoffs has taken another bizarre turn. Shera Bechard, a former Playboy model who Cohen had arranged a payoff for in exchange for her silence about a sex scandal last year, filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Friday.

Though Bechard’s complaint is currently sealed, the Wall Street Journal’s Michael Rothfeld and Joe Palazzolo report she is suing three people for alleged breach of contract.

First there’s Elliott Broidy, the wealthy Trump donor who had made the payments to Bechard. Second is Keith Davidson, the former lawyer for Bechard (and Stormy Daniels, and Karen McDougal) who had negotiated that and other hush money deals with Cohen. Third is Michael Avenatti, Stormy Daniels’s new lawyer, who is trying to get Daniels’s nondisclosure agreement struck down.

The Journal reported the existence of the deal in April, saying it was made because Broidy had an affair with Bechard in 2017 and impregnated her (and that she had an abortion afterward). So, toward the end of last year, Cohen and Davidson negotiated a deal for Broidy to pay Bechard $1.6 million, in installments, for her silence.

But earlier this week, Broidy announced through his new lawyer that he would stop paying Bechard. He said that Keith Davidson had breached the secrecy of the agreement by sharing information about it with Michael Avenatti. Now Bechard is suing all three men.

All of this would merely be a strange and tawdry side story in the many scandals of Michael Cohen — if not for rampant speculation among liberals that it may have been Donald Trump, and not Elliott Broidy, who had the affair with Bechard.

There is no hard evidence that this is the case. But the argument, made at New York magazine by Paul Campos, is essentially this: We already know Cohen paid off porn actress Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal to hush up alleged Trump affairs. So, Campos posits, might not Cohen’s Bechard payment be another similar incident, with Broidy’s supposed involvement a cover story? (The reason Trump would be extra-motivated to hush this one up, the theory goes, is that it involves an abortion, which could infuriate many of his religious right supporters.)

Avenatti himself has fanned this speculation. “I think at some point we are going to find out, if in fact, the client in connection with the settlement was, in fact, Mr. Broidy,” he said on television in April. And in responding to the new lawsuit, he referred to “Mr. Broidy (or whomever impregnated her)” and referred to Bechard’s “relationship, or lack thereof, with Mr. Broidy.”

However, one of the two Wall Street Journal reporters who’s been covering the story for months (and who helped unearth the Stormy Daniels payoffs in the first place) has pushed back on this speculation, saying he’s “very sure” that it was Broidy and not Trump who had the affair with Bechard, and that “there is zero evidence” that Broidy is covering for Trump.

Meanwhile, Bechard’s new lawyer Peter Stris, who filed the suit, chided Avenatti on Twitter for feigning ignorance about why he was sued. (Avenatti soon fired back.)

Separately, Cohen — who’s not named in the suit — has increasingly seemed adrift from Trumpworld. He’s been signaling that he could cooperate with federal investigators, even if it involves “flipping” on Trump, and this week he hired a new lawyer, Lanny Davis, who’s a longtime ally of the Clintons. Presumably, Cohen knows the truth about what happened with Bechard.

In any case, whether Bechard’s suit will lead to stunning new revelations that will shake the Trump administration, or whether it’s merely exactly what it appears to be on the surface — a lawsuit about money with no connection to the president at all — isn’t yet clear.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via