After I published my latest piece on the Broidy-Bechard-Trump affair this morning, I got an email from a New York PR firm, labelling my story “incorrect and speculative,” and demanding that New York Magazine include a statement from Chris Clark, the lawyer Broidy is using to handle his sudden withdrawal from his agreement with Shera Bechard. (Broidy has a lot of lawyers, every one of which, like Clark, is at the top of the profession, with one notable exception: According to the story Broidy gave out to the Wall Street Journal nearly three months ago now, Broidy decided to use Lionel Hutz, aka Michael Cohen, to handle his very delicate interactions with Miss November 2010. Yeah that totally happened).

Anyway, before agreeing to include the statement from Clark, I pressed the firm’s owner (this guy) to get me a statement from Broidy that he had had a sexual liaison with Bechard, which I promised to publish both in the magazine and here. He refused, while claiming Clark’s statement to me fulfilled that evidentiary function. Here is the statement, part of which has now been included in the New York Magazine piece:

“Next time if you call me instead of guessing wrong I will tell you the facts — that I’ve been Elliott’s lawyer for years on a wide variety of topics and this agreement was not on anyone else’s behalf.”

You don’t have to be a lawyer to see that, when it comes to the core question of whether Broidy actually had an affair with Bechard, this is simply another non-denial denial, or if you prefer, non-admission admission.

After I noted this, the firm came back with a lot of nonsensical bluster about how I was “attacking” Chris Clark (how?), probably because I was mad at my former employer Latham & Watkins, at which he is a partner (I left the firm nearly 30 years ago on good terms, i.e., 20 years before Clark got there).

I pointed out that the only statements I had made about Clark were that he was a criminal defense lawyer who had represented Broidy when Broidy was bribing New York state officials back in the day, and that he was representing him again, and anyway why was Elliott Broidy’s PR firm defending the purportedly good name of Chris Clark, who, I emphasized, was free to call me at any time to discuss any aspect of this matter directly? (Spoiler: he hasn’t).

This led to a truly half-assed threat of a defamation suit, with a cc to another prominent law firm, that apparently Broidy uses to threaten people who are more easily cowed by his bullshit than I am.

Anyway, Elliott Broidy was given approximately 17 chances this morning to state, either directly or through one or more of his many hirelings, that he actually did have an affair with Shera Bechard, and that my theory that he didn’t, and was making payments to her as a favor to Donald Trump, was false, defamatory, very naughty, etc. He didn’t.

Make of that what you will.