Daniels sued Trump last week, saying that the nondisclosure agreement about their alleged affair was void because Trump hadn't signed the document, and his lawyer, Michael Cohen, has publicly spoken about the agreement. However, Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, admitted to paying $130,000 to Daniels in 2016, and he told CNN he used his Trump organization email address to communicate the transfer of payment.
"I've been in the adult business for 17 years, so to make it that long in that business you have to have a really tough skin, and so most of it rolls off my shoulders because it's an opinion", she said. Cohen has claimed Trump never knew about any of it, and used his own money for the deal.
"It's sort of a double-edged sword", Daniels said, explaining that while before she only danced once a month, she is getting far more bookings now.
In February, another watchdog group, Common Cause, filed a Justice Department complaint that accused Cohen's payment to Clifford of being an unreported campaign contribution and a violation of federal campaign finance law.
Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, received the money in October 2016 in return for her promise to keep quiet about the extramarital affair she says Trump had with her in 2006 and 2007.More news: Kanye West Dyed His Hair Pastel Pink To Match Wife Kim Kardashian
The White House and Cohen, who drafted the agreement, have repeatedly denied the alleged sexual encounter.
Avenatti said she is not contemplating taking any of the offers, and Daniels told CNN money is not a pressing issue for her.
"She believes it's important that the public learn the truth about what happened", he told NBC's "Today" this week.
Perhaps by "publicly", Avenatti meant over the airwaves.
"The designated judge from the arbitration tribunal found that Ms. Clifford had violated the agreement and enjoined her from, among other things, filing this lawsuit", Rosen said in a statement to media outlets.
"Michael, you know based on your experience that term - even if everyone agreed to it - is unconscionable, meaning so beyond the pale that there is not a court that would enforce that at that level with $130,000 at the front end and a million liquidated damage clause per instance, no court in California is going to ever enforce that", Avenatti predicted.