Stormy Daniels

[Crockett]

There aren't a lot of things less relevant than whether a chronically/publicly adulterous man had an affair with porn star a decade ago. Unless he raped her, I don't see an issue worthy of much public attention. I understand why comedians are interested, but I can't really see the relevance to serious news shows.

King David, Admiral Horatio Nelson, FDR, JFK ... all in all did more good than harm the way I read history.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

It's the #HimToo movement. Many liberals remember the Clinton years and are absolutely convinced that what was fair then is fair now, because they think that the Clinton rape scandals and Lewinsky affair were all about people getting Clinton - and there was an aspect of that, for sure. They basically attribute it to the idea that Republicans claim they're moral and and they don't like people having sex with people they weren't supposed to be having sex with, and they used that as an excuse. In large part, the Stormy Daniels situation is about trying to paint conservatives as hypocrites and Trump as an embarrassment, so they can now point out how there's no outrage about Trump's disgusting activities when they were all over Clinton. I think that there are some that genuinely believe that if they can make this ugly enough, the Republicans will HAVE to impeach, just like the Dems had to back then.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I think that there are some that genuinely believe that if they can make this ugly enough, the Republicans will HAVE to impeach, just like the Dems had to back then.

Yep, the people who don't actually know why Clinton was impeached.

 

[Crockett]

They basically attribute it to the idea that Republicans claim their moral and and they don't like people having sex with people they weren't supposed to be having sex with, and they used that as an excuse. In large part, the Stormy Daniels situation is about trying to paint conservatives as hypocrites and Trump as an embarrassment, so they can now point out how there's no outrage about Trump's disgusting activities when they were all over Clinton.

 

[4th_floor]

...................................... I think that there are some that genuinely believe that if they can make this ugly enough, the Republicans will HAVE to impeach, just like the Dems had to back then.

Only 5 dems in the House voted to impeach Clinton. No Dems in the Senate voted to convict.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Both sides of the political spectrum will sprint to their corner and defend their man/attack the opposition just like they did for Clinton. Both sides will demonstrate their hypocrisy. Rinse, repeat. In the end they only want to retain power to implement their agenda and the morality of the person leading the charge matters not when they are talking about your own agenda.

 

[Crockett]

Many liberals remember the Clinton years and are absolutely convinced that what was fair then is fair now,

Things have changed. It's much harder to squirm out of responsibility for oppressive sex. Other sex, if the 20016 election trends hold, is not a major disqualifier. Lying about it to the press was never a crime. Lying under oath, as Clinton found, will get you in trouble.

If it turns out that Trump had the affair, fibbed about it and then reneged on a promise to reimburse his lawyer for hush money, my impression of his moral fitness for office would be unmoved.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Only 5 dems in the House voted to impeach Clinton. No Dems in the Senate voted to convict.

I'll lay odds that's not how they remember it - at least not how the narrative will go.

 

[I35]

Both sides of the political spectrum will sprint to their corner and defend their man/attack the opposition just like they did for Clinton. Both sides will demonstrate their hypocrisy.

It is hypocrisy because both Clinton and Trump had sex in the oval office while being President and then lied about it while under oath.

 

[Seattle Husker]

It is hypocrisy because both Clinton and Trump had sex in the oval office while being President and then lied about it while under oath.

You only care about lying under oath. Duly noted.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

You only care about lying under oath. Duly noted.

Thanks for proving the point I made earlier.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Thanks for proving the point I made earlier.

I appreciate you reinforcing my point too. Thanks for the assist.

You may actually want to read the post I was responding too. Then again, the knee jerk reaction to attack a liberal may simply be too strong.

 

[I35]

You only care about lying under oath. Duly noted.

Did you miss the part about having sex while being president in the oval office? Oh and he then lied under oath. Is that better or does your liberal eyes only focus on the two scoops of ice cream......much like everything else Liberals do.

CNN would be proud to call you one of their own.

 

[4th_floor]

Things have changed. It's much harder to squirm out of responsibility for oppressive sex.

As of a year ago, it was a well known "secret" that Harvey Weinstein, a major democrat donor, was regularly harassing and abusing women who wanted a job in Hollywood. No one cared for years. Also, the husband of the 2016 Presidential candidate was well known for harassing and abusing every woman he came into contact with.
What changed? Well the dems who tried to take down Trump for being a harasser of women decided they had to take down Weinstein to give them credibility to go after Trump, Roy Moore, and pretty much every republican male. Poor little Al "squishy fingers" Franken got taken down too. But most of Franken's former colleagues have expressed regret about that. And Bill Clinton still has not faced any type of reprimand. So the truth of the matter is that the changes were temporary. You can still get away with harassment and abuse if you have a D after your name.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Did you miss the part about having sex while being president in the oval office? Oh and he then lied under oath. Is that better or does your liberal eyes only focus on the two scoops of ice cream......much like everything else Liberals do.

CNN would be proud to call you one of their own.

Thanks for continuously reinforcing my point with every post you make. After spending a few weeks away I've now begun to recognize the characteristics of the WestMall that others call a "cesspool".

 

[Crockett]

So the truth of the matter is that the changes were temporary. You can still get away with harassment and abuse if you have a D after your name.

So do you think tolerance of sexual abuse is a party line issue? I think it more generational ... younger folks less likely to look the other way or accept being exploited. Democrats don't like it when Republicans or Democrats sexually abuse. I think Republicans are also intolerant, perhaps just more likely to believe the accused.

 

[mchammer]

Trump for Nobel Peace prize?

 

[ProdigalHorn]

You may actually want to read the post I was responding too.

I did. And your response still tells me you don't get the difference between the Clinton situation and the Lewinsky situation.

 

[4th_floor]

So do you think tolerance of sexual abuse is a party line issue?

I do. I think both major parties are hypocritical about sex - if your guy does it, it's his personal business and a misunderstanding. If the other guy does it, he's despicable.

Dems are worse than Reps. Dems still won't criticize Bill or Hillary Clinton. Dems who should have known what Weinstein was doing were happy to take his money and I'm sure most have not given it back yet. But Republicans who look the other way with Trump are hypocrites too. But you can eventually shame a Republican into doing the right thing. History tells us that Dems will continue to support serial abusers like Ted Kennedy (pretty much anyone named Kennedy) and Bill Clinton until they are long dead.

 

[I35]

Thanks for continuously reinforcing my point with every post you make. After spending a few weeks away I've now begun to recognize the characteristics of the WestMall that others call a "cesspool".

It would help if your point ever had logic. Cesspool is a really good description of your liberal party from top to bottom.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

After spending a few weeks away

It sure was nice around here, too.

 

[Crockett]

History tells us that Dems will continue to support serial abusers like Ted Kennedy (pretty much anyone named Kennedy) and Bill Clinton until they are long dead.

How far back in history do we have to go to find Republicans supporting serial abusers?

 

[ProdigalHorn]

How far back in history do we have to go to find Republicans supporting serial abusers?

If you're referring to Roy Moore, bear in mind that the guy lost in the reddest state there is, WITH presidential support. So let's not go all the way to saying he was supported by republicans. I think we know based on Trump's past and character why he was OK not backing down on his support for Moore, which does indicate that character matters.

Having said that, Moore lost. And as far as I know, there aren't any congressmen running around on the GOP side with known issues of abuse that have been ignored. The only reason Al Franken and Jon Conyers stepped down is the party was trying to make a move to get Trump. Weiner would still be rolling along if he hadn't been unbelievably stupid and arrogant about the situation - and even then, the left had to be dragged kicking and screaming into not supporting him. Even then I don't remember calls for him to resign from democrats (I may be wrong on that, I just don't remember it.)

I even remember a Parks and Rec episode (the season where they just went all in on politics) where they ran an episode with the plot where one of Leslie's team used their Twitter account to send racy messages, and it showed up and the town blamed her for it. The unequivocal message from the writers was "look - there's nothing to see here! This was an honest mistake by one of my staff and she shouldn't be shamed, and I shouldn't be blamed. Let's all be grownups. And all you pervs who are trying to make something out of it are the ones with the problem." Which was basically the Weiner party line at the time.

 

[Garmel]

It sure was nice around here, too.

 

[Crockett]

Stormy Daniels is coming to Dallas and Fort Worth. I heard appearances announced during a commercial on a Sports Radio Station and then saw a billboard in I35. She will be at Dallas and Fort Worth establishments called "Bucks Wild." I've never been to those venues, but since the Presidential march was playing in the background on the commercial, I guess they a gathering place for people interested in Presidential affairs and wildlife preservation.

Curiously, no mention of this upcoming visit on NPR.

 

[Joe Fan]

Time for Operation Desert Stormy

 

[Mr. Deez]

Stormy Daniels is coming to Dallas and Fort Worth. I heard appearances announced during a commercial on a Sports Radio Station and then saw a billboard in I35. She will be at the Dallas and Fort Worth establishments called "Bucks Wild." I've never been to those venues, but since the Presidential march was playing in the background on the commercial, I guess they a gathering place for people interested in Presidential affairs and wildlife preservation.

Curiously, no mention of this upcoming visit on NPR.

I had to Google Bucks Wild, and it is what I assumed it was. So for $20 plus a cover charge, you can have the same fake boobs on your face that Trump had on his, and he's probably one of the cleaner guys who has been there.

 

[Seattle Husker]

There aren't a lot of things less relevant than whether a chronically/publicly adulterous man had an affair with porn star a decade ago. Unless he raped her, I don't see an issue worthy of much public attention. I understand why comedians are interested, but I can't really see the relevance to serious news shows.

King David, Admiral Horatio Nelson, FDR, JFK ... all in all did more good than harm the way I read history.

The only relevance is that its a demonstration (revalidation?) of Trump's character.

That payment Trump said on April he "had no knowledge of? He of course reimbursed Cohen. Clearly Guiliani explained to Trump that he was in much greater legal jeopardy if the payment if they stuck to the original story.

To the lawyers on the board, does the fact that Daniels business has likely increased undercut any defamation civil litigation? That frees up Trump to continue his verbal insults.

 

[Clean]

You legal types explain to me why Stormy and her lawyer aren't guilty of extortion / blackmail. Apparently shaking someone down for money isn't a crime anymore?

 

[Mr. Deez]

To the lawyers on the board, does the fact that Daniels business has likely increased undercut any defamation civil litigation?

Assuming that she can meet the constitutional requirements necessary to win a defamation suit (which are onerous), I don't think it harms her case that much. It could impact a claim for economic damages, but the real value in her case (if she has a case) is in noneconomic and punitive damages.

Obviously it's going to be a challenge to make a jury sympathethize with her, but it can be done. I've made a few strippers and a nude art model look deserving of sympathy.