Kevin's Watch

Surely this story is one that is now worthy of it's own thread? Over in the UK it's getting a lot of coverage, not least one suspects because of its salacious nature, but it's threatening to become a potential game changer for Trump. We have accusations of money changing hands that Trump did, didn't, did again know about. We have clandestine threats of violence, law suits being filed, and legal advisors who contradict their own words from your to your (He'll get his facts straight - he's working real hard on it, Trump said of Giulliani yesterday). All in all it's a right pigs-ear and surely indicative of an administration in pretty deep trouble?

What I don't get is why Trump would pay her in the first place. I mean it's not like we didn't know he tries to maintain a Playboy lifestyle and likes to brag about his sexual conquests.

No one would have given a single shit if he didn't pay her hush money and she tried to come out against him by saying he had an affair. He could have just said "Yeah, I did it. It was great, folks. Unbelievable. I fucked her right in the pussy."

So with all that said, if he did break the law by transferring campaign money to keep her quiet, he's really an idiot.

It's a non-issue that's being blown up in the press.

It is an issue for a candidate to disclose his debts and Trump didnt

It is an issue that Trump denied his tryst to be shown to be a liar

Reinforced by Giuliani

G wrote:The payment was made to resolve a personal and false allegation in order to protect the presidents family

Giuliani stated that Trump knew about the payment made by Cohen... and that Trump did reimburse him

G wrote:Trump had repaid Cohen $35,000 a month "out of his personal family account" after the campaign was over. He said Cohen received $460,000 or $470,000 in all for expenses related to Trump.

Now we know Trump has a penchant for surrounding himself with imbeciles .. is this one more example Is Giuliani just a dodering old fool ____ ... what else explains what he told Fox n Friends and the New York Times ____

The only question of relevance is ... did funds used by Cohen to pay off Daniels constitute a campaign funds violation. Thats it.

Like Nanothnir I can't understand why Trump would have bothered two hoots about shutting Daniels up for fear it would 'damage his campaign'. What with his comments about grabbing women and just about every other taboo subject going, his campaign was already damaged beyond repair - but nobody gave a toss: he could have filmed the encounter and released it online and still been elected POTUS!

But in respect of it being a non-issue, true - but these can be the very (apparently) trivial stumbling blocks that can bring governments down. Nobody would have thought that Profumo's dalliance with a show-girl would have brought down the Conservative government of the day, but it did. And there seems to be a whole industry built around the object of destroying Trump and he just keeps on giving them stuff to work with.

I'd add to Sky's pertinent fundamental question whether Trump has been involved in an issue where threats of violent retribution for non cooperation have been made. This doesn't sit well, even from Trump.

Funny how Bill Clinton getting blown by an intern in the Oval Office was a private matter, but Trump - as a private citizen - banging a bimbo is a federal case.

Its a federal case only because of the possibility of campaign funds violation. No one cares, nor should they ... about who Trump screws ... except to feel sorry for them

Trump loses any claim to high ground .. when he paid off individuals to keep them quiet.

Jeffrey Archer sued a UK tabloid for making a similar claim, received a big payment and got the editor fired (which some claim led to his premature death). Later having been found to have perjured himself, he was convicted and imprisoned for it. Thus can such situations snowball.

If this goes to trial or a investigation it going to be interesting
to find out what is Stormy Daniels real name is.

Stormy is a "entertainment" name. If she was paid for a service then the IRS would want to know how much tax money was paid.

Kind of a crappy porn star name.

If we created an ABCs of Porn Star names in Mallorys that name wouldn't come up in thousands of tries.

Ur Dead wrote:If this goes to trial or a investigation it going to be interesting
to find out what is Stormy Daniels real name is.

No great mystery. The name you seek is Stephanie Clifford.

You guys think it's likely that a billionaire used campaign money to pay off a porn star? The only reason people consider this likely is wishful thinking. The media speculate--salivates--on the possibility, but has anyone presented evidence that it's likely? I mean, Trump has the money. He doesn't need to use campaign finances to pay for her silence.

Wasn't his campaign money all his own money anyway?? Why can't he spend his own money how he chooses?

peter wrote:Surely this story is one that is now worthy of it's own thread?

Not really--it is already a sub-topic in the general "President Trump" thread and, as Cail notes, it is a non-issue being blown out of proportion only by Trump's political opponents so they can try to score points against him.

Giuliani is not a doddering old fool--he is much more politically savvy than Trump, which is why Trump should have just gone along with Rudy's take on the situation instead of throwing yet another supporter under the bus.

Truthfully, no one gives a shit whether or not Trump banged a porn star over a decade ago other than the slimy individuals who would like to check that box off their bucket list before they die. A lot of people voted for Clinton--twice--even though there were all sorts of salacious stories--not just rumors, since much of them were verifiable--about his numerous affairs while we was Attorney General then Governor of Arkansas; some of those stories included bite marks and possible rape. As noted, though, the double standard is in full effect--Clinton's affairs were "private" but Trump's are somehow a potential disaster? That doesn't hold water.

This case is never going to go to any sort of a trial and no one is going to spend any time behind bars for it. The only reason it continues to have life is because Ms. Clifford's lawyer is trying to keep his name in the news, much less the name of his client.

aTOMiC wrote:Kind of a crappy porn star name.

If we created an ABCs of Porn Star names in Mallorys that name wouldn't come up in thousands of tries.

.. sounds like a game plan

As for the thread its a sub issue of Trump for sure .. but with ALL Trump sub issues .. you can get lost in a thread as complex and diverse as all that. This is a good place for a specific sub issue.

I do not share your optimism re Trump that you do Z. It would be nice if I could. I suspect we havent scratched the surface of this issue yet.

Trump and Ollie North ... mmm .. how the stars align ... .. but yes they are both heros to some ..

Youre missing the issue Hashi .. the issue isnt the impropriety.. it is only the facts that indicate illegality.

In this I dont think weve scratches the surface yet .. we dont have access to the brief of evidence .. all we have access to to date .. is speculation and the various statements weve read from Trump and Giuliani.. and those inconsistencies..

Trump himself has been all over the place in his comments about what he knew, didnt know

The conflict of narrative tells me that we the public have not yet scratched the surface

I for one, am eager to know more ...

Yup the last bit is the only relevant activity .. and yes, waiting, waiting

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:I presume the affair happened in New York (Trump *loves* Manhattan). At worst, prostitution and solicitation of prostitution--they had sex, she got paid.

As I understand the story, this happened at a celebrity golf event at Lake Tahoe. Tahoe straddles the California-Nevada border and I don't know specifically where the event was, so even your worst case scenario may be moot if this happened on the Nevada side of the line and the county in which it occurred allows prostitution.

Pretty thin gruel on that charge anyway, as there was no definable quid pro quo at the time and the eventual payment was a decade later with another ostensible purpose than compensation for the act itself.