Patterico's Pontifications

3/26/2018

Your Stormy Daniels Thread

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:26 am



I didn’t watch it.

But after signing a crap omnibus that can’t be defended, President Trump needs his defenders back. Specifically, he wants you to defend him for having sex with a porn star shortly after his wife was pregnant. How dare the porn star reveal this! Get indignant with her. Make me proud.

Bonus points for making me the bad guy for something I said in the previous paragraph.

UPDATE: My post at RedState is “You Remind Me Of My Daughter” — Trump To Stormy Daniels. I am watching the interview now. It’s here.

CORRECTION: Trump had sex with a porn star shortly after his wife gave birth, not while she was pregnant.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

481 Responses to “Your Stormy Daniels Thread”

  1. fake boobs stormy is a slut and i love president trump so much he does what is good for this country and i love him

    [Wanted to beat happyfeet to the first comment. He likes to set the pro-Trump tone. It’s very important to him for some reason. — P]

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. nicely said Mr. P

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  3. i think it’s interesting how smack dab in the middle of the #metoo moment stormy slurples along and reminds everybody hey dirty prostitutes with huge fake boobs that really really like to give it up for money are people too and Anderson Cooper says sweetie we totally respect your truth

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  4. I’m sure Trump loves being defended but he’s probably satisfied with changing the subject.

    Omnibus
    – to –
    Stormy
    – to –
    Expelling the Russians

    would be a month’s worth of stories for most Presidents, but it’s less than a week for Trump.

    DRJ (15874d)

  5. I have to resort to another language to express what a fustercluck this is, we know two of the hijackers were rooming with an bureau onformant.

    narciso (d1f714)

  6. Principles Ratings matter.

    DRJ (15874d)

  7. So he is another example where Mueller protects the guilty and let’s in innocent be sacrificed.

    narciso (d1f714)

  8. is stormy really all that different from the weinstein harem girls

    not so much really

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  9. Only in the sense that the only safe sex with her is from across the room (potted plant optional).

    nk (dbc370)

  10. I didn’t want to post this on a Sunday:

    Proverbs 16:4
    The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

    I think that day was November 8, 2016.

    nk (dbc370)

  11. she definitely looks like she has some choice funguses all up in it

    this is why i have a lot of trouble believing President Trump made sexy with her

    but maybe she does things in bed the other girls won’t do

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  12. I’m sure Trump loves being defended but he’s probably satisfied with changing the subject.
    Omnibus
    – to –
    Stormy
    – to –
    Expelling the Russians
    would be a month’s worth of stories for most Presidents, but it’s less than a week for Trump.

    Check the date on the tweet:

    Patterico (115b1f)

  13. No me importa in bled, I don’t give a farthing, tell us of the honorable herr Mueller now?

    narciso (d1f714)

  14. there’s no reason people can’t talk about stormy and her huge boobs pupils

    she represents the new archetype of the American woman

    the kind of woman what stands up for herself ten years after having consensual sex one time with somebody and makes a huge spectacle on the tv cause NDAs are totally void when your story speaks to a larger truth that so many American women share

    and last night millions of women were confronted with their inner stormy, all because of one large-breasted prostitute’s brave example

    this is who we are as women they said

    and we will not be silenced

    happyfeet (28a91b)


  15. Proverbs 16:4
    The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

    I think that day was November 8, 2016.
    nk (dbc370) — 3/26/2018 @ 7:54 am


    So now your psychotic antiTrumpism has bled into fanatical religious zealotry and insanity. Good going, nk. Now Donald Trump is the face of the wicked and he is evil. Nice! Reminds me of my dad’s old joke: Q Which is worse, ignorance or apathy? A: I don’t know and I don’t care.

    Rev.Hoagie (1b0402)

  16. Anti-rabies vaccines all around…

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  17. That event in paris, happened during the tolerant regime of le Bo to, colonel beltraime is just the latest sacrifice.

    narciso (d1f714)

  18. When the American people are given a choice between Trump and Hillary, that is a day of evil.

    I don’t know and I don’t care what mental process of yours engendered your interpretation of my comment.

    I might be amenable to the argument that the day of evil was July 19, 2016.

    nk (dbc370)

  19. More than amenable.

    nk (dbc370)

  20. And the wicked is the subject of this thread, Stormy Daniels.

    nk (dbc370)

  21. UPDATE: My post at RedState is “You Remind Me Of My Daughter” — Trump To Stormy Daniels. I am watching the interview now. It’s here.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  22. In Wall Street parlance, there is a term that means “already accounted for.” Basically, it means that if bad news comes out (e.g., the Fed raises interest rates) and does not affect the market (or a particular stock), that is because the market already anticipated it was going to happen, and that was already incorporated in the market price.

    Trump is a narcissistic moral degenerate. The American people elected him anyway. Already taken into account.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  23. Don’t know why
    There’s a cloud around my guy
    Stormy Daniels
    Since we elected a wild animal
    Impeachment grows so close

    Sorry, Colonel Haiku does it so much better.

    JVW (42615e)

  24. Patterico #23: better be prepared for your best guess about responses. Because they are coming.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  25. “You remind me of my daughter”. Why does that thought keep coming up with him? And remember this one – “if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, I’d be dating her”.

    Ewww! I think I am gonna shower now. Then, I bet I could dry off with Bill Clinton’s towel and still feel less dirty.

    noel (b4d580)

  26. Its a loathsome creature who uses his daughter in an effort to score porn star poon-tang. (Sorry for the vulgarism there, but given who we are dealing with on both sides of the ledger I think it’s entirely appropriate.)

    JVW (42615e)

  27. So how high does the body count have to be, before the bureau intervenes?

    narciso (d1f714)

  28. No, no JVW. That just riles up people to top (so to speak) the previous vulgarity. Sadly there is too much of it around these days.

    So much ick.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  29. You Remind Me Of My Daughter — Trump To Stormy Daniels

    i call shenanigans i bet he said you remind me of John McCain’s daughter

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  30. “there’s no reason people can’t talk about stormy and her huge boobs pupils

    she represents the new archetype of the American woman

    the kind of woman what stands up for herself ten years after having consensual sex one time with somebody and makes a huge spectacle on the tv cause NDAs are totally void when your story speaks to a larger truth that so many American women share

    and last night millions of women were confronted with their inner stormy, all because of one large-breasted prostitute’s brave examples”

    It’s not just large-breasted prostitutes women, happyfeet, it’s also big-haired political prostitutes men. TV spectacle worked so well for Trump that he won the Presidency.

    DRJ (15874d)

  31. Trump’s very good at selling himself. He and Stormy have that in common.

    DRJ (15874d)

  32. Trump is a narcissistic moral degenerate. The American people elected him anyway. Already taken into account.

    Bored Lawyer (998177) — 3/26/2018 @ 8:33 am

    Which showd Trump’s bad judgement in full bloom. He wasted money to keep her silent. Had Stormy’s Saga been known by Election Day, it would probably have not changed a single vote for or against him. (Except maybe Melania’s.) We all knew he did this sort of thing.

    Kishnevi (37d538)

  33. Trump’s very good at selling himself. He and Stormy have that in common.

    i love him so much and i hate her stupid guts

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  34. Then you understand how Patterico feels about Trump but I think Patterico is learning it does no good to hate Trump.

    DRJ (15874d)

  35. I’d say it would have to be bataclan level, ‘man caused disaster’

    narciso (d1f714)

  36. It doesn’t help to hate.

    DRJ (15874d)

  37. Why are porn actors always referred to as a porn “stars”? Is this just another form of society’s “everyone is a winner” mentality?

    Dana (023079)

  38. That’s what makes me sad. In the larger scheme of things, Trump himself is not important as long as he doesn’t start a nuclear war. He will soon pass as so many better and worse men have passed before him. But the America that elected him President, will that pass?

    nk (dbc370)

  39. president clinton raped women with his herpes penis DRJ

    this was not an act of love

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  40. Had Stormy’s Saga been known by Election Day, it would probably have not changed a single vote for or against him. (Except maybe Melania’s.) We all knew he did this sort of thing.

    Imybguess is that it wouldn’t have changed Melania’s – she already knew her husband did this sort of thing. It was baked into the relationship.

    Dana (023079)

  41. Rider on teh Storm

    Rider on teh Storm
    Rider on teh Storm

    [Chorus 2]
    Into this world we’re born
    Into this world we’re thrown
    Would you throw this dog a bone
    You know she’s trained to moan
    Rider on teh Storm

    [Verse 1]
    They put it up on CBS
    On 60 Minutes, more or less
    Kissed ass of Ayatollah
    Gave Clinton Sistah Souldjah
    But she gave this man a ride
    Is important? You decide
    First Lady burnin’ cold

    [Verse 2]
    Girl she really loved dat man
    Girl she really loved dat man
    Took all of that guy’s hand
    Smallest in teh land
    He’ll soon wear teh Depends
    We ask when this will end
    Really loved dat man
    [Chorus 1]
    Rider on teh Storm
    Rider on teh Storm

    [Chorus 2]
    Into this world we’re born
    Into this world we’re thrown
    Would you throw this dog a bone
    You know she’s trained to moan

    [Chorus 1]
    Rider on teh Storm
    Rider on teh Storm
    Rider on teh Storm
    Rider on teh Storm
    Rider on teh Storm

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  42. My update to the RedState post:

    UPDATE: There is a serious angle to this, you realize. Cohen’s hush money probably violated campaign contribution laws. If Trump colluded with him on that, Trump is vulnerable. As the 60 Minutes piece notes, John Edwards was indicted for similar activity, although his case did not result in a conviction. There are indeed lurid aspects to the story, but it’s not a joke.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  43. I’m riled up, Simon…

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  44. In Wall Street parlance, there is a term that means “already accounted for.” Basically, it means that if bad news comes out (e.g., the Fed raises interest rates) and does not affect the market (or a particular stock), that is because the market already anticipated it was going to happen, and that was already incorporated in the market price.

    Trump is a narcissistic moral degenerate. The American people elected him anyway. Already taken into account.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  45. Patterico (115b1f)

  46. March 16.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  47. He did apparently rape Juanita, hf, and if so he has horrible, selfish values. The GOP Omnibus rapes America, and it wasn’t consensual or deserved for those of us who used to vote Republican.

    DRJ (15874d)

  48. You’ve heard of Benghazi and Uranium One. But more than a year after Hillary Clinton’s resounding loss to President Trump, she must now grapple with a new scandal: An ongoing Federal Election Commission investigation into an alleged $84 million money laundering scheme orchestrated by the Hillary Victory Fund — the $500 million joint fundraising committee between the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and Democratic state parties.

    why do FEC laws only apply to President Trump

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  49. I think this is Always trust content from Patterico Day.

    DRJ (15874d)

  50. Family Values! Remember that? Sounds kinda funny now.

    Gosh, that was a long time ago.

    noel (b4d580)

  51. we have normalized immorality in public life

    publicly shaming a guy on national tv for having consensual sex with a woman one time ten years ago is far more immoral than anything President Trump did here

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  52. For me, it is What a weird attitude/relationship Trump has for his daughter Day.

    DRJ (15874d)

  53. “Moral Majority”. Falwell. The son carries on the tradition.

    noel (b4d580)

  54. You show a story about the FEC investigating Hillary and ask “why do FEC laws only apply to President Trump”?

    nk (dbc370)

  55. don’t try and do logics on me it won’t work

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  56. I have to wonder what the heck Ivanka thinks about her dad’s comments re her with both Daniels and Karen McDougal. According to McDougal in her interview, Trump allegedly made similar comments to her that she also reminded him of Ivanka.

    Dana (023079)

  57. serohW lie. And I don’t mean on their backs. I don’t consider the testimony of prostitutes competent, so as far as I’m concerned the Ivanka stuff never happened.

    nk (dbc370)

  58. Ivanka is lovely and she works the pole like nobody’s business but she doesn’t hold a candle to Stormy in the boobs department

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  59. oh that was clever how you backwardsed it Mr. nk

    but you’re right Stormy is not credible

    and there’s no more evidence in the Stormy thing than there was in the Ted Cruz National Enquirer expose about all of his alleged love mamas

    so in fairness i have to say President Trump is innocent and he’s being treated very unfairly

    but the American people understand this and they’re not gonna get any more worked up about this story than Anderson Cooper did sitting across from those ginormous sex melons

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  60. Why are porn actors always referred to as a porn “stars”? Is this just another form of society’s “everyone is a winner” mentality?

    Ha! We all are caught listening to too much Sly & the Family Stone.

    JVW (42615e)

  61. Does any one get indicted, Shirley you can’t be cereal, and William capbells testimony gets almost no coverage.

    narciso (d1f714)

  62. Jonah had a great analysis:

    One of Donald Trump’s great advantages is his shamelessness. While they wouldn’t put it this way, this is what some of Trump’s biggest fans love about him. His shamelessness is kind of a superpower because a sense of shame — or simply a basic sense of decorum — inhibits most of us from getting down in the gutter.

    How many times have we heard that Trump is a “counter-puncher,” employing the verbal equivalent of the “Chicago Way”? If you insult him a little, he’ll insult you ten times worse. If you tell the truth about him, he’ll say you’re lying. If you say that you’d have beaten him up in high school, he’ll say he’d beat you up now — and that you’re mentally weak and a crybaby. He’s like the Mole Man. Whatever low road someone else takes, he’ll dig out an even lower road.

    This tactic, learned at the feet of Roy Cohn and honed over decades of tabloid-war juvenilia and shady business dealings, served him well in the Republican primaries. No one wanted to attack Trump because they knew he’d counter-attack viciously and, again, shamelessly. It’s a bully’s tactic we all encountered in high school (unless, of course, you were one of the bullies). It’s much like the old adage about not wrestling with pigs — you’ll get dirty and the pig likes it. Voters priced the piggishness into Trump’s persona, but they punished normal politicians who resorted to the same tactics.

    In other words, in almost a Nietzschean fashion, Trump uses the decency of others against them.

    That’s what’s so fascinating about Stormy Daniels. What on earth can Donald Trump say about the star of Breast Friends 2 and Finally Legal 7? How can he embarrass her?

    Dave (445e97)

  63. i say ginormous sex melons and you bring up Tillerboobs?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  64. That was totally incidental, pikachu,

    narciso (d1f714)

  65. here this is a beautiful feel-good story

    mississippi’s god’s own heaven really

    lovely place and lovely people

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  66. Lee Greenwood has had better days. 😋

    EdfromSFV (c49640)

  67. back. Specifically, he wants you to defend him for having sex with a porn star while his wife was pregnant.

    No, it is shortly after his wife gave birth. Barron Trump was born on March 20, 2006. The Lake Tahoe golf tournament where Trump met both women was in July 2006.
    He continued to be interested until at least early to mid 2007.

    Trump never claimed to have always been faithful to his third wife, but he certainly implied he was being faithful in his Access Hollywood taped conversation with Billy Bush.

    But that was recorded earlier, in 2005, shortly after his marriage ceremony. (Melania Knauss had bene his (main?) mistress since at some point in 1999. The marriage probably coincided with the decision to have a child.)

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  68. I saw it starting sometime in the middle (60 Minutes was on late) and also heard some excerpts from before and read some quotations in the newspapers.

    My conclusions:

    1) She’s honest, although they didn’t go into what her beliefs are. She talked like there was nothing too much out of the ordinary with what her life was, although she didn’t want her daughter exposed to it. She’s not talking about this because she wants to.

    2) Every time she was asked a question, there would be a distinct pause, and then a very quick answer.

    She also didn’t follow along if her interviewer was trying to lead her somewhere. She may have been carefully counselled by her lawyer how to testify, and she treated this like testimony under oath.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  69. More general observations:

    3) Some enemies of Trump surfaced the story (which wasn’t a total secret) and she decided to go as public as possible to protect herself. If she’s told everything she can, and everyone who can know about it knows about it, there’s no point in anyone harming her (except maybe someone like Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Putin probably had some future oriented motive)

    And she needs to clear up the possibility of being sued into bankruptcy because of some stumble she might male.

    4) I don’t think Donald Trump had anything to do with the hush money. The matter was concealed from him.

    I also don’t think the lawyer paid it on his own initiative.

    Yes, lawyers have been known to pay things for a client without telling them (an ethical violation probably) but that would be smaller amounts. I once read of an attorney who developed a reputation with a client for fixing parking tickets. he “fixed” the tickets by paying the fines! He charged enough, or got enough other business, to cover the fines.

    5) I think the people who paid the money, and who threatened Stormy Daniels, were people who had business associations with her. It probably wasn’t that she’d done anything illegal with them, but they didn’t want any publicity, because if there was publicity it might lead into an examination of their business affairs, and there might be parole violations, income tax evasion or bribery involved. the didn’tn want the “heat.”

    The porn film industry is said to be mobbed up and it is treated as illegal even though it really isn’t or can be done legally. It’s like garbage collection. Like the fictional Tony Soprano. Mayor Giuliani got them mostly out of solid waste management in New York. Besides bribery and attacks on competition, illegal price fixing, theer were maybe some murders too.

    6) CBS tried to argue there were two ways to interpret the $130,000 both of which would be a campaign finance law violation. Either the lawyer made an in kind campaign contribution – and there was prosecution brought just like this, of John Edwards, although he was acquitted, or there was a campaign accounting violation by Trump. After thinking about this, I realized they were wrong, and it took me really some time to spot the fallacy. Me bad.

    If the lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid the money on his own, it would not be an illegal campaign contribution. It would be an independent expenditure. Unless he co-ordinated this with Donald Trump, but in that case it is very hard to believe that trump did not reimburse him. If trump did that’s an accounting violation, and that;s usually handled by fines, and there would be no prosecution of Trump about that.

    In the case of John Edwards, he colluded with Bunny Mellon. She gave the money at his urging. Here it is hard to see trump telling Michael Cohen to pay the money with no promise of reimbursement.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  70. There is the background of combine lawyer, avlenetta, another emmanuel factotum with a CV in extortion schemes.

    narciso (d1f714)

  71. 61. happyfeet (28a91b) — 3/26/2018 @ 9:28 am

    so in fairness i have to say President Trump is innocent and he’s being treated very unfairly

    They didn’t have an “affair.”

    It was a one-night stand. Somebody leaked that it wss an affair in order to give it more publicity.

    There was an “affair,” but the affair was with the Playboy model Karen McDougal, started the same time, and lasted 10 months.

    Stormy Daniels had that one night stand because she got stuck in aroom with him, ane being who she is, consented partly out of curiosity as to Donald Trump’s sexual practices, and partly in the hopes he would do something for her career. She refused to do it a second time until he got her on Celebrity Apprentice.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  72. Patterico, I make a point of not hiding in a like-minded bubble — and this is one of my go-to sites for challenging opinions.

    We evidently differ about whether PDJT is good for the country. Fair enough, but this petty malice doesn’t become you. It’s not a good look. It weakens your brand. Yeah, color me “concerned”.

    For Heaven’s sake, find something substantive to beat him up about. Lots more people have read Bernays than Aristotle, and they’re all busy subverting thought with stimulus-stimulus conditioning based on impressions. Calumny X will squick demographic Y. Repeat it endlessly! The field is crowded, if revolting.

    You can do better. Try “If you agree about P, Q, and R you must see that PDJT is bad for the country, because Z!”. You know, premises, arguments, all that dead white European male pschitt. Or have you, with the rest of the country, moved on from that?

    phunctor (b2de2c)

  73. She refused to do it a second time until he got her on Celebrity Apprentice.

    Which, considering the man’s self-proclaimed sexual prowess, must have taken iron willpower on her part.

    Dave (445e97)

  74. narciso @74: You must be spelling avlenetta wrong. the “combine” means Illinois politics. I don’t know what you are referring to.

    Anyway I think Trump probably really had nothing to do with the $130,000.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  75. Noel 52, that kind of stuff got torn from the campaign Manuel once people realized GHWB sounded like Ned Flanders.

    urbanleftbehind (276ceb)

  76. Try “If you agree about P, Q, and R you must see that PDJT is bad for the country, because Z!”.

    Ooh, can I play?

    If you believe having unprotected extra-marital sex with porn actresses, then violating the election laws and physically threatening a mother in front of her young child to cover it up is wrong, you must see that PDD is bad for the country, because logic!

    How’d I do?

    Dave (445e97)

  77. Trump has said this (comparing women to his daughter) many times. It’s bene published.

    I think he also said that he promisdd his daughter he would not get involved with any woman yiunger than she was. Ivanka Trump was born in 1984.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  78. Narciso, 2 points:
    Raunchy Natalie aka Lena D. grabs my goat also, but its connected North Side Irish pol Cusack that is pot/kettle. Also, I think Europe is content to be boiled slowly, they did not have 2 or 3 previous darker skinned demos like us over here giving gruff.

    urbanleftbehind (276ceb)

  79. Well I liked gross point blank and he was a tool in con air,

    narciso (d1f714)

  80. If he didn’t pay her off using public money, I don’t care. He’s not a man of good character, and that was clearly known.

    I didn’t vote for him, so I don’t have to care, and I surely don’t have to defend this. Yuck.

    Dianna (b7aa4f)

  81. I think the questionnis better asked of the defense:

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/292301/

    narciso (d1f714)

  82. Eh, we’re all guilty of adultery.
    (Matthew 5:28)

    the Bas (3bcea0)

  83. @53 — if by “immorality” you mean the invasion of porn into everyday life in the US, have you seen the numbers re % of Americans — male and female — that watch porn???

    The battle against “immorality” was lost with the VHS machine.

    If by “immorality” you mean the ease with which married folks slip into adulterous liaisons — do the names “Tinder” and “Ashley Madison” mean anything to you??

    Again — the name of the office isn’t “Moral Minister of the United State.”

    When you have a governmental office designated for upholding the “shared morals” of the betters among us, you have Saudi Arabia or the Taliban.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  84. The porn film industry is said to be mobbed up and it is treated as illegal even though it really isn’t or can be done legally. It’s like garbage collection. Like the fictional Tony Soprano.

    That might be overstating it, Sammy. I have an estranged friend who works in the porn industry. Based upon what has happened to him, and based upon the stories he has told me and the people he has met in that world, my sense is that these people aren’t so much part of any underworld as they are simply just damaged human beings. Virtually everyone I have met through my estranged friend either has a drug problem or they have a history of sexual abuse going back to their youngest days, or they suffer from both. And they are all hustlers of people — there isn’t really anything like ethics or morality in that world that I have seen. If you can exploit someone, stab them in the back, or screw them over (pardon the pun) to get ahead then you go ahead and do that. Perhaps that is why our President is attracted to women in that line of work.

    JVW (42615e)

  85. What this says is that Trump’s opponents will use anything at all.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  86. That should have been @46 — just off by 2 digits.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  87. During the Lewinsky scandal, the NY Times had this to say:

    [P]ublicly humiliating anyone for consensual adultery is draconian, and wrong. It teaches children cynicism. What they see is how little respect there is for privacy, and how gratuitously and harshly adults will harm one another to gain a little power. And using adultery or any aspect of consensual adult sexuality as a weapon in political battles is more abhorrent than the act itself.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/19/opinion/the-adultery-wars.html

    Kevin M (752a26)

  88. If anything, the takeaway from this “scandal” is that the House of Murrow has no decency.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  89. They said of Clarence Thomas that the only way at him was to find a bigger “victim” than a black man up from abject poverty. So, Anita Hill.

    Similarly, when attacking Donald Trump one has to find someone even more shameless. Cue the video trollop.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  90. If we purge every conservative that has broken one of the ten commandments, there won’t be an employed conservative left.

    Alinski figured this out decades ago.

    Say, did you know Jefferson was alleged to have a sex slave? And he’s even on My. Rushmore!

    Morality is really in the dumpster these days. Thanks Trump!

    the Bas (3bcea0)

  91. @53 — if by “immorality” you mean the invasion of porn into everyday life in the US

    Which is obviously not what I was talking about, as any literate person can easily see.

    If you want to change the subject, say you’re changing the subject. Don’t pretend I brought it up.

    You do this literally all the time. You attribute to me things I didn’t say. Preceding it with an “if you meant” doesn’t excuse it, since you know I didn’t mean that.

    Learn to argue honestly.

    Patterico (f82c2d)

  92. The real shamelessness is among those who would use this behavior to score political points. Bu8t they will never ever admit that.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  93. *Mt. Rushmore…

    the Bas (3bcea0)

  94. If anything, the takeaway from this “scandal” is that the House of Murrow has no decency.

    Concern trolling over people discussing this very newsy story is my favorite kind of trolling.

    Patterico (f82c2d)

  95. I remember going through adolescence in the late 60’s. A VERY confusing time — rules? What rules?.

    So, I sympathize with the Millennials who all of a sudden are having thousands and thousands of new rules imposed, mostly by crazy people. I had it easy.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  96. The real shamelessness is among those who would use this behavior to score political points. Bu8t they will never ever admit that.

    Oh, totally! Only simpletons say the real shamelessness is in having sex with a porn star just after your son was born!

    Again, what is far more disappointing than Trump doing this is people uttering the most absurd nonsense possible to defend it.

    Patterico (f82c2d)

  97. Well this was so back in 1992, right around this time. And subsequently.

    narciso (d1f714)

  98. Patterico,

    This isn’t a “story” this is a vicious attack by people who hate.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  99. Convince me that you don’t hate Trump, and I’ll take that back.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  100. There is no convincing. Take my word for it or don’t.

    When I did, I said I did. If I still did, why would I not continue to say so? I have worked to purge hate from my heart.

    Patterico (f82c2d)

  101. Only simpletons say the real shamelessness is in having sex with a porn star just after your son was born!

    What is shameless is convicting a guy by the word of one witness, a stripper no less, solely through biased media spectacle, and that has previously said publicly there was no sex.

    Here’s a good question.

    the Bas (3bcea0)

  102. this is like a wes anderson movie it’s so quirky and endearing!

    President Trump sure is a wonderful person almost larger than life really if you think about it.

    His marvelous and charming idiosyncrasies – they’re so quintessentially american he’s as much a folkloric icon like the Paul Bunyan or the Johnny Appleseed or the Betty Crocker as he is a contemporary political figure.

    I can’t even believe how blessed we are to have this gloriously iconoclastic gentleman emerge at just this moment in time.

    i can’t wait for the musical but it’s too early to write it yet i guess

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  103. I thought the porn star interview was far less interesting than the Playboy bunny interview. The bunny ended up seeming semi-vindicated in her expression of dismay and disappointment over Trump’s apparent simultaneous, but much shorter, dalliance with the porn star (a one-shot affair, so to speak). The bunny insists that afterward Trump offered cash but she refused it; the porn star was silent on that topic. But the most interesting difference was that the bunny is indeed a Trumpkin — voted for him, she says, and I believe her, and she says he was fascinating and brilliant and that she loved him. Her views about him remind me of more than a few pro-Trump commenters here, in fact.

    None of this taught any of us, including surely the current Mrs. Trump, anything new about Trump. When it comes to him, my disapproval meter has been pegged since the 1980s, so none of this registers as any sort of change with me.

    But the man is a pig — not the cute Babe in the City kind, but the enormous rutting boar coated in a multi-year crust of nastiness.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  104. some pig :)

    charlottefeet (28a91b)

  105. I ought to add: The porn star’s claim to have been threatened is the weakest of weak sauces. There’s no shortage of Cory Lewandowski-wannabes who might have done something like that spontaneously, with no directive from Trump — indeed, I again think of several of the daily commenters here who might have made something like the threats she claims to have received — but she didn’t come remotely close to tying that back to Trump.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  106. i pray to Jesus he’ll send an angel to watch over Stormy in this time when everybody wants to be mean to her for being a duplicitous prostitute with funguses

    but this too shall pass like the spring tempest what inspired Stormy to change her name and do anal sex videos for money, and when it does our american family will be closer than ever like in that James Agee novel where the family becomes closer than ever

    we’ll sit on the porch and drink sweet tea and vodka and talk about the weather

    sure could use some rain we’ll say

    been awhile since a good storm blew through

    and we’ll chuckle softly and exchange knowing glances

    America!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  107. @ 98: In mocking any response to Stormy-gate, you linked to your earlier tweet:

    Patterico

    @Patterico
    The best part is the way we have normalized immorality in public life, such that any demonstration of it is a joke, if it is noticed at all.

    6:52 AM – Mar 16, 2018

    This is your claim that Trump supporters favor “normalizing immorality” so as to inoculate Trump from attacks based on his history of immoral conduct.

    You brought up what you expect the tactic of Trump supporters to be in the context of Stormeygate, which has two primary component parts — her history in the porn industry, and his adulterous affair shortly after his wife gave birth.

    I’m simply making a point as to both aspects.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  108. 103 exposes exactly what I say is the point you are trying to make with your OP, and my response is simply “That horse has already left the barn”, and it had nothing to do with DJT.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  109. ‘None of this taught any of us, including surely the current Mrs. Trump, anything new about Trump. When it comes to him, my disapproval meter has been pegged since the 1980s, so none of this registers as any sort of change with me.’

    Beldar.

    Exactly.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  110. OK, Patterico, you asked for it, so here it is: no real man would blame Trump for banging beautiful frisky babes.

    Now, of course, women, their fathers, and girley men the see it differently but since they have a personal interest in the provenance of offspring we can set aside their unnatural concerns in favor of a mature objective overview of the issue.

    We’re all of us, male and female, the way nature made us and since there can be no dispute that the design has proved itself successful, it’s an obvious a priori truth that rich powerful men are attracted to beautiful exotic women, and vice versa.

    Of course, our evolving culture has, with sometimes more or less effectiveness, attempted to impose civilized restraints on mother nature’s selfish imperatives, but with limited success and that only among the less affluent – dependent for their social status on the approval of others.

    Chief among the enforcers of society’s artificial restraints on natural man’s (and woman’s) inclinations are the organized coercive forces of law enforcement, especially those with the authority to prosecute so-called offenders in the public arenas.

    One would expect the more intelligent and farsighted among society’s legal eagle bully boys on occasion to rise above their base puritanical instincts and defend the natural right of rich men to bed beautiful women in order to improve the human race for the betterment of future generations.

    ropelight (c658e1)

  111. mr nk,

    Your early morning Stormy Daniels comments in the other thread is what I would call Vivid Entertainment.

    Pinandpuller (63e38d)

  112. When it comes to him, my disapproval meter has been pegged since the 1980s, so none of this registers as any sort of change with me.

    This is why discussions like this are so pointless. Everybody has known Trump for 30 years and their view of the man is already set. Hate him, like him, or just accept him and the reality that he was elected, at this point debating his character is going to change nothing.

    Best to stick to politics and leave the character assassinations to the left (you NRA baby killers you). I guarantee if you pick your battles better, your chance of influencing the agenda will be greatly enhanced. I mean, criticisms over the wisdom of not vetoing a bad budget will be taken more seriously if they aren’t preceded by criticisms over firing someone while on the toilet. It’s just human nature. Who are you more likely to recognise constructive criticism from, someone that does it judiciously, or someone that criticises everything you do every day?

    Mostly the latter just get tuned out.

    the Bas (3bcea0)

  113. Good name for a band: teh Rutting Boors

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  114. @20 nk

    I think you’re being too literal. To me day is signifying an era. And to God a day is a thousand years anyway. People who try nail down dates from Hale Bopp to Edgar Cayce to Hal Lindsey usually get disappointed.

    Or are you just finding solace in dark humor and I’m just being pedantic instead of erudite?

    Pinandpuller (63e38d)

  115. Even better: teh Enormous Rutting Boors

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  116. OK, Patterico, you asked for it, so here it is: no real man would blame Trump for banging beautiful frisky babes.

    Would a real man approve of any man cheating on his wife? I know I wouldn’t, no matter how beautiful and frisky the babe might be.

    Maybe real men should hold themselves up to higher standards than society is currently allowing.

    Chuck Bartowski (7ba363)

  117. Ladies and gentlemen… teh Enormous Rutting Boors!

    I can’t get no
    Ruttisfaction
    I can’t get me no
    Rutting action

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  118. And the idea that Mueller or anyone else would chase this down as a campaign law violation is laughable. The effort by the Obama DOJ to prosecute edwards on a similar theory was roundly ridiculed, and the case against edwards on that theory was much much stronger. He was acquitted on one count, and the jury hung on the others, with a majority favoring acquittal on all counts. The gov’t chose to not retry the case. There were a ton of unresolved legal questions that didn’t get answers because of how the case ended in terms of ambiguity in the campaign finance laws in a criminal arena.

    For example, is it necessary for the “intent” to influence the outcome of an election to be the “sole intent” of the contribution at issue, or is it enough that the “intent” is one of several motivating factors in the expenditure of funds? Would it be necessary for the gov’t to prove that protecting the campaign from Stormygate was the only reason for payment of the $!30,000, or could the defense defeat that claim by showing there were other, equally valid reasons, for trying to prevent her disclosure — especially since the story was already in the press as early as 2011.

    If that question is unresolved — and it was unresolved in the Edwards prosecution — how would a guilty verdict survive a “void for vagueness” challenge regarding the language of the statute? How would someone know their conduct was potentially in violation of the campaign finance law if they had equally compelling, non-campaign related reasons for trying to keep the story under wraps?

    Just 15 minutes of research on the history of the Edwards prosecution would have made 44 unlikely. But is just another of those “too good to check” moments.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  119. My name is Stormy

    I’m an entertainment wh*re

    I live downstairs from you

    Yes I think you’ve seen me before

    If you watch Cinemax late at night

    You know my pupils model fight or flight

    Just don’t tell your wife what it was

    Just don’t tell your wife what it was

    Don’t tell anyone if you know what she good for you.

    Pinandpuller (63e38d)

  120. c’mon truth be told
    ain’t it ALL toogoodtocheck?
    it’s aid and comfort

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  121. The best part is the way we have normalized immorality in public life

    we started the weekend with tiny-dick don quixote david hogg’s nazi youth rally and ended with the gigantic boobies of rode-hard-and-put-up-wet stormy daniels

    not one but two scripted fake news events, equally contrived and equally meaningless

    and that’s what’s being normalized Mr. Patterico

    that’s what’s not being noticed at all

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  122. it is my hope that you find my comments instructive

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  123. One Way Out Three Ways In Allman Bros

    Ain’t but three ways in baby, Lord I just can’t go out the door
    Ain’t but three ways in baby, and Lord I just can’t go out the door
    ‘Cause there’s a plan out there, might be your plan I don’t know
    Lord you got me trapped a woman, down on the bottom floor
    If I get by this time, won’t use the back door no more’
    So ease yo grip now, baby, so I can ease out soft and slow
    And Lord, them bloggers, no they won’t be
    Talking ‘bout stuff that they don’t know
    Lord, I’m foolish to be here in the first place
    I know teh nets will use this to win that Nielsen race
    Ain’t no way in the world, I’m going out that front door
    ‘Cause there’s a plan out there, might be their plan I don’t know
    ‘Cause there’s a plan out there, might be their plan I don’t know
    ‘Cause there’s a plan out there, and Lord, it might just happen to be their plan
    Lord, it just might be their plan
    Lord, it just a might be their plan
    Oh baby, I just don’t know

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  124. 11 days before the election is more warning that Bush’s DUI drop.

    Mr Colonel Haiku, are you a Country and Western fan? That reminds me of a song by Highway 101

    He’s told me a million times he’s sorry
    I always take him back though soon I know
    He’ll spend the night with you and leave me crying
    You don’t love him but you won’t let him go
    Oh whiskey if you were a woman
    I’d fight you and I’d win lord knows I would
    Oh whiskey if you were a woman
    I’d drive you from his tangled mind for good
    No matter what you do I’ll do it better
    You’ll never be the woman I could be
    But you don’t have a heart or any feelings
    So I can’t even ask for sympathy
    Oh whiskey if you were a woman
    I’d fight you and I’d win lord knows I would
    Oh whiskey if you were a woman
    I’d drive you from his tangled mind for good
    Oh whiskey if you were a woman
    I’d drive you from his tangled mind for good

    Link

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  125. You can do with Trump what Cartman did with God

    I’ve got nothing to be ashamed of
    Trump’s been a little bit hard on me
    If I shy away it’s only because
    Trump’s been a little bit hard on me
    Oh, Trump’s been a little
    (Trump’s been a little bit hard on me)
    (Trump’s been a little)
    You know just been a little
    (Trump’s been a little bit hard on me)
    Now, I can remember when it’s been so much
    Trump’s been a little bit hard on me
    Now I shy away at the slightest touch
    Trump’s been a little bit hard on me

    Come out, come out
    To the hopeless romance inside
    Shout it’s all right, it’s all right
    To stay so dark, so close to the light

    I’ll be back when I calm my fears
    Trump’s been a little bit hard on me
    And I’ll see you around in a thousand years
    Trump’s been a little bit hard on me

    Juice Newton Everybody!

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  126. @7. Ratings matter.

    CNN Poll: 42% approve of Trump, highest in 11 months
    By Jennifer Agiesta, CNN Polling Director
    Updated 4:10 PM ET, Mon March 26, 2018

    WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Donald Trump’s approval rating has rebounded to its highest level since the 100-day mark of his presidency, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, even as his approval ratings for handling major issues remain largely negative.

    Overall, 42% approve of the way Trump is handling the presidency, 54% disapprove. Approval is up 7 points overall since February, including 6-point increases among Republicans (from 80% to 86% now) and independents (from 35% to 41% now). Trump’s approval rating remains below that of all of his modern-era predecessors at this stage in their first term after being elected, though Trump only trails Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama by a narrow 4 points at this point in their first terms. – http://www.cnn.com

    Appears the GOP has ‘made its decision’ on Trumpism. But then, ‘fake news,’ eh.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  127. 39.Why are porn actors always referred to as a porn “stars”?
    Same reason hock shop owners are called pawn “stars.”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  128. @91. OTOH… the free markets speaks– or moans w/passion, depending on your POV:

    ‘Around 2009, the U.S. porn industry’s revenue of $10–15 billion a year was more than the combined revenue of professional sports and live music combined and roughly on par or above Hollywood’s box office revenue.’ – source, wikipedia

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  129. ‘You remind me of my daughter’

    Reminds me of Sheree North a bit, ’round the eyes, circa 1975.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  130. Colonel Haiku

    I suppose calling this The Whipping Post is a little too on the nose.

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  131. @157 DCSCA

    You’ve got spunk kid is way too on the nose.

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  132. @117- I disagree. A man is supposed to honor his word, especially when vowed before God. Not doing so is a character flaw, but then we all have’em. Ever lied to your wife? You’ll go to helI for that as quick as any sin.

    Personally, I leave adultery to the spouse and God, it’s not my place to judge. For all I know the spouse is cool with it.

    Rich men are much more likely to have much greater temptations, and the desire might be natural, but so are a lot of things men are supposed to rise above.

    the Bas (3bcea0)

  133. Stormy Daniels and Good Taste go together like water and vinegar.

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  134. For me, it is What a weird attitude/relationship Trump has for his daughter Day.

    DRJ (15874d) — 3/26/2018 @ 9:11 am

    She doesn’t look like Webb Hubbel or Frank Marshall Davis.

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  135. she does look a little bit like James Hewitt around the eyes

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  136. @141. Tastes vary; some presidents like broccoli; some presidents don’t. And some like their cheeseburgers in bed.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  137. and Finally Legal 7? How can he embarrass her?

    Dave (445e97) — 3/26/2018 @ 9:44 am

    Dave, how dare you impugn fine Dreamers and DACA kids and their aspirations in the domestic porn industry. The only way Stormy Daniels was in Finally Legal 7 is if she played a 45 year old immigration attorney.

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  138. Hoax!!

    Fake news.
    Fake memos.
    Fake orgasm.
    Fake out.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  139. Does he always have to remove all doubt:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/978371548292632576?p=v

    narciso (d1f714)

  140. Old school country/outlaw country and yes, it is on the nose, PandP

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  141. Trump thug tactics more of a threat to Stormy’s daughter than Finally Legal 7 and Stepdads 1-3.

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  142. I’m starting to think Stormy Daniels is suffering the same fate as Oak Island.

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  143. Stormy – Classics IV

    You were like moonshine, baby, whenever we _______
    but I call you Stormy today
    All of a sudden you copped one attitude
    and my world is cloudy and grey, please go away

    Oh, Stormy, oh, Stormy, won’t you just please go away?

    12 years ago is just a moment in time
    And like the weather it’s gone
    Now things are dicey, baby, and it´s gettin’ real old
    Not even a blue dress to clean, you know what I mean

    Oh, Stormy, oh, Stormy, can’t you just please go away?
    Oh, Stormy, oh, Stormy, can’t you just please go away?
    Won’t you just go away, oh Stormy oh Stormy…

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  144. 95.If anything, the takeaway from this “scandal” is that the House of Murrow has no decency.

    Meh. In-house joke at CBS years ago was when you’re down to drawing Murrow from your holster, you’re up against the wall, losing the argument.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  145. don’t try and do logics on me it won’t work
    happyfeet (28a91b) — 3/26/2018 @ 9:12 am

    I agree with Happyfeet on that. But did you know that this, also, will not work on Happyfeet?

    felipe (023cc9)

  146. “The Nazis may be rearming, our economy sinking, and Singapore undefended, but Wallis Simpson and the King is a scandal, so don’t bother me with important things or the turbulent people that want to deal with them.”

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (5e0a82)

  147. i’m not even wearing my pretty hat today

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  148. Peggy Sue-1957
    Stormy Sues-2018

    Have at it, Haiku.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  149. No, it is shortly after his wife gave birth. Barron Trump was born on March 20, 2006. The Lake Tahoe golf tournament where Trump met both women was in July 2006.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 3/26/2018 @ 9:58 am

    That’s a good way to remember important dates like birthdays and anniversaries.

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  150. @158. Next time they deplane together, catch Barron back-sassing Donald as they head down the stairway.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  151. There is the background of combine lawyer, avlenetta, another emmanuel factotum with a CV in extortion schemes.

    narciso (d1f714) — 3/26/2018 @ 10:09 am

    He sincerely faked shock at Anderson’s suggestion.

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  152. @158. Next time they deplane together, catch Barron back-sassing Donald as they head down the stairway.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 3/26/2018 @ 3:26 pm

    No hookers till your homework is done.

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  153. Do you ever leave that BarcaLounger and your old Philco, ASPCA!?!?

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  154. Stormy Daniels had that one night stand because she got stuck in aroom with him

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 3/26/2018 @ 10:13 am

    Connie Britton and Carla Gugino got stuck in an elevator but they just talked.

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  155. Stormy: Your gun Mr. Trump, slowly.

    Stormy: Over here.

    Stormy: Spread your legs.

    Stormy: Good. Very good.

    Stormy: You’re quite a man, Mr Donald Trump, but I am a superior woman.

    Stormy: Now, guess where you get the first one.

    Trump: Well. In view of your hatred of men…

    Stormy: LIAR! You know that making love to Stormy was the greatest pleasure of your life.

    Trump: Well, to be perfectly honest, there was this girl in Philadelphia…

    Stormy: SHUT UP!

    papertiger (c8116c)

  156. 154… good one, felipe!

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  157. Ah never say never again, got it.

    narciso (d1f714)

  158. Stormy: Write! Now write this: “The greatest rapture in my life was afforded to me in a hotel in Las Vegas by Stormy Daniels.” Sign: “Donald Trump, President of the Untied States.”

    Trump: I just remembered. It’s against the emoluments clause of the Constitution for office holders to give commercial endorsements.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  159. So, I sympathize with the Millennials who all of a sudden are having thousands and thousands of new rules imposed, mostly by crazy people. I had it easy.

    Kevin M (752a26) — 3/26/2018 @ 11:14 am

    They need to get rid of two old rules for every new one.

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  160. =@162. Haiku!= Gesundheit!

    For irritated Colon’el, use Preperation H-aiku.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  161. @139. You’ve got spunk kid is way too on the nose.

    In Lou of flowers, Charley the Varrick, PP.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  162. Tucks® that on your person where you normally do, ASPCA…

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  163. Bow Phillip Kerr of the Bernie guntjer series, rip

    narciso (d1f714)

  164. Medicated Goo BarcaLounger Chair

    Hey there, DiscoCA what’s wrong with you,
    Your mind’s kinda weak can you think of
    Something you can do?
    Good golly, old guy, shame on you
    Cause Dinty made a stew that’ll make a new boy
    Out of you

    That Sun outside, it’s good for you
    Just get up out dat BarcaLounger chair
    Ooh – ooh ain’t it good for you
    Just get up or you haven’t got a prayer

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  165. He was only 62. May he rest in peace.

    nk (dbc370)

  166. Yes it wee a surprise i little like Paul Lindsay, who had started a new series under a penname.

    narciso (d1f714)

  167. For those of you who haven’t clicked on Patterico’s Red State post yet, it includes something that will give you a giggle. No spoilers.

    nk (dbc370)

  168. @139. You’ve got spunk kid is way too on the nose.

    In Lou of flowers, Charley the Varrick, PP.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 3/26/2018 @ 3:58 pm

    Never seen that before, The plot is more convoluted than Miss Stormy’s endometrium.

    She was a lesbian for pay until 2002 so maybe she wasn’t so high mileage in Mr President Trump’s calculations. I wonder what moved her needle?

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  169. @171. Shorter, Colon’el:

    Tucks® you, Haiku.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  170. @177. It’s a good flick, PP.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  171. It’s one of Matthau’s – and Joe Don Baker’s – best movies. But don’t take it from me, ASPCA is the Master of his BarcaLounger Domain, with TCM always on the Philco…

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  172. Meanwhile……

    People used to start blogs to express themselves. Now they communicate via giant quasi-monopoly “social media” sites that mute and ban users over their politics. Your computer and phone used to be ways for you to learn more about the world than had ever been possible before in human history; now your devices have turned into tools for governments and corporations to keep tabs on you in ways that have never been possible before in human history.“

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/03/26/silicon-valley-facebook-cambridge-analytics-regulation/456941002/

    harkin (1cc715)

  173. A weird unintended consequence of anti-gun backlash is people who would normally post gun videos on YouTube are now hosting on porn sites.

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  174. Walter Matthau was wasted in that role but Buford Pusser ahem Joe Don Baker shines. The movie itself is pretty much a dime a dozen “criminal rips off mob, now mob out to get him” Hollywood cliche.

    nk (dbc370)

  175. 183. Joe Don Baker shines… as Sheree North develops.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  176. @183. More or less a Hopscotch cousin w/less humor.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  177. I’ll take that back. Like “Of Mice And Men”, maybe it was not yet a cliche when it was made.

    nk (dbc370)

  178. And the film version of hopscotch, was better than the book.

    narciso (d1f714)

  179. Well they are just running interference, so Biden, Clinton or another scared cow isn’t gored:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/status/978030612807409664?p=v

    narciso (d1f714)

  180. So I was going over my portfolio today with my financial guy. I asked him, “How much do I need to put away if I want to hook up with a 27 year old porn star when I’m 60?”

    He said, “Not that much.”

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  181. Your financial guy is either a stupid liar or his degree is from The University of Guatemala.

    Rev.Hoagie (1b0402)

  182. Are you saying it’s better than Bad News Bears?

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  183. You’re a tough audience, nk, but you didn’t like Tinker, Tailor… either. I did. In the context of that time period, Charlie Varrick was an excellent movie… one of the best of that year.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  184. I know you guys aren’t going to convince me it’s better than California Suite.

    Millie Michaels: How much would you say she is, Marvin? Does she look like a fifty dollar hooker to you?

    Marvin Michaels: I don’t know… I guess so…

    Millie Michaels: What a cheap brother you’ve got. We spend a HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-FIVE on his lousy kid!

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  185. Your financial guy is either a stupid liar or his degree is from The University of Guatemala.

    Rev.Hoagie (1b0402) — 3/26/2018 @ 5:54 pm

    I just buy a 16 year old girl with poor self esteem a cup of coffee every day for 11 years is how he explained it to me.

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  186. Are there any people who cast a vote for Trump in November 2016 that was based on his personal life?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  187. I didn’t like the Gary Oldman version because it departed too much from the books. For example, Peter Guillam gay? Why, for crying out loud? I liked the Alec Guinness version.

    nk (dbc370)

  188. Speaking of Oldman, did you see “Darkest Hour”? Man, he was excellent in that role.

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  189. I haven’t see the Guinness version, I’ll have to see if I can find it.

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  190. Also, that George Smiley glasses are now de rigeur for #MeToo honey boo boos at their press conferences.

    nk (dbc370)

  191. God help us…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  192. They think if you get the wardrobe right, you capture the atmosphere, there was another series also on BBC that dealt with British and soviet apes innthe 70s, that capture most of the atmosphere

    narciso (d1f714)

  193. It’s on YouTube. Here’s the first segment. Stick with the same channel, Audience Hoop, for the other five.

    It also has “Smiley’s People”, the denouement, also with Alec Guinness.

    They are both BBC six-part mini-series,

    nk (dbc370)

  194. Peter Guillam gay? Why, for crying out loud? I liked the Alec Guinness version.

    nk (dbc370) — 3/26/2018 @ 6:20 pm

    Alec Guinness 50% gay.

    Bill Warren: New York is not the center of the god damn universe. Grant you, it’s exciting, vibrant, stimulating, fabulous city; but, it is not Mecca. It just smells like it.

    Thanks guys, I’m definitely hitting the Amazon widget tonight.

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  195. I haven’t seen “Darkest Hour” but I agree that Oldman is an excellent actor. I watched a little bit of “The Professional” recently. That washroom scene … “What’s your name, Angel?”

    nk (dbc370)

  196. It is the end of the series, because the middle volume wee never adapted by BBC, the game suggests a much more comprehensive strategum.

    narciso (d1f714)

  197. I read “The Honorable Schoolboy”, the one in the middle, and it is way too complex for a movie,or even a mini-series, to do it justice.

    nk (dbc370)

  198. OK, Patterico, you asked for it, so here it is: no real man would blame Trump for banging beautiful frisky babes.

    Wrong.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  199. Pardon me, that’s *Honourable*.

    nk (dbc370)

  200. If that question is unresolved — and it was unresolved in the Edwards prosecution — how would a guilty verdict survive a “void for vagueness” challenge regarding the language of the statute? How would someone know their conduct was potentially in violation of the campaign finance law if they had equally compelling, non-campaign related reasons for trying to keep the story under wraps?

    Just 15 minutes of research on the history of the Edwards prosecution would have made 44 unlikely. But is just another of those “too good to check” moments.

    The timing makes it a stronger case, and makes your snide and snippy little comment out of line and overwrought. As usual. You’re not doing very well on respectful disagreement.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  201. Yes its rather byzantine, le carre had become particularly jaundiced re the us by that point.

    narciso (d1f714)

  202. What is that proverb again:

    https://www.steynonline.com/8538/chivalry-and-suicide

    narciso (d1f714)

  203. “The timing makes it a stronger case.”

    Legal brilliance on display.

    “I was in the middle of an election campaign that was the subject of national media attention, and did not want my 10 year old son exposed to what I expected might be 24/7 sensationalized press coverage of the allegations that was sure to follow if she told her story publicly, which she had previously done in 2011. To avoid exposing him to that, I directed my attorney to explore whether she would agree to not submit to any press interviews. Given my admitted past history, I had no concerns at all about whether the news would impact the view of voters towards my candidacy.”

    The conduct engaged in by Edwards was so extensive and lasted for so long — including recruiting a close campaign aide Andrew Young to falsely claim that the child was his before the baby was even born — that it was a slam dunk to prove that he did it all to preserve his candidacy in the series of Democrat primaries that were underway shortly after the National Enquirer first ran the story.

    The idea this a possible criminal violation of campaign finance laws is TDS catnip, nothing more.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  204. AND the jury still didn’t buy the theory that his intent was to influence the outcome of the election.

    I would suggest that if readers here want a nice take-down on the folly and failings in the Edwards case that came from trying to turn it into a criminal campaign finance law violation, the read the following:

    http://ideas.time.com/2012/06/01/the-john-edwards-mistrial-what-went-wrong/#ixzz1wYHKoLtV

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  205. Your financial guy is either a stupid liar or his degree is from The University of Guatemala.

    Trump University alum, I’m guessing.

    Dave (445e97)

  206. You can get them for a dimebag of crack.

    nk (dbc370)

  207. Make your own double entendre.

    nk (dbc370)

  208. Legal brilliance on display.

    This is what we call “tempting fate”.

    Dave (445e97)

  209. no real man would blame Trump for banging beautiful frisky babes.

    Ropelight,

    I think you’re a good person, but I also think this is the mindset of a degenerate. I don’t think you really believe what you’re saying here and are trying to see things in a way that rehabilitates Trump’s serial degenerate behavior towards many women, and his need to show disrespect to the mothers of his children.

    There are only two defenses for Trump. One is that his character is normal and we’re just pretending to have higher standards. The other is that Trump’s poor character is not important because there are larger issues in the world. Haiku is probably right that no one supported Trump on his honor or integrity, though I recall a series of comments and radio callers praising Trump as a great father and family man, which is probably organized propaganda.

    Of course, the latter is a better defense, but Trump’s inability to make a deal on anything, from a sane budget to dealing with foreign powers, stems from poor character. We really screwed up in the primary. The GOP from 1980 to 2005 was still in there somewhere, but it died in 2016 for sure.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  210. Pretty much everyone is,against you (sberbank was the outfit porta was lobbying for.

    https://faustasblog.com/2018/03/guatemala-the-bitkov-case/

    narciso (d1f714)

  211. You can get them for a dimebag of crack.

    nk (dbc370) — 3/26/2018 @ 7:38 PM

    Photos or it didn’t happen.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  212. Podesta was, odd neither that outfit or uranium one, seems to get the authorities attention

    narciso (d1f714)

  213. From the government’s closing argument in the Edwards trial:

    And, finally, you must find that the defendant
    acting knowingly and wilfully. Here, again, the evidence is
    clear. Mr. Edwards certainly was well versed in the
    campaign finance laws and the limits they imposed on
    individual donors. He suggested a manner of working around
    those limits when it came to Mrs. Mellon, and he relied on
    the way the scheme was set up in order to avoid detection.
    He clearly knew the law, and he decided to violate it in
    order to salvage his campaign.

    http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/120518_Edwards_Closing_Arguments.pdf

    “Wilfully” means he knew the payments were made in violation of the campaign finance laws.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  214. As for 60 minutes all we need know,is how they through Lara Logan under the bus, to further a narrative

    narciso (d1f714)

  215. When the host wants to take me on re the question of what works at trial, he does so at his own risk. If he makes a legal claim, he should back it up. Not leave it hanging there.

    I said the Edwards case was folly, and explained why.

    He responded the “timing” makes the Trump case better?

    Really??? Why?

    Or are we expected to just take him on his word?

    How about the words of the Edwards prosecutors?

    MAYBE I know a bit more about this than I’ve let on.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  216. Just because a jury failed to convict Edwards, on the set of facts in that case, what bearing does it have on what some other, hypothetical jury, might decide in another case with a different set of facts?

    Juries are not required to follow precedent…

    Dave (445e97)

  217. Once upon a time, a grave injustice by the bureau’s ci against the people of Orlando would have been on note

    narciso (d1f714)

  218. “Wilfully” means he knew the payments were made in violation of the campaign finance laws.

    shipwreckedcrew

    And obviously he did. It’s common sense and anyone claiming it isn’t is in full TDS mode. The real TDS where they are deranged about any facts that harm Dear Leader.

    The ‘Trump is super scummy so who cares’ defense is amusing. His family knows Trump is a bad person much better than the average voter, and recency in scandals is important, so it’s pretty clear that the only reason someone would blow so much money on silencing Ms. Daniels was because Trump was running for President. They didn’t do that for any other reason.

    Almost as amusing as the ‘he’s super scummy and we know it’ defense is Cohen’s ‘I really like him so I took out a home equity loan to cover this up.’ Trump is supposed to be a billionaire. The last thing he needs from his pals is $130,000, and there’s no reason why a competent attorney would not advise their clients about the potential consequences of paying off a porn star about an adultery scandal during an election, when huge payments can fall under legal review pretty easily.

    The whole thing is just another lie. We all know Trump and Cohen are lying to us, and that the White House lies to us all the time about everything. Just lies and lies and lies, plastered with denial after denial. I guess this is supposed to be hardball politics, but I have to admit Obama’s “I just don’t sleep with porn stars” strategy had some advantages.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  219. Note that I haven’t once tried to defend Trump’s conduct here.

    My comments have all been in response to the Hosts comments, not the post opening up a “Stormy Monday” thread.

    But it was the “John Edwards was prosecuted for the same thing” that set off the ridicule meter. Anyone paying attention to the Edwards prosecution — and I did — knew what a ridiculous effort it was — on the part of an Obama DOJ Public Integrity Section still reeling from the debacle of the Ted Stevens prosecution.

    And inside DOJ it was seen as a “heads we win, tails you lose” case, where if they won the Obama DOJ would show themselves as aggressive enforcers of campaign finance laws, Citizens United notwithstanding; and, if they lost, a poster child for why tougher campaign finance laws — or even publicly financing of campaigns — were needed.

    The case was duplicity on multiple levels, and career prosecutors inside Public Integrity weren’t afraid to say so.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  220. They have made a mockery of the public integrity division, as with every institution they corrupted, the civil right division became an gangster squad for sjws

    narciso (d1f714)

  221. The company seems to coddled more terrorists, certainly during Islamic states rise to power, there wasn’t a single drone strike in North Africa or the levant.

    narciso (d1f714)

  222. I had about 4 years experience working closely with Civil Rights Division. For part of that time I was the Civil Rights case coordinator for my district — most of the cases involved alleged police use of excessive force.

    I also handled a couple of high profile non-police cases involving human trafficking.

    But the most amazing thing about working with Civil Rights Division was the fact that money was never a consideration in bringing a case — I mean costs and time were NEVER considered.

    Their Trial Section was divided up into 3 teams — Red, White, and Blue. Those teams were assigned to various geographical parts of the country — but in an odd fashion. So as to equalize the travel burden, California, Oregon, and Washington were assigned to 3 different teams. Hawaii, Alaska, and Guam were also divided among the three teams.

    And the folks on those teams racked up air miles and hotel reward points like you can’t imagine. There was a case I was “local counsel” on — handled primarily by a Civil Rights Division attorney — where the attorney flew from DC to Hawaii just about every other week for 6 months. And the case involved Thai agriculture workers — the attorney went to Thailand at least 4 times that I knew of. The attorney would stay at the “W” hotel in Honolulu, and eat lunch in the federal building cafeteria. The attorney then used the $85 a day per diem to have dinner just about every night in the nicest restaurants in Honolulu.

    That person abused the system, but other Civil Rights attorneys — “true believers” — were DOJ “Crusaders”.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  223. Yes those were the ones Christian Adams and von spakowsky had noted, their captain was Tom Perez the current dnc apparatchik

    narciso (d1f714)

  224. 234 — I took on that role at the tail end of the Bush Administration, and remained in it for the first 2 years of the Obama Admin. It underwent a huge change in personality after Perez took over and replaced all the supervisors with “true believers”, before going on a hiring binge to bring in as many young radicals as he could justify. A lot of the Division attorneys were encouraged to look for other DOJ positions — so spots could be opened up for new hires who wanted to join the Obama social justice crusades. There was no question in their mind that I wasn’t a “team player”. At about the same time I lost my role as Civil Rights Coordinator, and Environmental Crimes Coordinator — a designation I earned for prosecuting a couple of Coast Guard officers for ordering the pumping bilge water into Honolulu harbor — a no no — so they could get underway in time for their trip to Australia, and a first-for-the-Coast-Guard port call in China.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  225. shipwreckedcrew mocks me:

    “The timing makes it a stronger case.”

    Legal brilliance on display.

    “I was in the middle of an election campaign that was the subject of national media attention, and did not want my 10 year old son exposed to what I expected might be 24/7 sensationalized press coverage of the allegations that was sure to follow if she told her story publicly, which she had previously done in 2011. To avoid exposing him to that, I directed my attorney to explore whether she would agree to not submit to any press interviews. Given my admitted past history, I had no concerns at all about whether the news would impact the view of voters towards my candidacy.”

    My, the smugness and snideness.

    A former chairman of the Federal Election Commission believes the payment President Trump’s attorney made to adult film star Stormy Daniels to cover up the illicit affair between the president and the porn star is a six-figure campaign finance violation.

    Trevor Potter, who served as chair of the FEC during President George H.W. Bush’s administration, told CBS’ “60 Minutes” the $130,000 payment Cohen made to Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, would be an in-kind contribution to Trump’s campaign. It would be about $126,500 more than is legally allowed.

    Cohen has admitted to making the payment in October 2016, just weeks before his long-time client won the presidential election. The payment was meant to enforce a non-disclosure agreement that would keep Daniels from speaking about the affair.

    “It’s a $130,000 in-kind contribution by Cohen to the Trump campaign, which is about $126,500 above what he’s allowed to give,” Potter said. “And if he does this on behalf of his client, the candidate, that is a coordinated, illegal, in kind contribution by Cohen for the purpose of influencing the election, of benefiting the candidate by keeping this secret.”

    Cohen, who did not respond to requests for comment by CBS, previously said he made the payment with his own money. That could put him in even more hot water than if he was just a go-between for Trump to pay Daniels.

    “If he was then reimbursed by the president, that doesn’t remove the fact that the initial payment violated Cohen’s contribution limits,” Potter said. “I guess it mitigates it if he’s paid back by the candidate because the candidate could have paid for it without limit.”

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/stormy-daniels-60-minutes-interview-hush-money-could-be-6-figure-campaign-finance-violation-for-trumps-lawyer#!

    Video:

    https://www.facebook.com/axiosnews/videos/2107078532872214/

    Fuller discussion at 21:31 here. John Edwards case mentioned at 23:19. Potter says this is a stronger case, because of the timing. Rather than being the year before the election, the payoff here was right in the run-up to the election when everyone was talking about Trump’s treatment of women. (Few remember that he actually apologized for the Access Hollywood tape. That was a seismic event in the campaign.)

    But hey. A chairman for the FEC under a Republican president doesn’t know as much as shipwreckedcrew. Just listen to shipwreckedcrew and he’ll tell you so.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  226. So personnel determines policy, sessions has moved some ways to restoring the balance.

    narciso (d1f714)

  227. You forget potter was part of colberts ridiculous faux campaign, as apolitical as lois Lerner or that rogue cell of irs in cincinatti

    narciso (d1f714)

  228. And obviously he did. It’s common sense and anyone claiming it isn’t is in full TDS mode. The real TDS where they are deranged about any facts that harm Dear Leader.

    I call it TCDS: Trump Criticism Derangement Syndrome. People whose opinion you once respected find it critical to not only attack any criticism of Trump, but do so in a rude and overbearing way that matches the demeanor of Trump. Just look at shipwreckedcrew’s breast-beating in this thread, ridiculing me for offering a position that was offered by a head of the FEC under a Republican administration. Or look at Ace, who now regularly uses the word “cuck” non-ironically.

    Some people have stayed the same — Beldar, Simon Jester, DRJ, Dustin, and so forth — and some have become insufferable.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  229. You forget potter was part of colberts ridiculous faux campaign, as apolitical as lois Lerner or that rogue cell of irs in cincinatti

    I know nothing about Trevor Potter other than that he headed up the FEC under a Republican. narciso is a huge fan of the argument by ad hominem; cite any point and he won’t address the substance but will tell you something that the person making the point once did that he doesn’t like.

    Potter’s argument makes sense to me, and if we’re going to do the Argument from Authority, then he has more former titular authority in this area than our commenter here. If we’re going to discuss the actual argument rather than playing the “trust me everyone said x therefore this is a stupid argument” game, let’s discuss it — including the timing, which is rather critical in my view.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  230. The progs made it clear in the words of David plouffe ‘we must not only defeat trump, but destroy him, (and everyone around him) so they aim at melania on her anniversary and her birthday, for what purpose

    narciso (d1f714)

  231. So Richard painter and Norman risen doing brocks dirty work isn’t probative.

    narciso (d1f714)

  232. Like the traitor kirikaou, who was spared a due sentence by the current senior partner at skadden pat Fitzgerald slandering gina haspel from his,Russian provides catseat.

    narciso (d1f714)

  233. He is part of the antimagnitsky alliance which was of little interest to herr Mueller, but it’s in his,practice of hanging the innocent and letting the guilty go free.

    narciso (d1f714)

  234. Of the actual commie revolutionary gets it:

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/van-jones-blast-left-constant-anti-trump-hysterics/

    narciso (d1f714)

  235. Wait a minute. THe only crime the Breck Girl committed was alienating the Fifty Shades of Gray feminists, which were his only reliable constituency.

    In the halls of the DNC I’m sure that’s an unpardonable sin, deserving an exotic form of medieval torture and arm twisting, leading ultimately to the payment in full of all back taxes.

    But in the real world, the one we live in, and the one Trump lives in, cheating on your wife amounts to a breach of contract. Akin to breaking a non disclosure agreement.

    If you want to charge Trump it better be something besides, “I’ve always held a hateful grudge against that guy. Started back when he foreclosed on Sesame Street in that movie my mom let me watch.”

    papertiger (c8116c)

  236. Miss Stormy is suing Mr Cohen for defamation. Is that a case of I don’t know how to define it but I know it when I see it?

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  237. FEC, the same totally corrupt organization that Louis Lerner was chief counsel for until the Bush era and harassed illegally Christian groups until the courts threatened her law license. The same FEC, who given 100% evidence of Clinton/Gore foreign fundraising millions upon millions of dollars from the Chinese govt, did nothing, is this the FEC that people are talking about in this thread?

    EPWJ (4dc563)

  238. What color is the moon on your world usul?

    narciso (d1f714)

  239. Meant to say ” … that movie my mommy let me watch.”

    re: #247

    papertiger (c8116c)

  240. Have any of you seen “Wild Wild Country” ? It’s a six-part miniseries on Netflix, documenting the rise and fall of the cult of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh in Wasco County, OR, in the mid-80s.

    I bring it up because one of the persons interviewed for the documentary is a former assistant US attorney who is unbearably impressed with himself (and the DOJ in general), but ultimately – despite all of his officious-sounding talk and puffery – achieves laughably weak results when (spoiler alert) a criminal prosecution of Rajneesh is actually attempted. He speaks with great certainty about a plethora of “crimes” that his office was never able to prove, but when the rubber hits the road, his office stops Rajneesh from fleeing the country in order to… get Rajneesh on an Alford plea that “forces” him to leave the country. The irony is not lost on the show’s creators.

    The impression that one is left with is one of “sound and fury, signifying nothing.” The guy asserts that his work as an AUSA gave him the best trial training that anyone could get – far better than the peasant-prosecutors of the state courts, surely. The fact that state prosecutors and PDs try way more cases than their federal counterparts is clearly lost on him, and he seems unwilling to admit (as many AUSAs and former AUSAs are unwilling to admit) that he was granted a massive home-court advantage throughout his tenure in the job.

    Leviticus (24b272)

  241. Anyway, maybe shipwreckedcrew knows the guy.

    Leviticus (24b272)

  242. With swc’s wealth of experience, he could be an invaluable asset to President Trump’s legal team in the very near future.

    I hear they’re hiring.

    :)

    Dave (445e97)

  243. 236 — I’ll tell you what I understand better than you do:

    That the “violation” described by Potter in his interview is a violation by Cohen, not a violation by Trump.

    There isn’t a single word uttered by Potter as reflected in the article that suggests that Trump is at risk of prosecution.

    The presumption that Potter applied to the facts is that Trump was unaware of what Cohen did.

    The “timing” remark is in regard to proving Cohen’s intent in making an “in-kind” contribution three weeks before the election — what other intent could Cohen have had other than to protect Trump’s candidacy?

    But beyond this academic debate — and that’s exactly what it is — the point you and I first launched off into on this subject was whether Trump could be criminally liable for Cohen’s actions when you raised the specter of the Edwards’ criminal prosecution as a basis for Trump to worry.

    Potter’s opinion is interesting — it simply runs counter to the courtroom difficulties that such a case would run into.

    And let’s say this about Mr. Potter’s view of the facts of the Edwards case – it’s pretty much a blatant falsehood to the extent he wants you and others to believe it only concerned the payment of money “a year before the election.”

    The FACTS were — if you opted to read the relevant parts of the transcript of the closing arguments — that multiple payments were made over the course of a year by two wealthy Edwards’ contributors, including payments made in the first quarter of 2008 all through the time Edwards was running in Democrat primaries for the nomination.

    There were 6 counts in the indictment. Count 1 was a conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws. Counts 2 through 5 were two violations each for the two contributors — one for payments in 2007, and one for 2008 — where their payments on Edwards behalf violated the contribution limits. Count 6 was against Edwards for filing false campaign finance reports because the payments – which Edwards was aware of – were not reported as campaign contributions.

    Bunny Mellon made seven payments to Andrew Young, through a third party — $10,000, 25,000, 65,000, 100,000, 150,000, 175,000, and 200,000 — $725,000 in all – which Young was to use for the care and maintenance of Rielle Hunter, Edwards’ pregnant mistress. They began in May 2007, and continued through early 2008.

    The first article suggesting marital infidelity appeared in the NY Post on August 27, 2007, about 6 months before the Iowa Caucuses. By that time Hunter was pregnant, and she called Edwards to tell him the media was camped out in her yard in New Jersey. Young and Edwards agreed that the best course would be for her to move temporarily into Young family home in North Carolina, in a gated community. After a few weeks, Young used the Mellon money to rent a nearby home for Hunter.

    In October the National Enquirer gave the campaign a heads up they were chasing a story about a mistress. The Enquirer ran the story, Edwards denied it and called it “tabloid trash”.

    By this time Edwards’ campaign finance chair, a wealthy Texas lawyer named Fred Baron, had taken over caring for some the financial needs of the pregnant Hunter, and was spending large amounts to “keep her happy and quiet” – which he explained to Elizabeth Edwards when she demanded to know why Baron was flying Hunter to California for expensive shopping trips.

    In Dec. 2007, the National Enquirer got a photo of a 7 months pregnant Hunter, and she again headed for the Young family home. It was at that point that Edwards convinced Young to go along with a story that the baby was the result of a short-lived affair between two campaign staffers – the baby was Young’s.

    The Iowa Caucuses had been moved all the way up to January 3, 2008, because other states kept threatening to take Iowa’s place as the first-in-the-nation primary. New Hampshire was January 8, Nevada was January 19, and South Carolina was January 29.

    In the aftermath of Young claiming paternity, Fred Baron paid for a series of private flights for the Youngs – his wife reluctantly went along with the claim — and Hunter from North Carolina to Florida, Florida to Aspen, Aspen to San Diego, San Diego back to Aspen, and then back to California again. There were stays in Baron’s luxury vacation home in Aspen, at the Four Seasons and Coronado Bay Hotels in San Diego, etc., all paid for by Baron, and all to keep Hunter and Young away from the press in the days leading up to the Iowa Caucuses. Baron stated to other campaign officials in front of Edwards that the press would never be able to find Hunter because they were moving her around so much. He eventually settled Hunter and the Youngs in a new home in a private gated community in California at a upfront cost of nearly $60,000.

    Edwards finished second in Iowa to Obama, but the Hunter affair had been kept quiet, and the campaign moved on to New Hampshire.

    After finishing 2nd in Iowa, Edwards directed his campaign chair to offer to the Obama campaign that he would drop out in exchange for a promise to be named VP. After that was declined, later he had another outreach to Obama where he offered to drop out in exchange for a promise to be named Attorney General, and that was declined too. He then had his campaign make the same offers to Clinton.

    Edwards ran third behind Clinton and Obama in New Hampshire, and then a more distant third to both of them in Nevada. He had counted on getting to the friendlier ground of South Carolina. Clinton largely sat out South Carolina in recognition of Obama’s strength among black voters, but Edwards continued on, only to be crushed by Obama 55% to 18%.

    On January 30, he dropped out of the race.

    It wasn’t until July 2008 that Edwards was caught visiting Hunter and their child at the Beverly Hills Hilton that the entire episode was exposed. Up until that point, Edwards was still trying to position himself either as a potential VP for Obama, or as a member of his cabinet.

    All this duplicity was expounded upon by the prosecution in the closing arguments of the Edwards trial.

    So what are we to make of Mr. Potter’s claim in the interview that the Trump case is stronger because the payment of the money in the Edwards case was “a year” before the election as opposed to just weeks before the election in the Trump case?

    Should we conclude that Mr. Potter is an idiot who doesn’t really know anything about the Edwards case?

    Should we consider the fact that he was Deputy General Counsel to the Campaign of George H.W. Bush in 1988? Or maybe we should consider that he was General Counsel to the John McCain Presidential Campaigns in 2000 and 2008?

    Are there any more virulently anti-Trump members of the GOP establishment than the Bushes and McCain??

    Or maybe we should consider the fact that Potter is Founder and President of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit organization which works in the areas of campaign finance and elections, political communication and government ethics, and is a vocal critic of unlimited corporate spending and dark money in politics allowed by the Citizens United.

    Honestly, I’ve put together these “facts” in a couple hours while also feeding dinner to four kids, taking a fifth one to a nearby movie theater, and getting the two youngest in the tub so they can get to bed at their normal bedtime – all because my wife is out of state on a work assignment.

    Its not that hard to look this stuff up, rather than rely on answers from biased partisan which reflect a very poor understanding on his part of the facts which are the subject of his commentary.

    And, lastly, I would note for your readers that when Mr. Potter referred to the Edwards prosecution – or I should say “failed” prosecution – as a possible avenue of approach by Mueller’s team, he was referring to the possibility that they could go after COHEN in order to get leverage over him to cooperate against Trump. He never suggested that Mueller’s team would go after Trump for a campaign finance law violation.

    Take time to read it again – it’s all in there, I promise.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  244. PERHAPS PRESIDENT

    mg (9e54f8)

  245. Have any of you seen “Wild Wild Country” ? It’s a six-part miniseries on Netflix, documenting the rise and fall of the cult of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh in Wasco County, OR, in the mid-80s.

    Leviticus (24b272) — 3/26/2018 @ 11:06 pm

    I haven’t but I recently referenced the case and am familiar. It’s actually a pretty good example of what people from California do when they move to Texas or Tennessee. They don’t poison The Golden Corral per se, but they sometimes try to take over the government. For all the right reasons too.

    Pinandpuller (5aece2)

  246. Take time to read it again – it’s all in there, I promise.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 3/27/2018 @ 12:21 am

    In scrolling I saw it was about John Edwards. No one cares about that so no we aren’t reading the Finkleman X 3 length comment about him. Interesting that every time one of teams R or D’s guy is in trouble, that team’s goalies start talking about some has-been from the opponent team. It’s the most tired strategy in Politics-Ball.

    is this the FEC that people are talking about in this thread?

    EPWJ

    Good point. I doubt anything comes of this.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  247. 258 — go back to the funny pages then.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  248. Dustin,

    The FEC, has a notorious reputation, when republicans have control they are loath to use it wanting to be seen as being politically pure, when the dems have control, it’s a vicious weapon used to try to prosecute republicans and their supporters.

    But, I’ll bet you already knew this.

    EPWJ (4dc563)

  249. ‘W/out divestment, @realDonaldTrump creates an appearance that he & family are using presidency to enrich themselves.”

    TREVOR Potter December 9, 2016, never trumper pushed hard for the president elect to have to sell off all of his families assets.

    EPWJ (4dc563)

  250. I see narciso has a sister who comments as Celador2 at Red State:

    George Washington was a good friend of neighbor to a woman who had great leucine, I think many historians underplay her leucine.

    leu·cine
    ˈlo͞osən,ˈlo͞oˌsēn
    noun BIOCHEMISTRY
    a hydrophobic amino acid that is a constituent of most proteins. It is an essential nutrient in the diet of vertebrates.

    The mind boggles.

    nk (dbc370)

  251. And I also learned what Shark Week is:

    shark week
    A week during the summer in which Discovery Channel airs its annual “Shark Week” and everyone on earth pretends to watch it and makes sure that all of their friends know by plastering stupid sh!t (e.g. Facebook status updates) all over the Internet. Usually no one really knows when Shark Week is until it actually happens because no one really cares about sharks any other week of the year. An overhyped show that everyone just claims they watch to look cool in front of their friends.

    nk (dbc370)

  252. Yes, Leviticus, I’ve been watching that wild, wild country… quite a story, i’m at part 6. I remember it being in the news at the time. A true “fool on the hill” scenario and it goes to show one that there will never be a shortage of gullibility.

    Death to the Demoness Sheela!!!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  253. http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/23/jennifer-rubins-flip-flop-john-bolton-worthy-monty-python/

    For people who are interested in hypocrisy, Jennifer Rubin is a good case study.

    NJRob (b00189)

  254. Heh! Jimmy Carter came out in opposition to Bolton, and that’s all the endorsement Bolton needs.

    nk (dbc370)

  255. Rubin has gone full mensch, you never go full mensch, max boot is nearly as foolish.

    narciso (d1f714)

  256. I’ll tell you what I understand better than you do:

    That the “violation” described by Potter in his interview is a violation by Cohen, not a violation by Trump.

    There isn’t a single word uttered by Potter as reflected in the article that suggests that Trump is at risk of prosecution.

    The presumption that Potter applied to the facts is that Trump was unaware of what Cohen did.

    So you didn’t watch the video I provided.

    [Endless yammering about John Edwards]

    Whatever.

    Should we consider the fact that he was Deputy General Counsel to the Campaign of George H.W. Bush in 1988? Or maybe we should consider that he was General Counsel to the John McCain Presidential Campaigns in 2000 and 2008?

    Are there any more virulently anti-Trump members of the GOP establishment than the Bushes and McCain??

    So you wanted an FEC chair under a Democrat?

    Or maybe we should consider the fact that Potter is Founder and President of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit organization which works in the areas of campaign finance and elections, political communication and government ethics, and is a vocal critic of unlimited corporate spending and dark money in politics allowed by the Citizens United.

    So?

    Honestly, I’ve put together these “facts” in a couple hours while also feeding dinner to four kids, taking a fifth one to a nearby movie theater, and getting the two youngest in the tub so they can get to bed at their normal bedtime – all because my wife is out of state on a work assignment.

    Its not that hard to look this stuff up, rather than rely on answers from biased partisan which reflect a very poor understanding on his part of the facts which are the subject of his commentary.

    *It’s

    And, lastly, I would note for your readers that when Mr. Potter referred to the Edwards prosecution – or I should say “failed” prosecution – as a possible avenue of approach by Mueller’s team, he was referring to the possibility that they could go after COHEN in order to get leverage over him to cooperate against Trump. He never suggested that Mueller’s team would go after Trump for a campaign finance law violation.

    He did not go into detail but he responded to a question that said “Cohen or Trump” and did not say (in the part they showed) “hey I’m not talking about Trump” plus it’s implicit in the citation of the Edwards case.

    Take time to read it again – it’s all in there, I promise.

    I’m just not that into you.

    Nobody knows better than swc. Especially not a former FEC chair!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  257. Anyway, maybe shipwreckedcrew knows the guy.

    lol

    Patterico (115b1f)

  258. The point is they want only their political speech out there, and them through boycotts protests it al shut down everyone else’s.

    narciso (d1f714)

  259. it’s entirely possible she could have an underboob fungus

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  260. As it the timing, we know how that worked to deems advantage in 1992 and 2000, and how they tried will al qua qua in 2004.

    narciso (d1f714)

  261. What did the President know and when did he know it?

    Here’s the thing. I could have paid every hooker in America not to say anything bad about Mr. Trump and it would have been legal. But I don’t know Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump does not know me. The closest I have been to Mr. Trump in recent memory is when we both were in the same general area of downtown Chicago during 9/11.

    But Mr. Cohen does know Mr. Trump. And Mr. Trump knows him. Because Mr. Cohen is Mr. Trump’s lawyer. The “defense” that Mr. Cohen was a public-spirited American exercising his First Amendment rights to protect his favored candidate’s reputation will not pass the giggle test either in a motion for directed verdict or in jury deliberations.

    nk (dbc370)

  262. I would say that Mr. Cohen is Trump’s “agent,” in this context, more than his “lawyer.” At least in New Mexico, Cohen would probably not be allowed to pay money out of his own pocket on a client’s behalf *as an attorney.* As a private citizen, sure, but probably not as an attorney.

    Leviticus (95dd92)

  263. I do not actually have the money to pay off every hooker in America. Maybe enough for a coffee and a donut for the ones on the 10:30 call at Women’s Court.

    nk (dbc370)

  264. What nk said, plus the job-disclosure agreement was returned to Cohen at his employment address, not at his personal address:

    Michael Cohen
    Executive Vice President and
    Special Counsel to Donald J. Trump
    The Trump Organization

    As for Edwards, he argued that any payments were made to protect his marriage, not his candidacy. Trump could make the same argument if he can show he or his agents regularly make these payments. I think he can, but I suspect it’s not his wive’s opinion that concern him.

    DRJ (15874d)

  265. Wives’ opinions.

    DRJ (15874d)

  266. Husband opinions can be as bad (and for God sakes don’t eat what she leaves on the plate, Mr. Crypt Keeper): http://www.yahoo.com/news/kellyanne-conway-apos-husband-going-215106134.html

    urbanleftbehind (0fad9b)

  267. Hmm. A Yale Law graduate and Supreme Court Justice’s law clerk turned writer. So is one of Kozinski’s accusers. I’d be tempted to explore whether it’s a Yalie SCOTUS clerk thing, if the most successful lawyer turned writer I know of, Erle Stanley Gardner, was not only a high school graduate who learned law on his own.

    nk (dbc370)

  268. (and for God sakes don’t eat what she leaves on the plate, Mr. Crypt Keeper)

    I got that, I got that! I Claudius! It’s how Agripinilla poisons him. Am I right?

    nk (dbc370)

  269. 269:

    Patterico caught with his pants down — and punts.

    Yes, I watched the videos — there were 3 at the link — but more importantly I read the entire transcript of the videos, which were the unedited transcripts of the entire interviews according to CBS.

    Including the part about Stormy Daniels’ attorney being a former Oppo Researcher for Rahm Emanuel.

    “Endless Text” was a review of the FACTS of the Edwards case showing that Potter is wrong to claim it was about a payment of money a year ahead of the election — that “timing” thing that makes the Trump case so much stronger according to both of you.

    Still waiting for your explanation of why — not Potter’s.

    Edwards involved payments made over the course of 9 months, including in January, 2008, when Edwards ran in 4 different primary election contests for the Democrat nomniation.

    “He did not go into detail but he answered a question that said Cohen or Trump”.

    Yeah he did — and he did not go into detail, which is the problem because the details are why “timing” isn’t stronger here than in Edwards.

    But then again, he got so much else right that his naked assertion, unsupported by anything he said, warrants unthinking acceptance without reservation.

    The only problem is that his entire analysis up to that point is about the circumstance Cohen finds himself in having “contributed” $126,500 more than the individual limit. He NOT ONE TIME touches on the question of a candidate’s exposure – other than his reference to the FAILED prosecution of Edwards on facts stronger than the alleged facts with respect to Trump.

    There were no question in Edwards that the money was paid to keep the affair with Hunter out of the election coverage, and there was no question that Edwards was involved in the plans for doing so with money from two wealthy supporters.

    So, again, how is this case stronger than the Edwards case?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  270. 283 — and if you watch the videos and then read the transcripts, you can see that the videos are edited, including the parts involving Potter.

    Which would you use for your understanding – edited videos or unedited transcripts??

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  271. Patterico caught with his pants down — and punts.

    Why do you talk that way?

    DRJ (15874d)

  272. Seriously, why?

    DRJ (15874d)

  273. you have to have your pants down for so stormy can do spanky spank on you with the magazine

    CNN fake news propaganda slut Anderson Cooper learned all about this

    you have to unbuckle your pants and then lower them

    then stormy playfully swats you on the tushie!

    lol it’s so sexy

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  274. “So you wanted an FEC chair under a Democrat?”

    Nope. But I don’t want the Founder and President of an organization dedicated to uphold campaign finance laws, the vitality of which depends on the enforceability of those laws, explaining how they can be enforced.

    After having followed the Edwards prosecution at the time, and having looked at the legal issues upon which it stumbled, I have a point of view about the reality “in a courtroom” as to whether those laws can be enforced in this situation.

    And you have a fundamental ignorance about the workings of federal agencies if you honestly believe that political appointees at the top of those agencies understand the operations of those agencies better than the career staff who work there.

    Who do you think understands the problems of prosecuting federal election law cases as crimes in federal court, the political appointee heading up the FEC, or the DOJ trial attorneys who handle such cases?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  275. Excellent explanation, swc.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  276. 286 — did he defend his claim that the “timing” makes the Trump situation stronger than was the Edwards case??

    Where? I must have missed that.

    What I saw was:

    “Whatever”.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  277. Again, just because one jury or one set of prosecutors screwed up in one case, why would you not pursue a different case where there is clear evidence of a violation of the law?

    An investigation could well turn up evidence that Cohen was not, in fact, simply working on his own as he implausibly claims. It might also identify the thugs he paid to threaten poor Ms. Daniels and her widdle baby.

    Dave (445e97)

  278. You did not talk that way in the past. You used words to reason with people, not insults. Now you do both.

    DRJ (15874d)

  279. 292 — that’s not the point Dave.

    The point is that the person Patterico is relying on said the case here (Trump) is stronger than the was the case against Edwards because of the “timing” of the payment in relation to the date of the election.

    Its just not true. The factual claim about the timing in Edwards is wrong (a year before the election), and the subjective analysis is wrong.

    And its not that the prosecutors in Edwards screwed up — its that when you sit down to try to write jury instructions to explain how the facts intersect with the campaign finance laws, you have very real problems in making them make sense.

    If you’ve never tried a criminal case, state or federal, then you don’t appreciate the importance of the language in the jury instructions. They define for the jury what they must find in order to convict. A key part of the statute at issue here is that the defendant must act “willfully” with the “intent to influence the outcome of the election”.

    Both those components of the offense create all kinds of issues with regard to the presentation of evidence, and they present all kinds of problems with regard to providing explanation to the jury about what they both mean.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  280. 293: Maybe the reason is because so many of Patrick’s posts over the past 2 years — which are factually inaccurate — are also derisive and insulting towards the people who support Trump.

    My responses are not usually in defense of Trump — there’s a lot to not like about him, I freely admit and agree.

    But when the attacks on him are wrong — such as the blatant mis-statement about not sanctioning a particular Iranian Revolutionary Guard controlled company because it did business with Trump Inc., — I take issue with the attack.

    Same here. Relying on laughable and incorrect analysis of Trevor Potter — without taking the time to attempt to defend Potter’s analysis before moving on, while discounting an actual effort to look behind Potter’s nonsense — invites insult.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  281. I do have general understanding of what jury instructions are.

    It seems entirely possible that the election might have come up in the negotiations that led to the NDA. Until Daniels’ lawyer at that time is interviewed or testifies under oath, we don’t know for sure.

    Reasonable people might disagree, but I would say the timing, 10 days before a general presidential election, when Trump’s boasts (and risible denials) about sexual assault were a central campaign issue, make a very strong circumstantial case.

    Dave (445e97)

  282. Invites insult? You mocked his “legal brilliance” and you think he invited insult?

    But he did write “bonus points for making [him] the bad guy” so you get the bonus points.

    DRJ (15874d)

  283. nothin like a good spanky that’s for sure

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  284. You don’t have to be this way. You are smarter than this. Is there some stress in your life?

    DRJ (15874d)

  285. there is a more civil way of going about this, pointing out it was likely a fmr niac official, nourazedeh, that tillerson had kept on staff, probably tilted the determination as to abide by the Rhodes road show,

    narciso (d1f714)

  286. I know, DRJ. All any of us can do—me, too—is recognize behavior we don’t care for in others, and ensure we do not indulge in it ourselves. That’s all I’ve got.

    I’ve been reading a lot of Marcus Aurelius again recently, and it helps in our strange time. That and Augustine!

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  287. If you are upset about Patrick being insulting and derisive toward others, is it reasonable – by your own standards – to be insulting and derisive toward him?

    From what I’ve seen, when he goes after individual people, it is in response to specific attacks on him, or what he feels are dishonest distortions of what he has said (by those individuals).

    When he criticizes Trump supporters in general, it is more of an “if the shoe fits, wear it” type thing. For instance, he sometimes criticizes them collectively for defending Trump’s ludicrous or otherwise indefensible statements or actions. In that case, the criticism, by construction, only applies to the people it applies to.

    Your style of argumentation wouldn’t really upset me (indeed it’s fairly mild compared to a lot of commenter-to-commenter stuff here) but Patrick has made it clear that it bothers him, so continuing to do it seems like trolling (Google: “make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.”).

    Dave (445e97)

  288. Patrick gets most upset when he realizes I’m right, but he cannot admit it.

    When Patrick thinks I’m wrong he leans in and makes his case.

    The problem right now is that we disagree on more than we used to disagree on — and he’s bad at admitting when he’s wrong.

    I do not want him to let go of his “NeverTrump” megaphone. There are many things he writes that I agree with, and that are worth saying.

    But when he’s wrong, he’s wrong.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  289. But when he’s wrong, he’s wrong.

    Even so, do you find that insulting him is an effective way of convincing him of the error of his position?

    “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” – my grandmother

    “You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.” – also my grandmother

    Dave (445e97)

  290. the idea there’s some big FEC thing what’s gonna happen cause of this hooker is preposterous believe me it’s silly

    and even a skanky lowlife fbi slutboy like Robert Mueller knows better than to try and do stormy and her funguses all up in it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  291. Actually he doesn’t pikachu, it took 5.5 million for him to apologize to Dr. Hatfill, I don’t think he ever apologized to the four men frame for wittey bulgers murder,

    narciso (d1f714)

  292. Full disclosure: ConDave is paid time and a half for his full-throated buttinski…

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  293. Otto octavius tried hard, at the squirrel but not very effectively.

    narciso (d1f714)

  294. Musical choices for an approach to troubled waters…

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gmuRc1Ypw9w

    OR…

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YXcYZsqkZ-g

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  295. ““Endless Text” was a review of the FACTS of the Edwards case showing that Potter is wrong to claim it was about a payment of money a year ahead of the election — that “timing” thing that makes the Trump case so much stronger according to both of you.”

    – shipwreckedcrew

    “Endles Text” – your comment at 255 – was an admission that Potter’s main point is salient, coupled with a verbose attempt to obscure that admission by detailed narration of the facts of the Edwards case. The length of your narration does not automatically strengthen your argument.

    If the names in your Edwards narration were replaced with X’s and Y’s, the core structure of the fact pattern would be nearly identical to the situation facing Cohen and Trump. Here, I’ll give you an example:

    “I was in the middle of an election campaign that was the subject of national media attention, and did not want my 10 year old son four children and cancer-stricken wife exposed to what I expected might be 24/7 sensationalized press coverage of the allegations that was sure to follow if she told her story publicly which she had previously done in 2011. To avoid exposing him them to that, I directed my attorney rich friends to explore whether she would agree to not submit to any press interviews fly to some nice resorts until the Iowa Caucus was over. Given my admitted past history lovely hair and folksy charm, I had no concerns at all about whether the news would impact the view of voters towards my candidacy.”

    Not exactly QED testimony on direct, is it? Rings a bit false? Even more so in your construction of Trump’s proposed testimony, honestly.
    How bout a compare/contrast exercise: if Edwards got indicted, how hard do you think it would be for the super-awesome attorneys of the US DOJ to indict Trump?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  296. President Trump wouldn’t be indicted cause of not reporting that a hooker got some money to be a nice quiet little hooker

    it doesn’t rise to the level

    case closed

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  297. Set aside the argument that the case against Trump is “stronger” than the case against Edwards. Is it equally strong? Is it weaker?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  298. You are ruining good friendships, swc. Learn from Leviticus. That’s how to rebut an argument with reason instead of insults.

    DRJ (15874d)

  299. Leviticus — what was Potter’s main point??

    That the payment in Trump’s case was more temporally connected to the election.

    That’s wrong.

    Payments were made on behalf of Edwards in January 2008. That was one of the counts in the indictment, and it wasn’t disputed at trial.

    Edwards participated in elections on January 3, 9, 19, and 29, 2008.

    The problem with your version of an Edwards statement in justification is that it was contradicted by the statements of several friends and campaign officials in the Edwards trial — including Fred Baron who said they were keeping Hunter away from the election coverage by moving her around — at his expense — so often that the press couldn’t find her.

    If your point is that politically motivated prosecutor could bring an action against Trump in bad faith, fully expecting to lose, but gaining collateral leverage in doing so, then I don’t disagree.

    That’s what happened in Edwards, and I know attorneys who were in the Public Integrity Section at the time who said that’s exactly why the Edwards prosecution was brought.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  300. The lengthy of the narration showed the lengths over time, through multiple parties, with multiple payments, right through the actual participation by Edwards in 4 elections, when money was being spent on his behalf to cover up the existence of his affair and love child, which according to Potter and the Edwards prosecutors were actually campaign contributions above the legal limit by two wealthy Edwards supporters.

    Or are you impervious to facts like Patrick?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  301. “The only problem is that his entire analysis up to that point is about the circumstance Cohen finds himself in having “contributed” $126,500 more than the individual limit. He NOT ONE TIME touches on the question of a candidate’s exposure – other than his reference to the FAILED prosecution of Edwards on facts stronger than the alleged facts with respect to Trump.”

    – shipwreckedcrew

    Nothing that a little forensic accounting and an in camera review couldn’t resolve, right? In light of Potter’s point that “if Cohen did this on behalf of his client, the candidate, that is a coordinated, illegal, in kind contribution by Cohen for the purpose of influencing the election, of benefiting the candidate by keeping this secret.”

    Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point. Do you really not see that these kinds of games pose a genuine risk to Trump, not merely Cohen?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  302. I try for more facts then invective, I guess I’m not understood because I don’t leap to occams razor, which is the preferred narrative. Now one should wonder who is the paymaster in this operation, 130 k is like a security deposit, compared to emoluments we’ve seen in the past.

    narciso (d1f714)

  303. herpes bill clinton had a love child with a black hooker

    it’s on the internet just go look

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  304. Potter’s Main Point: “It’s a $130,000 in-kind contribution by Cohen to the Trump campaign, which is about $126,500 above what he’s allowed to give,” Potter said. “And if he does this on behalf of his client, the candidate, that is a coordinated, illegal, in kind contribution by Cohen for the purpose of influencing the election, of benefiting the candidate by keeping this secret.”

    Do you think it would be hard to convince a jury that Cohen was making this payment on behalf of Donald Trump? And with Cohen in the cross-hairs of a serious indictment, do you think it would be hard to get him to roll on Trump?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  305. Allegedly, in so far as he is able, trump has followed the playbook of Silvio berlusconi, so I don’t think this dog will hunt.

    narciso (d1f714)

  306. “The problem with your version of an Edwards statement in justification is that it was contradicted by the statements of several friends and campaign officials in the Edwards trial — including Fred Baron who said they were keeping Hunter away from the election coverage by moving her around — at his expense — so often that the press couldn’t find her.”

    – shipwreckedcrew

    Some friend, right? Wonder why he betrayed John Edwards like that.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  307. It doesn’t help Trump that the $130,000 payment to Stormy was made in October 2016, just before the election, after a “lawyer for Clifford threatened that [she] would end her silence on the alleged affair.” Nor does it help that Cohen reportedly complained to friends that Trump never reimbursed him.

    DRJ (15874d)

  308. so the hooker was trying to blackmail a presidential candidate and of course the scumsucking cowards at the fbi overlook the blackmail and wanna prosecute the candidate

    this is why everyone hates the sleazy fbi

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  309. Fred Baron was a very wealthy Dallas attorney known as the King of Torts. He died days before the 2008 election so he never had to deal with the legal or election fallout from the Edwards-Hunter affair.

    DRJ (15874d)

  310. Cohen and Baron were very similar, and so were their clients.

    DRJ (15874d)

  311. Here is the John Edwards indictment, for anyone who wants to read it. Seems like a pretty straightforward carryover to me – but then again, I have never been (and will never be) a DOJ prosecutor, so I may not know these things as well as some.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  312. From in or about 2007 until in or about 2009, in
    the Middle District of North Carolina and elsewhere, the defendant, JOHNNY REID EDWARDS, did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate and agree with others, known and unknown, to:
    (A) accept and receive, while a candidate for federal office, contributions from Person C and Person D in
    excess of the limits of the Election Act, which aggregated $25,000 and more from each contributor during a calendar year, in violation of Title 2, United States Code, Sections 441a(a)(1)(A), 441a(f) and 437g(d)(1)(A)(i); and
    (B) falsify, conceal, and cover up by trick, scheme, and device a material fact, in a matter within the
    jurisdiction of the executive branch of the United States Government, by, among other things, causing the John Edwards for President Committee to create and file false and misleading campaign finance reports with the FEC, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(1).

    That’s the conspiracy count in the Edwards indictment.

    Edwards got off the hook because the scheme to conceal Rielle Hunter was more complicated and less centralized than Trump’s scheme to silence Stormy Daniels. The difficulty faced by the Edwards’ prosecutors was (likely) something along the lines of “how do we prove that Mr. Figurehead knew about any of this,” i.e. satisfy the “knowingly and willfully” element”?

    Not so complicated, in Trump’s case.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  313. *Edwards prosecutors

    Leviticus (efada1)

  314. I think the North Carolina jury wanted to believe in Edwards but they still hung on 5 of the 6 counts. He was only found Not Guilty on 1 count. Even the CREW “watchdogs” did not want the DOJ to indict Edwards.

    DRJ (15874d)

  315. 321 — you’re inexperience is showing.

    You think Baron betrayed Edwards because he feared prosecution?

    Baron made the comments in front of other people.

    It was other folks, like Jennifer Palieri, who testified at trial as to what Baron said on the basis that they were co-conspirator statements.

    Baron was an unindicted co-conspirator. Why was he not indicted??

    He had the fortunate — or maybe unfortunate — circumstance of having died in 2008.

    You want to continue?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  316. 327 — I linked the transcript of the closing argument.

    You might want to read the evidence rather than read the text of the indictment which simply tracks the language of the statute.

    John Edwards participated in every step of the conspiracy to get Bunny Mellon and Fred Baron to pay the expenses to hide Hunter from the press.

    John Edwards personally spoke with Bunny Mellon on the phone about needed the money because his wife tracked their personal finances too closely so he could not use his own money.

    John Edwards and Andrew Young cooked up the scheme to have Young claim the child was his, and then John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards were aware that Fred Baron was flying them all over the US and putting them up in fancy hotels at his expense, all to keep Hunter away from the press in January 2008 while he ran in the first four Dem primaries for Pres.

    The only thing that links the Daniels payment to the campaign is the temporal relationship of the two. Its a circumstance that requires the drawing of a conclusion.

    In the Edwards case there were all kinds of statements by the participants admitting that the payments were all about preserving Edwards’ election chances.

    Which case do you want?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  317. 326. Leviticus (efada1) — 3/27/2018 @ 11:50 am

    Here is the John Edwards indictment, for anyone who wants to read it. Seems like a pretty straightforward carryover to me

    The difference is this.

    Edwards was not the rich guy in the conspiracy. He ararnged for Bunny Mellon to give money. (hhsi defense was that taht money was not given toio him for campiagn /i> purposes, but for opersonal purpoises, like saving his marriage. It heleped that this was well before much camoagning started.

    In this case, it is the candidate who is the rich guy.

    It defies credibility that he would have wanted Michael Cohen to spend $130,000 without reimbursing him. So, at worst this is an accounting violation, but not an illegal camopaign contribtion,.. If Cohen did give the money it would have bene without Trump;s knowledge, and it was in indeopendent expenditure.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  318. Correction: It defies belief

    In reality, it was probably neotehr Cohen nor Trump who spent the money and the purpose was not affect the electionm, but ti was erstwhile businessess associated of Styrormey Dabnesl who porobably were respoonsible for the non disclosure agreement and Trump had nothing to do with it. It wa snot abig thing in the election but opeople could be afraid of getting attention.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  319. Andrew Young pled guilty and testified against Edwards.

    And the jury still hung with a majority in favor of acquittal.

    And DOJ chose to not try again.

    That’s a well-worn path to success that ole Trevor Potter is suggesting.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  320. Both those songs are as old as I am, Colonel Haiku, but I’m not sure who is holding up better.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  321. Stormy Daniels is appearing in Nashville this weekend. Anyone want to come down and hang out or will you front me for some head shots?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  322. 329 — thank you for that link DRJ. I think the following correctly sums up the nature of the case, and would apply equally to Cohen and Trump:

    The prosecution spent three weeks making the case that Edwards spearheaded the cover-up, while the defense focused on the federal campaign finance aspect of the charges.

    Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit watchdog group, blamed the Department of Justice for launching the losing case against Edwards.

    Today’s verdict in the trial of former presidential candidate John Edwards isn’t just a black eye for the Department of Justice (DOJ), it’s a knockout punch for the once vaunted Public Integrity Section,” Executive Director Melanie Sloan said in a statement. “As noted by nearly every campaign finance lawyer who considered the matter, this was a lousy case. All the salacious details prosecutors offered up to prove that Edwards is, indeed, despicable, were not enough to persuade the jury to convict him.”

    Sloan continued, “You’d think DOJ would recognize there are more pressing issues confronting our nation than whether Roger Clemens took steroids and John Edwards hid his mistress, but maybe not. DOJ should apologize to the American people for wasting scarce taxpayer dollars and focus resources on serious matters like the widespread mortgage fraud or the financial crisis that harmed millions of Americans.”

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  323. Shipwreckedcrew, I am tired of being personally attacked, insulted, and disrespected by you on my own blog.

    I have decided to impose on you the rules of
    The Jury Talks Back, but here.

    If I see a comment that, in my sole discretion, I deem an insult or a personal attack or a deliberate twisting of my words, it will be deleted and you will be given a vacation from the comments, of at least two weeks or (depending on the nature of the comment) perhaps longer.

    You are free to make any factual argument you like. You are free to say you think I am wrong. But you will do so in the same way that you would do it in my living room: respectfully. Or you won’t comment at all.

    Here are some examples of comments that will get the penalty:

    “Just 15 minutes of research on the history of the Edwards prosecution would have made 44 unlikely. But is just another of those ‘too good to check’ moments.”

    “Legal brilliance on display.”

    “I’ll tell you what I understand better than you do”

    “Its [sic] not that hard to look this stuff up, rather than rely on answers from biased partisan [sic] which reflect a very poor understanding on his part of the facts which are the subject of his commentary.”

    “Patterico caught with his pants down — and punts.”

    “Relying on laughable and incorrect analysis of Trevor Potter — without taking the time to attempt to defend Potter’s analysis before moving on, while discounting an actual effort to look behind Potter’s nonsense — invites insult”

    “Patrick gets most upset when he realizes I’m right, but he cannot admit it”

    Or, in care you’re tempted to say the following:

    “The reason you are setting up a special rule for me is not because I insult you but because
    I show you up so effectively every time.”

    “[Endless attempts to show that I am a hypocrite or dishonest etc. on some personal level.]”

    I’m not interested in “who started it” or “you do it too” arguments. Let’s just stipulate that you think I am equally at fault if not more, and move on from there.

    Choose whether insults and personal attacks are so important to you that they mean no longer commenting here. You can give up the insults and personal attacks, or you can give up commenting here, but the option to do both has just been removed.

    If you make an attempt to follow these rules, I will make an attempt to do the same in response.

    My hope is that you will take a deep breath, and consider the benefits of us treating each other with mutual respect, the way we used to.

    Patterico (2975ef)

  324. 336 — is it a $10 minimum, meaning no $1’s or $5’s accepted in her g-string, only $10’s or higher?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  325. 338 — you’re right. The invective has gone too far, and I’m in part to blame. The intellectual disputes are worth having, but should remain as such, and I’ll make a better effort to keep it at that level.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  326. Or are you impervious to facts like Patrick

    Another example.

    Patterico (2975ef)

  327. DRJ — I make the same promise to you and Beldar out of respect for our shared history here.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  328. Comments crossed. OK, good.

    Patterico (2975ef)

  329. “you’re [sic] inexperience is showing.”

    – shipwreckedcrew

    Fair enough – I don’t claim to be an expert in this area, after all. But I would like to continue, yes:

    Do you not think Baron would have been indicted if he had not had the “good fortune” to die in 2008? And do you not think that the case against Edwards would have been far stronger if the DOJ could have relied upon Baron’s testimony, as opposed to Andrew Young’s?

    Because, per Potter’s argument, the DOJ is in a pretty good position to put Cohen (Trump’s Fred Baron) in a very bad position. Not hard to see how that one plays out – even for one as inexperienced in the oracular and labyrinthine workings of the DOJ as I.

    Baron may not have had the chance to betray Edwards out of a fear of prosecution; the key question is whether Cohen will get that chance with respect to Trump.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  330. In my former career, I was also a bit known for writing “combat briefs” on disputed issues, and generally found the wisdom at some point to have someone else spend a few minutes editing them. The end result was much better as a result of “addition by subtraction” in the process.

    I probably need to make myself a bit more of a conscientious editor of my own work.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  331. So, on a more even-keel basis, I would reinforce my earlier point that I knew attorneys in the Public Integrity Section of DOJ who were adamant that the Edwards prosecution was a farce, and should never have been undertaken as a federal criminal conspiracy. It was generally accepted that it was an effort by the Section to recover its credibility lost in the Ted Stevens case, and to demonstrate its committment to “good government” and “campaign finance reform” in the face of Citizen’s United.

    This stuff was hotly discussed among DOJ attorneys — most don’t remember that the backdrop of the Edwards indictment was Obama’s pointed condemnation of the Citizen’s United decision to the faces of the Supreme Court Justices in his 2010 State of the Union speech. That was like “marching orders” on campaign finance cases for the new attorneys brought into Public Integrity by AG Holder.

    The federal judge on the case, Catherine Eagles, was an Obama appointee, and she consistently ruled in ways that helped the prosecution, including giving a jury instruction that said as long as one of the intents behind the payments to support Hunger was for the purpose of preserving Edwards as a candidate, that was sufficient to establish the “intent” element of the statute. The defense wanted an instruction that said the gov’t had to prove that the “sole intent” of the payments was to preserve Edwards’ candidacy.

    Just so its clear. An attorney in my former office, who had the office next door to mine, had come to our office from Main Justice. Her ex-boyfriend was a Public Integrity attorney who she remained on good terms with. There was a time when I explored options for moving to DOJ, and she arranged through her Ex a tele-conference between myself and 3 Public Integrity Section attorneys. One turned out to be a Univ. of Chicago Law School classmate of a very close AUSA friend I left behind in California when I moved. That guy had been a bit player in the Stevens case, lived through the aftermath, and was part of a team that asked for an opinion on whether the Edwards case should be brought. He recommended against it, as did a couple other Trial Attorneys, but the new Supervisors named by Obama DOJ appointees over-ruled them and said they were bringing the case.

    So, Trevor Potter may have a view on the Edwards case, but its an uninformed view, and the problems associated with bringing such cases haven’t changed.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  332. 1. As things currently stand, is Potter wrong that Cohen is exposed to indictment?

    2. If Cohen were indicted, would there not be a significant risk that he would flip on Trump?

    3. If Cohen flipped on Trump, would Trump not be exposed to indictment?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  333. 336 — is it a $10 minimum, meaning no $1’s or $5’s accepted in her g-string, only $10’s or higher?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 3/27/2018 @ 12:37 pm

    I’m thinking $5’s are best so she can throw her lawyer his kick without making too much change.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  334. 346 – that’s all well and good, but I see a discussion of whether the Edwards case “should” have been prosecuted as a bit of a distraction from the fact that it *was* prosecuted, and prosecuted on facts easily analogous to the facts of the situation with Trump and Cohen.

    That was Potter’s point. As my criminal law professor (also a former AUSA, in case he needs credentialing) would say, “read the statute.”

    Leviticus (efada1)

  335. 344 — Young was compromised by having made inconsistent statements in the past, which the defense took full advantage of in cross-examining him.

    I think it would have been high drama had prosecutors taken a chance on indicting Fred Baron, and/or if they attempted to examine him as a hostile witness.

    I think the fact that Baron died made the case easier to bring — now Edwards was the only target, they could get Baron’s statements in through co-conspirators, and they didn’t have to deal with the mischief Baron might create.

    One of the problems with the whole area is that while there is a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years (when funds aggregate over $25,000), there is no specific sentencing guideline. So its a bit of a guessing game to try to figure out what guideline might be analagous. But just about everyone agrees that any guideline based on the amount of money involved — even in the Edwards case — was going to result in very little — if any — jail time for anyone convicted.

    For a laywer there is always the collateral consequences involving his license, and that’s makes the issue a bit trickier. But I don’t think Fred Baron would have ever pled guilty and cooperated — and I don’t think that Cohen will ever plead guilty and cooperate. So I disagree with Potter that DOJ has Cohen in a bad spot. He’s likely very unhappy to find himself in the position he’s in simply because its aggravating, but that’s not the same as feeling like he’s really at risk for being convicted.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  336. Yes and Brenda Murray and Co, went after Ted Stevens based upon flawed evidence and a dubious witnessed it was reversed on appeal, only after Obama had gotten his 69th vote.

    narciso (d1f714)

  337. 347 — I wouldn’t put anything past Mueller’s team. I know a lot of DOJ attorneys who don’t have a very high regard for Andrew Weissman, but no one would say he’s not aggressive.

    But I think there are many on Mueller’s team who would say such an effort might be a “Bridge Too Far” — especially for Mueller.

    Edwards was over-reach. Cohen would be over-reach too. It would be an easy case for Rosenstein to block that indictment by saying its outside the bounds of what the Special Counsel has been asked to pursue. Rosenstein — as Mueller’s boss — can order any indictment brought by Mueller’s team to be dismissed. If they refuse, he can dismiss it by his own signature.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  338. I’ve got to jump out for a while to deal with some discovery that must get out the door tomorrow.

    Will try to check in later.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  339. 60th vote, before Scott brown reversed it, yes there was probably an nc 17 aspect to the whole thing.

    narciso (d1f714)

  340. if fbi slutboy Robert Mueller can prove President Trump contracted russian funguses from making sexy with stormy the dirty blackmailing hooker he could then compare fungus samples with other known colluders and prove putin stole the election from hillary!

    but like Mr. narciso says

    he screwed up the anthrax thing so bad he’ll probably shy away from the fungus angle out of sheer fbi cowardice

    advantage: Vladimir Putin

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  341. lol here’s an article for DRJ and Mr. Beldar

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  342. What we see here, having unpacked the arguments, is reasonable minds begging to differ. We have an acknowledgement of the parallels between Fred Baron and Michael Cohen, an acknowledgement of the risks these men faced by virtue of their illegal payments in aid of their principals’ campaigns (prison time and collateral consequences involving their licenses), and an implicit acknowledgement of the power each agent would have to cause serious legal trouble for his principal.

    You don’t think DOJ will indict Michael Cohen? Ha. Neither do I. We agree on that. But in all likelihood, Michael Cohen committed a crime. That was Potter’s main point. I bet Cohen is sweating bullets.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  343. DRJ’s great point has been overlooked. Why was Cohen complaining that Trump didn’t reimburse him if Trump was never told about the payoff? You’d think being Trump’s lawyer would make Cohen a much better liar than this.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  344. I think the reason that it’s been overlooked as that it is a largely unsubstantiated allegation, at this juncture. If Cohen had made any public statement to that effect, or any verifiable claim to that effect which could be utilized in cross-examination, we would be having a very different discussion.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  345. Did Cohen “complain?”

    BuDuh (eccdef)

  346. meanwhile pantyboi mattis is refusing to make reservations for Mr. Bolton

    girlfriend what part of “secretary” do you not understand

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  347. I probably should have read Leviticus @360 1st.

    Exactly.

    BuDuh (eccdef)

  348. 359 — if Trump was told, a key fact will be when he was told. If it was after the payoff, then he had no role in the putative campaign finance law violation by Cohen at the time Cohen paid the money.

    An interesting point raised by Potter is the question of whether Trump agreed to pay Cohen back.

    There is no limit on how much someone can spend on their own campaign. I can’t think of a scenario where it would have been a campaign finance violation for Trump to pay the entire $130,000 — but there would certainly have been an “optics” issue on a story they continue to deny.

    The Edwards case was premised on the fact that Edwards was never going to reimburse Mellon and Baron — the case was fought over the basis of whether the payments were “gifts” to Edwards personally, or in-kind contributions to his campaign.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  349. The report also says the level of fentanyl in Prince’s liver was 450 micrograms per kilogram, and notes that liver concentrations greater than 69 micrograms per kilogram “seem to represent overdose or fatal toxicity cases.”

    There was also what experts called a potentially lethal amount of fentanyl in Prince’s stomach. Dr. Charles McKay, president of the American College of Medical Toxicology, said generally speaking, the findings suggest Prince took the drug orally, while fentanyl in the blood and liver suggest it had some time to circulate before he died.

    Cheap painkiller that could off a walrus. In fact it’s tough to not kill a walrus. Gotta be real careful administering a dose. Way way more careful than a junkie.

    In the spirit of not letting a tragedy go to waist, we have a lot of people on death row because the lethal injection is deemed “inhumane”.

    What could be more peaceful and humane than a fentanyl milkshake?

    Poppies… poppies…. Poppies will put them to sleep. [YouTube]

    papertiger (c8116c)

  350. we’ve gone for a nice little stretch here without any particularly famous music people going caput at a too-young age

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  351. There’s a lot of ‘plausible deniability’ in Trumpland w/a lot of loyal lackeys willing to be rolled or get tossed under a Fifth Avenue bus for our Captain– in lieu of vague yet promised goodies to come. He banks on them forgetting Fifth Avenue is a one way street.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  352. I think the reason that it’s been overlooked as that it is a largely unsubstantiated allegation, at this juncture. If Cohen had made any public statement to that effect, or any verifiable claim to that effect which could be utilized in cross-examination, we would be having a very different discussion.
    Leviticus (efada1) — 3/27/2018 @ 2:36 pm

    True, there’s no way to know what’s true or not. It has been widely reported, I think starting with the WSJ, and it has a ring of truth to it. Trump not paying a debt he thinks he can weasel out of? Well of course he would do that. Again.

    The logic extends further than that. Why would Cohen, who is not that wealthy, do this particular favor for Trump, a billionaire? The last thing Trump needed was for Cohen to take a home equity loan and gift a billionaire $130,000. It seems likely enough that Trump was supposed to pay Cohen back, and not doing so has caused much of the drama.

    Did Cohen “complain?”
    BuDuh (eccdef)

    According to most media outlets, it’s well known that he did. It can’t be proven I suppose but those asserting he didn’t are going to have to explain why everything sure looks like that’s what happened.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  353. It has been widely reported,

    A common misconception. It has been widely re-reported. The WSJ seems to be the only outfit that talked to the unnamed sources. Everyone else quotes the WSJ. How to make a mountain out of an alleged molehill, media style.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  354. I think the reason that it’s been overlooked as that it is a largely unsubstantiated allegation, at this juncture. If Cohen had made any public statement to that effect, or any verifiable claim to that effect which could be utilized in cross-examination, we would be having a very different discussion.

    Leviticus (efada1) — 3/27/2018 @ 2:36 pm

    Did it ever come up on Fox and Friends?

    As an aside, I don’t know who the new blond gal is but I don’t miss old whatsherbucket at all.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  355. The Edwards case was premised on the fact that Edwards was never going to reimburse Mellon and Baron — the case was fought over the basis of whether the payments were “gifts” to Edwards personally, or in-kind contributions to his campaign.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 3/27/2018 @ 3:11 pm

    Does it ever get into Spitzer territory?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  356. Can some clever guy get around pandering laws by not paying to sleep with women but pay them to sign an NDA?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  357. Swc 350,

    CREW thought the DOJ’s indictment was unlikely to succeed because the law was unclear and the two main witnesses were unavailable:

    The prosecution’s theory rests on a 2000 FEC advisory opinion providing that payments made to candidates to compensate for their loss of employment income would be campaign contributions. In this case, however, there is no allegation that any payments were made directly to Sen. Edwards. Additionally, in a more relevant 2002 FEC enforcement case, all six commissioners unanimously agreed that a loan made to a congressman to help defray the costs of his divorce proceedings was not a campaign contribution because the two had a pre-existing personal relationship. So too here, Mr. Baron and Mr. Edwards were longstanding friends. Finally, the unavailability of key witnesses will make this case difficult to try: Mr. Baron died in 2008 and Ms. Mellon is 100 years old.

    Sen. Edwards’ conduct was despicable and deserves society’s condemnation, but that alone does not provide solid grounds for a criminal case. DOJ’s scattershot approach to prosecuting public officials is incomprehensible and undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system.”

    The witness(es) are available in Trump’s case.

    In addition, the FEC’s position at Edwards’ trial was that Edwards, et al, did not violate campaign finance laws because the payments weren’t made solely to influence the election.

    That “solely” is why the timing of the payment to Stormy matters since it was made in October 2016 — just weeks before the election, even though the alleged affair had happened in 2006. Why would Trump or Cohen or anyone on Trump’s team worry about this hurting Trump’s family in 2016 when they hadn’t worried about it for 10 years? Unless they sent someone to warn her in 2011, but that opens up even more problems for Trump, doesn’t it?

    DRJ (15874d)

  358. World’s Largest Marine Sanctuary Created in Antarctica
    OCT 28, 2016

    And a United Nations agency has concluded a deal to create the world’s largest marine reserve. Today’s agreement sets aside an area in Antarctica’s Ross Sea that’s nearly as big as the state of Alaska. This is U.S. State Department official Evan Bloom.

    Evan Bloom: “We’ve had a real achievement today. We’ve created the world’s largest marine protected area, and that’s a major step forward for marine conservation globally. So, it’s a wonderful moment.”

    The marine sanctuary is home to whales, seals, penguins and other animals. The agreement on the Ross Sea sanctuary came as the World Wildlife Fund released a shocking new study that finds more than two-thirds of the world’s wildlife could be gone by 2020.

    Should vast resources be excluded from development by rich people based solely on obvious over the top cartoonish lies from special interest shells funded by rich people?

    papertiger (c8116c)

  359. We don’t know what Trump knew or what Cohen told him, but if there are witnesses that Cohen was complaining then that is circumstantial evidence Trump knew about the payment. Lots of “ifs” there but prosecutions are often based on circumstantial evidence. At trial, jurors decide whether or not they believe the witnesses.

    DRJ (15874d)

  360. I can’t think of a scenario where it would have been a campaign finance violation for Trump to pay the entire $130,000 — but there would certainly have been an “optics” issue on a story they continue to deny.

    The Trump campaign did not report the payment to Stormy to the FEC. The failure to report is the violation.

    DRJ (15874d)

  361. A common misconception. It has been widely re-reported. The WSJ seems to be the only outfit that talked to the unnamed sources. Everyone else quotes the WSJ. How to make a mountain out of an alleged molehill, media style.

    BuDuh

    It’s pretty irrational to believe that Cohen would take out a home equity loan to give a billionare $130,000 he doesn’t have. Why would he do that? Also, Cohen’s a lawyer and realizes Trump paying off the porn star is lawful and Cohen doing it is an unlawful campaign contribution.

    Trump realizing he can just leverage this slime and not pay the relatively small amount of money is something only Trump would do.

    It all adds up.

    Your theory, to the extent I can even call it one, is silly. It lacks common sense. A lot of Trump’s defenses seem to work this way. A lot of them complain about making mountains out of mole hills too.

    End of the day, say what you want about whether this payoff was illegal or not, but Trump is a degenerate, and defending him harms our moral fabric.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  362. They didn’t have an obligation to report it until they knew about it.

    And they can cure their error — if its a contribution which Cohen continues to deny — by filing and amended report. The only consequence generally is a fine.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  363. Trump knew about it if Cohen was acting as Trump’s agent and attorney instead of solely as his friend. The fact that the signed non-disclosure agreement may have been mailed to Cohen as a Trump official at the Trump offices would be evidence Trump knew and/or Cohen was acting as Trump’s agent.

    DRJ (15874d)

  364. The Edwards’ case shows that a fine isn’t the only consequence.

    DRJ (15874d)

  365. if the dirty hooker returns the monies then it’s all good in the hood

    but i think someone should sue her boobies off (term of art)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  366. 374 — the trial judge did not give the “sole intent” instruction that the FEC referenced. The defense sought that instruction, but the Court gave a instruction that the intentions could be mixed. That was a more favorable prosecution instruction because they didn’t have to rule out all other possible motivations for the giving of the money.

    And while they didn’t have Mellon or Baron, they had Andrew Young — he was in on the scheme from the start. He received Mellon’s money through an intermediary, and he spent it to help hide Hunter.

    What Baron did wasn’t a secret, nor were his motives. He explained what they were doing to other campaign staffers.

    There was no shortage of evidence in the Edwards case that the over-riding consideration from May 2007 to January 2008 was to keep the affair and the love child out of the press so as to not compromise Edwards’ candidacy.

    And as set forth in the indictment, about $400,000 was paid in the month of January 2008, during which Edwards ran in 4 primaries.

    And this entire debate got started based on the Host’s comment that this case was stronger than the Edwards case because of the “timing” — according to Trevor Potter.

    But Potter claimed — in a bold faced falsehood – that the money paid in the Edwards case was “a year before the election.”

    That’s just not true. It was paid EVEN CLOSER to the election(s) than was the case in Trump — it was paid just before, and in between, primary contests.

    The principals said the expenditures were to keep Hunter out of the press.

    And still the jury would not convict.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  367. Two-thirds of the world’s wildlife could be gone by 2020!!!

    That Antarctic area of ocean set aside by the U.N. sadly came too late to save the Northern White Rhino.

    Ironically rhinos are endangered due to rich horny asians buying rhino horns to make their sticker peck up pills.

    If only the chicons would stop trying to rip off American patents and pay the face value for cealice the Rhinos would be free to go about their business, stomping out serengetti fires and such.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  368. 380 – you don’t get a criminal conviction based on agency or constructive knowledge.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  369. we should start a rino farm we all full up

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  370. 384 — sildenafil is the one patent that the Chicoms could rip-off and produce at a much lower price, and be applauded around the world for doing so.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  371. 374 — the trial judge did not give the “sole intent” instruction that the FEC referenced

    I know. That is why I said it was the FEC’s position.

    And still the jury would not convict.

    Do you think the fact this was a North Carolina jury had anything to do with the result? Edwards had been a popular Senator and favorite son Presidential candidate. His wife had died a year before, leaving 3 beautiful children that would effectively be orphaned by a guilty verdict. Couldn’t those things have had anything to do with the defense strategy and result?

    DRJ (15874d)

  372. 381 — did the gov’t win the Edwards case?

    The fact that they didn’t is why most people familiar with the laws and the facts urged a civil enforcement action rather than a criminal prosecution.

    Count 6, the failure to disclose count, again required a finding of “willfullness” on the part of the candidate.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  373. 388 — it may have played a role, but the sentiments of the court watchers that I read was just that the jury didn’t accept the argument that the conduct at issue should be criminalized.

    That was the entire basis of the defense — to attack the gov’t case as “over-reach”. The didn’t deny the facts or try to defend Edwards’ conduct.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  374. I’m not talking about agency or constructive knowledge, I’m talking about whether the evidence suggests Trump knew because Cohen would have or did tell him.

    DRJ (15874d)

  375. The Chinese aphrodisiac use of rhino horn likely runs a distant second to handles for jambiyas — the traditional Arab knife worn as a symbol of adulthood and social status.

    nk (dbc370)

  376. we should start a rino farm we all full up

    happyfeet (28a91b) — 3/27/2018 @ 5:00 pm

    Yep. And even though they’re never endangered, we could fill the trees at our rino farm with surrender monkeys.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  377. The jury didn’t nullify, they hung on 5 of 6 counts.

    DRJ (15874d)

  378. The Chinese aphrodisiac use of rhino horn likely runs a distant second to handles for jambiyas — the traditional Arab knife worn as a symbol of adulthood and social status.

    nk (dbc370)

    I got a solution for that too. Pat won’t like it.

    Seriously I’m just avoiding that John Paul Steven’s thread for I slip up and threaten murder on another judge.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  379. Things have been very quiet on the IG front after the firing of McCabe.

    I had a little birdie whisper in my ear that the IG report is going to be delivered to Congress this week — likely Friday.

    Not sure who quickly it will be made public — but I’m sure there will be leaks galore long before its made public.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  380. My theory right now, Dustin, is that you can’t articulate my theory so you are making one up and attributing it to me.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  381. You guys really need to ease up on taking what 17-year old kids and 90-year old men say too seriously.

    nk (dbc370)

  382. shipwreckedcrew, how much do you think the fact that Sessions fired McCabe before the IG had finished the report count in McCabe’s appeal of his firing? Or the effective date?

    nk (dbc370)

  383. The report has been already been presented, it just hasn’t been declassified, odd how every ridiculous rumor has been released ahead.

    yes its like in Andromeda strain where the toddler and the oldman, were immune from Andromeda one had blood chemistry

    narciso (d1f714)

  384. Alkalosis. The baby due to hyperventilation from crying, the hobo from drinking Sterno and/or a bleeding ulcer.

    I loved that book.

    nk (dbc370)

  385. I loved Andromeda Strain, too.

    DRJ (15874d)

  386. The witness(es) are available in Trump’s case.

    DRJ (15874d) — 3/27/2018 @ 4:25 pm

    Trump still has the power to pardon or commute.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  387. Should vast resources be excluded from development by rich people based solely on obvious over the top cartoonish lies from special interest shells funded by rich people?

    papertiger (c8116c) — 3/27/2018 @ 4:30 pm

    If it’s a real Marine Sanctuary you should totally go build a summer house there.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  388. October 7th 2016 was the day the Wapo reported the Access Hollywood secret recording.

    Also the day the yet to be named #metoo twitter movement was launched.

    Twenty-one days later, Oct. 28th, Stormy Daniels signs the NDA and collects $13

    papertiger (c8116c)

  389. It’s pretty irrational to believe that Cohen would take out a home equity loan to give a billionare $130,000 he doesn’t have.

    Dustin (ba94b2) — 3/27/2018 @ 4:35 pm

    Another thing my financial adviser said is at these interest rates I’d be a fool to not get a HELOC and pay off a hooker.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  390. If only the chicons would stop trying to rip off American patents and pay the face value for cealice the Rhinos would be free to go about their business, stomping out serengetti fires and such.

    papertiger (c8116c) — 3/27/2018 @ 4:57 pm

    There are too many of them anyway, we’ve been told.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  391. It’s easier for the U.N. to proclaim authority over places that nobody wants to visit. Saves them the bother of enforcing their no trespassing sign.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  392. Yes its the classic October surprise, I mentioned w dui from 1976, and Walsh throwing Iran contra into the mix, I also mention the Al qua qua booklet that El baradei threw into the mix, it was prudent on Cohen’s part to fall on his sword. Because leaving history to actually tell the tale is like Russian roulette.

    narciso (d1f714)

  393. @401/402. Great book- read it over a weekend back in the day. Original flick was good, too- still holds up well; just watched it again last week.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  394. He footnotes his work rather excessively, the one about the Arab visiting the Vikings, and hence beowulf was not done justice by Antonio banderas.

    narciso (d1f714)

  395. Anyone who tries to tell you you can buy hookers with no money down doesn’t know what they are talking about. You can flip them though.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  396. A few questions to ponder:
    1) whatever your line of work, if a married colleague was found to have been carrying on with another married or unmarried person, colleague or not, while on the job, would that colleague most likely lose his/her job?

    if your answer is “yes” to question #1, we’re on the same page.

    2) if in your line of work, the scenario described in #1 would lead to nothing more than raised eyebrows, attaboys and maybe a turn being the subject of gossip around the water cooler or the local bar, what do you think gives you the right to call anyone a “degenerate”?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  397. You guys really need to ease up on taking what 17-year old kids and 90-year old men say too seriously.
    nk (dbc370) — 3/27/2018 @ 5:15 pm

    Ah but it makes the comments section so entertaining. Much better than reading the news which can be so dry.

    Marci (98fec4)

  398. That’s because the news is made uninteresting, often by leaving out key facts, say with how exactly miss Clifford ended up in a position to dispatch vitter, after seven years. What is the reputation of her handler, Mr. Avelenetta. Under what circumstances did her campaign manager’s car get blown up, sounds like an ncis new orleans story arc.

    narciso (d1f714)

  399. Seth Mandel
    @SethAMandel
    (news focuses on fact that Trump is a rich dude who bangs porn stars and playmates)

    “Why are his poll numbers improving? This makes no sense.”

    You’re adorable, folks.

    harkin (1cc715)

  400. Leviticus says:

    What we see here, having unpacked the arguments, is reasonable minds begging to differ. We have an acknowledgement of the parallels between Fred Baron and Michael Cohen, an acknowledgement of the risks these men faced by virtue of their illegal payments in aid of their principals’ campaigns (prison time and collateral consequences involving their licenses), and an implicit acknowledgement of the power each agent would have to cause serious legal trouble for his principal.

    You don’t think DOJ will indict Michael Cohen? Ha. Neither do I. We agree on that. But in all likelihood, Michael Cohen committed a crime. That was Potter’s main point. I bet Cohen is sweating bullets.

    DRJ says:

    That “solely” is why the timing of the payment to Stormy matters since it was made in October 2016 — just weeks before the election, even though the alleged affair had happened in 2006. Why would Trump or Cohen or anyone on Trump’s team worry about this hurting Trump’s family in 2016 when they hadn’t worried about it for 10 years? Unless they sent someone to warn her in 2011, but that opens up even more problems for Trump, doesn’t it?

    These comments both strike me as quite correct.

    In other words, the timing matters, and there could be a crime here if it was done with Trump’s knowledge, and the timing is relevant to these issues.

    I don’t remember saying the John Edwards prosecution was the most awesome and bulletproof prosecution of all time. I remember saying that John Edwards was indicted for similar activity, although his case did not result in a conviction, and that the timing makes this a stronger case. All that still seems to me to be true, what with the general election being days off, Trump’s treatment of women being a hot topic at the time, and a ten-years-old allegation being squashed with just days to go in the election.

    I’m still a little amazed this rather mild opinion became cause for an avalanche of wordy and repetitive insulting vituperation.

    I guess apologies are out of fashion in the Trump era.

    Patterico (2975ef)

  401. “Why are his poll numbers improving? This makes no sense.”

    “Hain’t we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain’t that a big enough majority in any town?” — Huckleberry Finn

    nk (dbc370)

  402. Could be the economy is improving for cereal, Islamic state has taken some hits, new that’s crazy talk.

    narciso (d1f714)

  403. Most likely these were support payments to rielle, recall that mickey Klaus couldn’t get anyone to report on the story for the better part of a year. The same crew that went rampaging through wasilla like a rabid moose, the following year.

    narciso (d1f714)

  404. Could be the economy is improving for cereal,

    Affluenza. Tolerance, including tolerance of alternative lifestyles, is in direct proportion to affluence. That’s how we got Western Liberalism to begin with.

    nk (dbc370)

  405. Except in the previous eight years, we were treading water like the swimmer in the jaws poster.

    narciso (d1f714)

  406. The same crew that went rampaging through wasilla like a rabid moose on a meth-fueled bender

    Dang it, get it right, narciso, lol.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  407. /2424. A regular Jodrell Bank shot:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQYNvEPi9-s

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  408. ^424.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  409. Of course there is warren Ellis ministry of space, that posits an alternate reality

    narciso (d1f714)

  410. 428. Or ol’whatzizname– Doctor Who??

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  411. “Why are his poll numbers improving? This makes no sense.”

    “Hain’t we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain’t that a big enough majority in any town?” — Huckleberry Finn

    nk (dbc370) — 3/27/2018 @ 7:39 pm

    Raccoons are notoriously pesky, but are they as clever as crows?

    Scientists recently put the masked mammals through the Aesop’s Fable test, which measures if animals can discern cause and effect by displacing water to access food.

    The experiment is based on the story in which a thirsty crow can’t drink from a pitcher with a low level of water. By dropping in stones, the bird raises the water level and is able to drink. (Related: “Watch Clever Birds Solve a Challenge From Aesop’s Fables.”)

    NATGEO

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  412. /2424. A regular Jodrell Bank shot:

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 3/27/2018 @ 8:16 pm

    Mr Will Rogers got kinda pudgy there at the end.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  413. corvids eff yeah

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  414. 418

    Its not a stronger case when compared to Edwards, and the timing likely isn’t the most important detail — the most important detail MAY be whether there was an intention for Trump to pay Cohen back.

    Timing: The money was paid on Edwards behalf — with Edwards knowledge and as a result of his solicitation — in the month of January, 2018. Edwards participated in 4 elections in January 2018 — on Jan 3, 8, 19, and 29. That’s MORE temporally connected than is the case of a payment three weeks before the election. The distinction between the two really isn’t meaningful, but there is no way to claim the timing is more inculpable here than was the case with Edwards. Potter simply didn’t understand the Edwards facts when making that claim, especially considering that he said the payments in Edwards were a year before the election. They weren’t.

    The key might be whether or not Cohen was merely “fronting” the money, and was going to be reimbursed.

    It would not be a violation of campaign finance laws for Trump to have paid Daniels to stay quiet — he can spend his money however he likes in furtherance of his campaign.

    If Cohen expected he going to be paid back — which seems to be suggested by the fact that he took the money from a home equity line of credit on his house — then the payment was in the form of a personal unsecured loan made to Trump personally, and not an in=kind contribution to his campaign.

    There are limits on personal loans made “in connection with” the campaign — but that’s just an invitation to a morass to try and figure out what constitutes “in connection with” a campaign.

    The reason Trump doesn’t want to “front” out the idea he was going to pay Cohen back is simply that it makes it more clearly “hush” money, and makes it more likely that people will credit her claims. Frankly, I think that horse is out of the barn, and they shouldn’t make any decisions based on reversing that outcome.

    But I think the effort right now is to simply let the whole thing blow over, and cooler heads inside the White House are telling Trump “Remember Mike Wolff’s book?? Who is talking about that now? Nobody.”

    The same will probably be true with respect to Stormy in 2 weeks.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  415. Stormy got her first name from Nikki Sixx’s kid and her last name from Jack Daniels so she might not be talking two weeks from now.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  416. You would not believe what Motley Crue did to keep their girlfriend’s off the scent as it were. Maybe I’ve said too much.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  417. The timing smells like extortion perpetrated by Swarmy Daniels.

    Trump didn’t sign anything, didn’t pay anything, and in those hectic few weeks in October, dozens of floozies with vague to no connection to Trump were jumping out of the wood work to claim he had cursed, them bumped them on the airliner, tried to pick them up, whatever they could come up with to try and get him to drop out of the race. Daniels, if the lawyer hadn’t took it upon himself to roil the water, would have been just another in a long line of WaPo make believe posts (based on word of an extortionist porn tart).

    papertiger (c8116c)

  418. everybody hates Stormy Daniels cause her giant fake boobies look like they smell like over-ripe fat girl

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  419. I don’t know if I’m an easy *** but this new Roseanne is pretty funny. It’s surprising that ABC kicked Tim Allen to the curb.

    Pinandpuller (3f8f72)

  420. @431. Mr Will Rogers got kinda pudgy there at the end.

    A PP, PP; a prominent proboscis. Ah yes, yes indeed.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  421. @438. Did she open the reboot w/a reboot of the National Anthem standing or kneeling?

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  422. @431. Mr Will Rogers got kinda pudgy there at the end.

    A PP, PP; a prominent proboscis. Ah yes, yes indeed.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 3/28/2018 @ 12:52 am

    In total seriousness, did WC Fields go thru a whole thing like Bobcat Goldthwaite? The normal voice threw me.

    Pinandpuller (3f8f72)

  423. @438. Did she open the reboot w/a reboot of the National Anthem standing or kneeling?

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 3/28/2018 @ 12:54 am

    Funny you should say that. The main premise is that Roseanne is MAGA and Jackie is a Nasty Woman. They sit down to eat dinner and Roseanne says she’s going to pray so she asks Jackie if she would like to take a knee.

    It’s a lot like Shameless lite and they bring up modern issues but they don’t preach. And Darlene is definitely not gay.

    Somehow everyone looks better than they did back then. I hope Tom Arnold doesn’t come back, that dude is annoying af.

    Pinandpuller (3f8f72)

  424. 438, the whole premise behind the reboot might be a discouragement of a Tim Allen lawsuit. Note that Bahr in real life is a Pence-is-Worser.

    urbanleftbehind (0fad9b)

  425. Daniels, if the lawyer hadn’t took it upon himself to roil the water, would have been just another in a long line of WaPo make believe posts (based on word of an extortionist porn tart).

    Well, you know my alternative theory. That Trump is desperate to portray himself as a manly man who likes women and not … you know. His daddy used to hire escorts for him to provide him cover when he was young, and the only thing that changed as he got older is that he now finds his own women who, in Victorian parlance, “farm their bodies”. To him, this might be more of a positive than a negative. It certainly seems to be among the gap-toothed segment of his constituency.

    nk (dbc370)

  426. Vachel Lindsay was an American poet who died in 1931. His most famous poem, The Congo: A Study Of The Negro Race, would create a movement to repeal the First Amendment today. Is this why this Twitterer took the name? As a dogwhistle?

    For people who don’t click links:

    I. THEIR BASIC SAVAGERY
    Fat black bucks in a wine-barrel room,
    Barrel-house kings, with feet unstable,
    Sagged and reeled and pounded on the table,
    Pounded on the table,
    Beat an empty barrel with the handle of a broom,
    Hard as they were able,
    Boom, boom, BOOM,
    With a silk umbrella and the handle of a broom,
    Boomlay, boomlay, boomlay, BOOM.

    nk (dbc370)

  427. nk, given the rise of the “our kind of f–” phenomenon (see Milo Y., the Gayteway Pundit etc) and overall general acceptance, even that particular revelation would not cause a rush for the exits.

    urbanleftbehind (0fad9b)

  428. Its [sic] not a stronger case when compared to Edwards

    This is your opinion. My opinion is different, in part based on the age of the Trump allegations. That’s a point DRJ made that I have not really seen you address.

    But anyway, my real point was not so much to argue endlessly about comparing the cases, but to say that my opinion was hardly so absurd as to justify your words of mockery. In short, since my previous hint went unnoticed, I really am owed an apology here. I already listed in a single comment above several examples of the repeated scorn and contempt you heaped on my head — for an opinion that, in the final analysis, is not ridiculous … but which you just happen to disagree with.

    It was not the result of incredible ignorance, although clearly I don’t care about the facts of the Edwards case as much as you do. It’s simply a different point of view. I should be able to express a different point of view without being lectured on how ignorant and sloppy I am. It’s not necessary for every Internet argument to end with a flourish that says in essence “and you’re stupid for saying so.”

    Patterico (90b76a)

  429. Also, in my opinion “right before the general election is always a stronger case than “right before some primary” — all otyer things being equal — because there are many primaries but only one general.

    Patterico (90b76a)

  430. I don’t disagree, urbanleftbehind. I wonder if Trump discussed it with Leo Varadkar whom he recently hosted at the White House.

    nk (dbc370)

  431. 359. Dustin (ba94b2) — 3/27/2018 @ 2:34 pm

    . Why was Cohen complaining that Trump didn’t reimburse him if Trump was never told about the payoff?

    I don’t think he actually said that. Cohen said he wasn’t reimbursed either by Trump or by the Trump organization. He was not complaining, he was claiming.

    To most people it doesn’t make sense that Cohen would do this on his own. It defies common sense to believe that, IF Trump had anything to do with this – and he had no particular reason to do this – it was not the worst accusation against him – it defies belief that if he arrranged it he did so without promising to reimburse Cohen.

    Imagine this conversation.

    MC: I think it’s important we pay money to stop Stormey Daniels from talking.

    DT: It’s not necessary.

    MC: I still think it’s important

    DT: IF you want to do that, pay for it yourself.

    Another thing:

    We’re supposing that Trump paid for it, but the reason it was done this way was that Trump wanted to hide the expenditure. But if done this way it would only be as a result of Trump’s relative inexperience in political campaigning.

    Hillary Clinton knew what to do when she wanted to hide an expenditure. Account for it as (ancillary to) legal fees. That’s how Fusion GPS (and Christopher Steele) was paid.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  432. You’d think being Trump’s lawyer would make Cohen a much better liar than this.

    Maybe he’s not lying.

    It might have been a third party who reimbursed or fronted the $130,000, and not for campaign related reasons.

    People she did business with who don’t want attention.

    That business is mobbed up, like garbage collection. And she is heavily involved with horse racing — another business which has illegality sometimes.
    And she’s kept them out of the news.

    The New York Times did a profile about her, and their names are not in the news.

    We get her high school, a few named sources, her maiden name, the names of her parents`(she claims she has not been in touch with either of them for at least ten years. They got divirced when she was four) the last name of her first husband and the names of her next two husbands, the fact that she is married to her third husband, who is the father of her daughter, and all three husbands were in the porn business.

    The business gets called seamy but we don’t hear any details.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/24/style/stormy-daniels.html

    “She was a very serious businesswoman and a filmmaker and had taken the reins of her career,” said Judd Apatow, who directed her cameos in the R-rated comedies “Knocked Up” and “The 40-Year-Old Virgin.” “She is not someone to be underestimated.”

    In her own scripts, she has gravitated at times toward more ambitious productions, with elaborate plotlines and nods to politics.

    Her standards on set can be exacting. Ms. Clifford does not mind firing people, colleagues said, banishing those who flub a scene or gild a résumé. She has demanded that an actor change his “dumb” stage name because it would look silly on her promotional materials. And she has coaxed singular performances from her charges, once guiding Mr. Jeremy through a scene in which he sang to her small dog.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  433. Good grief, Sammy!

    nk (dbc370)

  434. 59. nk (dbc370) — 3/26/2018 @ 9:23 am

    as far as I’m concerned the Ivanka stuff never happened.

    Trump made a somewaht similar comment on the Howard Stern show.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kikTv0I8XVw

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ctPCc6qx2M

    Now maybe these women are lying counting on it being credible because Donald trump said these other things.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  435. 455. nk (dbc370) — 3/28/2018 @ 10:34 am

    455.Good grief, Sammy!

    It explains everything. Why the lawyer would claim – even afetr litigatgion had begun – that Trump didn’t reimburse him, something that could be disproven if Trump did. Why trump didn’t sign it even using a pseudonym. Why this deal was done at all.

    The timing makes sense if someone else was afraid of publicity. But trump, why would he care about thsi so much? eren’t ther worse accusations out against him? The onl;y new point would be taht thsi occured after his marriage to Melania.

    Now they wanted Stormy Daniels to think it was Trump who was paying the hush money.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  436. No, I meant the elegiac in the New York Times. She got some lowlifes same as her in her racket to praise her and the NYT swallowed it like it (the NYT) was “acting” in one of her movies.

    nk (dbc370)

  437. Karen McDougal’s silence was bought by the National Enquirer. They got her to sign an exclusive deal, and tehn never ran the story, a technique known as “catch and kill” She also thoyhght they promised to give her a column or soemthing, but then was told they bought only ther “rights” to some writings by her.

    So now she’s suing to get out of the contract and the National Enquirer says they may run a story about her.

    cchttps://www.forbes.com/sites/legalentertainment/2018/03/20/trump-affair-accuser-karen-mcdougal-sues-national-enquirer-parent-in-order-to-speak/#5e267afd1cf9

    Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who allegedly had relations with Donald Trump, is suing publishing company American Media Inc. (AMI) over a contract that prevented McDougal from speaking publicly about the alleged affair. AMI, which owns the National Enquirer and whose CEO David Pecker is a friend of Donald Trump’s, bought McDougal’s story and her silence in 2016 for $150,000, which led to several allegedly broken promises.

    According to e-mails between the affected parties, AMI suggested possible collaborations with McDougal for publicity and career opportunities alongside the publication of her story. The company also allegedly threatened financial retaliation against McDougal should she share the story with any other sources, including press inquiries. McDougal and her lawyers are claiming that since AMI never published or intended to publish the story, and did not follow through on other professional offers, the contract was fraudulent and invalid. Thus, McDougal would not be obligated to uphold her silence, and efforts to limit her past publicity opportunities would have been illegitimate.

    A Wall Street Journal story published before the presidential election claims that AMI’s contract is valid and never stated a requirement for the Enquirer to actually run the story. This contractual technique, called “catch and kill,” has been used by tabloids in the past to silence otherwise potentially damaging stories. However, a corporate spokesperson for AMI recently said to CNN that McDougal “has been free to respond to press inquiries about her relationship to President Trump since 2016.”

    All of these things were arranged by the lawyers. Without Donald Trump putting up a cent, or, probably, even asking them to.

    Could the National Enquirer be accused of making an illegal corporate campaign contribution

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  438. 458. nk (dbc370) — 3/28/2018 @ 10:47 am

    No, I meant the elegiac in the New York Times. She got some lowlifes same as her in her racket to praise her and the NYT swallowed it like it (the NYT) was “acting” in one of her movies.

    The writers of the New York Times artivle may have felt a little but uncomfortable about the story. They wrote:

    By now, the public knows both too much about Ms. Clifford, who goes by Stormy Daniels, and almost nothing at all.

    They did try to dignify her.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  439. And yes, the porn industry is a legalized racket. Like gambling, and now marijuana and non-filmed (you hope) prostitution in some places. When a racket makes enough money, it stops buying the cops and politicians retail and buys the politicians wholesale.

    nk (dbc370)

  440. The three-tier liquor distribution system too, with the middle oligapoly of distributors taking the place the mobs of the Prohibition era.

    nk (dbc370)

  441. *oligopoly*

    nk (dbc370)

  442. According to the New York Times:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/us/ex-playboy-model-sues-to-break-silence-on-trump.html

    Ms. McDougal, in a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, claims that Mr. Cohen was secretly involved in her talks with the tabloid company, American Media Inc., and that A.M.I. and her lawyer at the time misled her about the deal. She also asserts that after she spoke last month with The New Yorker, which obtained notes she kept on Mr. Trump, A.M.I. warned that “any further disclosures would breach Karen’s contract” and “cause considerable monetary damages.”

    According to Forbes AMI is denying “the allegations.”

    Anderson Cooper interviewed both of the women: Karen McDougal on CNN, and “Stormy Daniels” )Stephanie Clifford) on CBS.

    Maybe it’s people connected with that Lake Tahoe golf tournament who fronted all the money. Does that make sense?

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  443. @443 Colonel Haiku

    Award for conspicuous gallantry is now throwing yourself on a d***. With clusters.

    Pinandpuller (2629a2)

  444. @444 urbanleftbehind

    Norm Macdonald is some kind of producer. But so are Morgan Murphy and Wanda Sykes rhythms with.

    Pinandpuller (2629a2)

  445. @442 I hope Tom Arnold doesn’t come back, that dude is annoying af.

    True Lies; Oscar worthy BSA; denied!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  446. Too sweet…

    Stephanie (Clifford) Knows Who

    What’s in your life, dear Stephanie
    What’s in your life for us
    Pricks and moans they cloud your sight
    But tired you did you said you did
    What can we say, dear Stephanie
    Who shall we next inform
    Teh love and skanky that you bring
    Your eyes, your hair, your everything
    Yeah
    Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
    Come on, come on, come on, come on
    What are you now, dear Stephanie
    What is this new disguise
    The words they come so naturally
    They save them all for Stephanie, yeah
    Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
    Come on, come on, come on, come on
    Hey, all right
    Talk about ‘er all the time
    From a to z and in between
    Say it sweet all the time
    All the time, yeah

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9oqmaOSHmJM

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  447. That is the perfect song for Stephanie aka Stormy…

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  448. @441…The normal voice threw me.

    ‘It’s that Vitaphone; whatchadointome?!’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  449. Apparently it was on the set of true lies that Eliza dushku was being abused, but no one knew nothing.

    narciso (d1f714)

  450. BuDuh,

    It’s my impression that you haven’t liked my comments over the past weeks. If so, is it about Trump or something else? I’d like to discuss it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  451. I didn’t know cocaine could give you COPD, Tom Arnold.

    Pinandpuller (432cd9)

  452. Are the Jackson sons (North Side distributorship that John Kass mentions a lot) part of that mid tier, nk?

    urbanleftbehind (0fad9b)

  453. Yes. Or were, anyway.

    nk (dbc370)

  454. 315. The lengthy of the narration showed the lengths over time, through multiple parties, with multiple payments, right through the actual participation by Edwards in 4 elections, when money was being spent on his behalf to cover up the existence of his affair and love child, which according to Potter and the Edwards prosecutors were actually campaign contributions above the legal limit by two wealthy Edwards supporters.

    Or are you impervious to facts like Patrick?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 3/27/2018 @ 11:27 am

    I want to revisit this topic now that some time has passed and our passions have cooled.

    IMO these facts support the argument Edwards made that the payments to Rielle Hunter were primarily to protect his marriage, not his candidacy. Why? Because they were made over the time she was pregnant and after her baby was born, spanning a period of several months or years, including for months after he ended his Presidential campaign in January 2008.

    On the other hand, Trump apparently did nothing about Stormy Daniels for 10 years, and Cohen only negotiated the NDA a month or so before the general election.

    The timing in these cases makes a big difference.

    DRJ (15874d)

  455. That’s incorrect, drj, Cohen tried to stop publication in 11.

    narciso (d1f714)

  456. Sorry for not closing my link tab. Try again:

    Thank you, narciso, for that correction. Are you referring to the report that Cohen offered money to get Stormy to cancel an interview about the alleged affair, when Trump was in the middle of his 2011 Presidential campaign? If anything, that makes my point even stronger. Unlike the Edwards’ financial supporters, Trump’s supporters only care about negative stories when Trump is in campaign mode and running for President.

    DRJ (15874d)

  457. If anything, that makes my point even stronger. Unlike the Edwards’ financial supporters, Trump’s supporters only care about negative stories when Trump is in campaign mode and running for President.

    Totally. Prior to that, Trump was bragging about the “piece[s] of ass” (his words) he bought (my word). Case in point, the nude Melania photo shoot he arranged (different from the one published in the NY Post, narciso) that became an issue only when that ostensible Cruz supporter in Utah re-revealed the photos during the primary.

    nk (dbc370)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.0570 secs.