The Jury Talks Back

1/18/2018

Porn Star: I Spanked Trump with a Forbes Magazine

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 8:30 pm

The best part about the dead trees version of Forbes, besides the fact that you can go straight to the article without having to read an inspirational quote on the way, is that you can whack a narcissistic sexagenarian on the rump with it. Susan Wright mentioned this earlier in passing, but come on. This deserves its own post. I’ll turn over the megaphone to Allahpundit, who says it better than I ever could:

The more salacious detail in this Mother Jones story, the one that will land on the cover of New York tabloids, is Daniels allegedly telling the same operative that she spanked Trump — with a copy of Forbes magazine. The thought of the populist alpha-male-in-chief being paddled submissively with the ruling class’s favorite publication by a buxom porn star is so irresistible, it almost doesn’t matter if it’s true or false. The image now exists, perfect in itself. There’s nothing to say about it that will improve upon it.

Oh, except this: Supposedly he was on the cover of the issue of Forbes that she used. *Kisses fingers*

If you’d told me in 2014 that the Wall Street Journal would credibly report that the next President of the United States had paid a porn star $130,000 not to tell the media about her affair with him, and the nation would collectively shrug and yawn . . . well, I’d be surprised, but a lot of things would have surprised me then. If you told me that there would be a story about that porn star spanking that married President on his rear with a magazine bearing his likeness on the cover — I just don’t know what to say. But this is where we are with this guy: it’s one outrageous thing after another, and nothing has changed anyone’s mind about him in almost two years and nothing’s going to.

But is that also true of Melania? How do you figure she is reacting to all this? Probably she’s fine. Kevin D. Williamson points out:

Melania Trump, asked whether she would have attached herself to Donald if he weren’t wealthy, scoffed at the question and frankly acknowledged the transactional nature of their relationship: “If I weren’t beautiful, do you think he’d be with me?” Trump, for his part, has been equally frank at times about the instrumental role Melania plays in his life: She’s a good advertisement for his brand. “When we walk into a restaurant, I watch grown men weep,” he said. It is worth keeping in mind that the Third Lady was an employee of Trump’s modeling agency before their marriage. Business is business.

If a woman is essentially paid to have sex with a man, however occasionally, I don’t think the woman is going to get too upset if someone else shoulders some of the burden for free. Or even for a payout of 130 grand, as long as plenty of spending money remains.

I know: people get very offended if I suggest that Melania is a gold digger. Well, I ain’t sayin’ she’s a gold digger! But she ain’t messin’ with no broke Donald.

If some blond porn star with enormous fake boobs wants to grab the reins, I don’t think Melania’s going to object much, unless he makes her look like too much of a fool. And she’s taken the ride this far.

I think Trump himself is kind of digging the whole story, too. Except, that is, for the part where Stormy said he was bad at sex:

In our conversations, Daniels said she was holding back on the juiciest details, such as her ability to describe things about Trump that only someone who had seen him naked would know. She intimated that her view of his sexual skill was at odds with the remark attributed to Marla Maples.

That kind of remark might interfere with his ability to get more tail. And it might wound his delicate pride.

The whole thing is a circus. But hasn’t everything always been a circus with this man?

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

Hey Leftists: Stop Trying to Make Hillary Happen!

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 8:30 am

My eye-rolling muscles got a workout recently when I read an article at the Federalist by Mollie Hemingway titled Treat ‘Mental Health’ Talk Against Trump Like The Coup Attempt It Is. (I’ll save you a click by summarizing the article for you: it’s a coup attempt because something something hey you remember that show “24” that nobody has watched in years OK that’s why.) But while talk of a “coup” seems to most normals like a hobby horse of the paranoid right, it’s worth remembering that Serious Legal Scholars are still spinning fantasies in Newsweek about vaulting the pantsuited witch into the Oval Office — not legitimately, in a duly held presidential election in 2020, but now:

Nearly a year after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, a Harvard University professor says 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton could still become commander in chief.

Lawrence Lessig, the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School, penned an essay for Medium in October outlining a series of hypothetical scenarios that could take place should the ongoing probe find that the Trump campaign actually conspired with Russia to influence the results of the election.

If Trump did conspire with Russia, the president “should resign, or, if he doesn’t, he should be impeached,” Lessig wrote in his essay. Vice President Mike Pence would also have to either resign or get impeached, which would make Speaker Paul Ryan the president of the United States, Lessig wrote at the time.

On Wednesday, Lessig told Newsweek this scenario was still a possibility.

The remarkable thing about this is not the idea, which is (as the article acknowledges) older than the election. It’s that Newsweek is still trying to garner clicks and eyeballs by reanimating this patent nonsense. Even Lessig seems embarrassed by it, saying that his description of how it could happen (chryon: it couldn’t) is “very different from saying I think it will happen, or should happen, or [that] the evidence is there for it to happen.” But the dream lives on, in the fever swamps of the left. And the hypocrisy is stunning indeed.

I know memories are short these days, but it was not that long ago that Election 2016 was around the corner and it became more and more “obvious” that Hillary Clinton was going to win. And do you remember how Serious Pundits Everywhere took Donald Trump to task for not pre-accepting the election results? In case you forgot, here’s a Reuters story from October 20, 2016 that appears on Newsweek.com — the same site running the “Hillary could be president!” fantasy over a year after the election. What were our friends on the left telling us then about accepting election results?

Several prominent Republicans on Thursday denounced Donald Trump’s refusal to commit to accepting the result of the presidential election, and some worried his stance might make it more difficult for his party to hold onto control of Congress. Trump’s refusal, which Democratic rival Hillary Clinton called “horrifying,” was the standout remark of their third and final debate on Wednesday night.

. . . .

Asked on Wednesday night by moderator Chris Wallace if he would commit to a peaceful transition of power, the businessman-turned-politician replied: “What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense. OK?” Trump’s statement, the most controversial in a debate that at times descended into insults by both candidates, made banner headlines across the country and raised questions about whether he was committed to a peaceful transition of power, a cornerstone of American democracy.

That “cornerstone” doesn’t seem so important when the Republican wins, though, does it?

How about that!

[Cross-posted at RedState.]


Powered by WordPress.