As ‘60 Minutes’ Prepares Stormy Daniels Interview, Lawyers Battle

The most obscene of those terms would be President of the United States. The other terms are working professions.

The more Trump pushes back - the more publicity it generates. Wouldn’t it be best to let her tell the story of consentual sex - and then let it die?

In my view - this is a non issue. This appears to be consentual sex between adults. I’m sure it was a nice notch in Trumps pornstar belt...

I’m guessing Trump has fucked other pornstars. He seems to be a horny guy - who enjoys fucking hot sexy women. It’s a non issue - as the sex appears consentual.

This is far from the Bill Clinton MO - which was either sexual harassment or rape.

^^^But it is a perjury trap for POTUS just like with Clinton he doesn’t know how to keep his fat mouth shut.

"It's a non issue - as the sex appears consentual"

Well, except that it's adultery, which is still illegal in Florida and New York. The "Christian" Right used to be against that kind of stuff, but I guess they're okay with it now. The bigger question is how a documented case of adultery would affect the pre-nup when Melania gets her inevitable divorce settlement. If only we had a decent divorce lawyer on this board who could clue us in.

^^^It probably wouldn’t affect it that much but who cares adultery is almost never prosecuted in either FL or NY but perjury is and fairly often, so is money laundering and that is what this case is ultimately about.

If they pursue an adultery case - that would be a sad, last-ditch effort to take down a seated president.

I’d guess Trump made sure he had a clause in his prenup allowing him to fuck around. With his desire for pussy - it would be stupid to think he would be faithful.

Perjury is always a danger. Especially with a president who has a very big mouth. Hopefully his Twitter tweets are considered hyperbole.

Nice dig Dougster.

If Trump really wants to clear this up, maybe he should hold a White House press conference, with his wife at his side, and declare "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Stormy Daniels." Oh, wait...never mind, bad idea.

"The "Christian" Right used to be against that kind of stuff, "
_________
80% of white evangelicals voted for Trump; 60% of Mormons voted for Trump. He owns casinos, married three times, fucks porn-stars -- none of that matters.

I’d love to see him turn the bedroom on AF1 into a boom-boom room! He could put purple shag carpet in - add a couple of stripper poles - one of those sex swings, some mood lighting, etc.

Put a sign on the door - “It’s not turbulence! I’m getting it on!!!!”

"This is far from the Bill Clinton MO - which was either sexual harassment or rape."
________________
Probably false. Lewinski herself wrote that the affair was consensual.

Most people don't give a shit what people do in their private lives, whether it's Trump or Clinton. In this case, there's big money to made by Stormy Daniels. So it makes sense for her to return the $130K chump change and make some real money -- since the clock is ticking away at what's left of her beauty. Maybe the $130K somehow violated campaign laws? Otherwise it's a non-issue.

Article that came out a few days ago about Trump support by evangelicals:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc…

RandomMember - even if consentual - it could still be harassment as he was President at the time - and she was an intern. Also, that’s not the Clinton affair I was referring to as rape. There are a few others that were non consentual.

Yeah, I get your point, @Cashman and it might be considered harassment considering the age difference and power imbalance. Especially right now with the @MeToo movement. But I suspect Lewinski was just starstruck.

In another note on the same topic Who’s afraid of the NRA- apparently Trump is after doing a complete 180 on age limits for gun purchases.

And now Stormy has offered to give back the hush money payed to her to end the lawsuit.
The entertainment value here is priceless.

@RandomMember that’s a good point - with respect to Lewinski. It’s difficult for a President to play around with any woman in Washington -and not have it appear to be harassment - due to his position.

@RandomMember,

There's much more to the Clinton story than just Monica Lewinsky. There are also claims of forcible rape, which are about as substantial as the claims against Trump. During the 90s, very few people seemed to be aware of the rape allegations against Clinton, for one reason or another, and sadly the public narrative focused on an episode of consensual sex (and perjury).

In politics, the greatest sin of all is hypocrisy. And Clinton was certainly hypocritical - several sources claim that Clinton made more references to God, and appeared in more churches during his term, than any previous president, despite being a "fallen man." By contrast, there just doesn't seem to be much hypocrisy in Trump. He only occasionally mentions religion, and I don't recall ever hearing him preach about how people should conduct their sex lives.

As has already been pointed out, the hypocrisy is obviously coming from the evangelical base of the GOP that voted for Trump despite his litany of flaws. If Barack Obama had said or done half the things that Trump has, they wouldn't be in quite the same forgiving mood.

Conservatives now claim that they knew Clinton was a rapist all along, but that's not true: the rape allegations were not common knowledge among the electorate in the 1990s. (It's been amusing watching liberal pundits "rediscover" Clinton's rape allegations today, in an environment of zero-tolerance.)

It was the consensual sex that got the Christians all riled up about Clinton in the 90s. I remember reading and hearing that Christians were embarrassed about having to talk to their children about oral sex at the time. So I hope they enjoy explaining this latest episode involving the guy they all lined up to vote for.

Many of them will say that it doesn't matter because it's all about the Supreme Court nominations. Ok. But the very same people will say that they don't want judges who "legislate from the bench." They want judges who exhibit restraint and defer to the legislature. This is all well and good... but only if the legislation is good in the first place! It didn't work out so well for them when the Obamacare ruling was handed down, and John Roberts (a Republican judge who seems to believe in Judicial Restraint) ultimately sided with the enemy and upheld the legislation.

Anyway, I can't wait until Trump nominates his pro-choice sister to the Supreme Court. Who was the last president to give Trump's sister a promotion? Well that would be Bill Clinton himself.

"It's a non issue - as the sex appears consentual"

It becomes a legal issue when you look at where the money came from. The monetary transaction was enabled by a Trump organization email and the transaction was linked to the campaign. So, that is not legal.

He can do anything and his followers will still worship him, so even though this goes against everything his base of evangelicals supposedly stand for, they will just chalk it up as a moment of weakness, forgive him, and send him their thoughts and prayers.

@BHF wrote, "Many of them will say that it doesn't matter because it's all about the Supreme Court nominations. Ok. But the very same people will say that they don't want judges who "legislate from the bench." They want judges who exhibit restraint and defer to the legislature. This is all well and good"

I only mention it because I've been reading evangelical blogs or watching evangelical vlogs, and one thing they consistently praise is the appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch. He seems to be universally what they are holding up as their main accomplishment of the Trump administration.

I still think some of that group thinks (incorrectly) that they can reverse the School Prayer / 10 Commandments issue. Sidestepping their preoccupation with sex, they also want vouchers for religious schools. Curious that they are okay with that, tax funds for religious schools, but they're not okay with taxpayer funds to pay for others abortions. Seems to be they're okay with tax payer funds going to people like them (vouchers, WIC, medicaid -- to poor Christians) but not people who disgust them (abortions, gays, out of wedlock sex, other religions or to nonreligious people).

Basically they're not getting their school prayer or 10 commandments back probably short of a constitutional amendment. Personally, I wish we could just give them BACK school prayer. I think it was a raw deal the way that atheist women took it away from them in that court case. It might settle the evangelicals down a bit. Or not.

Back to sex. Not sure what the evangelical preoccupation with sex is? Sexual purity is pretty important to them (is she still a virgin). Plus they hate homosexual sex, hate homosexual marriage, birth control, strippers, pornography, out of wed lock sex, premarital sex. It seems to disgust them. Are they still trying to change culture and roll back the clock on the sexual revolution?

^^^Yet the Evangelicals are usually involved in most of the sex scandals either as protagonists or perpetrators. LOL

@Dominic77,

I support school vouchers, too, although I'm certainly no evangelical. Under a voucher system, taxpayer funds don't go directly to religious institutions - they go back to the taxpayer to decide which school is best for his or her children. It's really no different than a person on Medicare or Medicaid being allowed to choose a Catholic hospital. Or a college student receiving FAFSA aid in order to attend a Catholic university. It's the same basic concept.

As for prayer in schools and the Ten Commandments in court houses, I think they're totally unconstitutional and I don't think they're coming back anytime soon. The issue is A) whether the government owns the property, and B) whether people are forced to be there. That's the difference between prayer in a public school and prayer in a religious school (even one that's being paid for with vouchers).

Anyway, I like Neil Gorsuch, too, and he remains one of the best things about the Trump presidency. But he doesn't believe in Judicial Restraint. He regularly stands up to the other two branches of government, even defending the rights of illegal immigrants from federal agencies, and routinely opposing the police on Fourth Amendment cases.

I think this is a good thing, but conservatives say they don't like it when a judge legislates from the bench. It's yet more proof that no one is really paying attention to what goes on in DC. People only care about the horserace, not the policies. Here's some brief links about Gorsuch's record:

https://reason.com/blog/2017/04/04/on-cr…

https://reason.com/archives/2017/04/19/g…

https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/01/neil-…

Stormy Daniels is the most important issue facing the American people in decades. At least according to the media.

@BHF, don’t disagree with vouchers being similar to paying catholic charities or catholic hospitals. Wasn’t saying that. I was more commenting on how they don’t want govt dollars going to things that disgust them but some affect them like abortion procedures or some of the off handed comments I hear from Christians in church about WIC, Medicaid going to non white non Christian women. But in contrast they will say a white Christian woman had “earned it” beucause ofncourse you pay into the system all those years.

I was thinking about school prayer mainly musing about it as a goodwill token. I understand the courts have already decided years ago it was unconstitutional. Even with that ruling something I wondered if we got it wrong. It could be the source of a lot of fighting and it really to me is not a big issue. I hate religion shoved in my face but really a short school prayer doesn’t offend nor inconvenience me. And for a long time we used to have them. Ditto for the 10 Commandments. To me it does matter if the 10C or “the rules to hop scotch” are carved in stone in govt buildings. But if it can heal, build good will, then what’s the harm?

The country is pretty fractured right now. I was trying to think of some compromises.

Trump's voters offended? Did they think they were electing a Sunday School teacher?

SJG

The supporters who have situational awareness seem to understand that they elected a Junkyard dog. Sometimes you just need a junkyard dog, I suppose. They have their places and their times. *shrugs*

@mark94 Actually it is, if you think it over the reason Trump can’t get people to work in his administration is because he is an abusive, arrogant SOB, everyone he asks to fill a position has to divest them self of their worldly possessions just to comply with ethics rules which don’t apply to him, yet the rules that do apply to him he openly flouts, ie: divest himself from his business holdings, yet Tillerson had to put his severance from Exxon in a blind trust. I could go on ad nauseum but jackasses like you don’t get the idea regardless, the fucking lawyer paid her off on his own, yeah right, used money from his personal HE line of credit, spare us your sanctimonious bullshit. Support Trump if you are so invested in this fucker all you like, but don’t spit in my face and try to tell me it’s raining.