MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Don't Let President Trump Distract You with Stormy Daniels

The porn star headlined 60 Minutes last night. That won't end his presidency, or Washington's awfulness.

CBSCBSWhen the history of Donald Trump's presidency is written, one major theme will be how much he got away with. You can imagine him tweeting about it: Worst president ever? I didn't do anything @billclinton & JFK didn't do, but I did it bigly and openly. Sad!

Last night's 60 Minutes interview with porn director and actress Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford) is the most recent case in point. (Watch the clip and read a transcript here.) I'm not sure that anyone at this point doubts that she had a relationship with Trump, but she's convincing on that score and describes the one time she says they had fully consensual sex. At no point does she suggest he was coercive or violent, thus adding little to what has already been widely discussed.

He was married at the time, but the American public seems to care little that he may have committed adultery in his pre–White House years. He was dangling the possibility of an appearance on The Apprentice in front of Daniels as part of his come-on to her, but she insists that she's "not a victim," either of sex-by-force or a transparent ploy by Trump to get her into bed. The one note of terror she strikes comes in May 2011, after she had agreed to sell her story to a tabloid.

I was in a parking lot, going to a fitness class with my infant daughter. Taking, you know, the seats facing backwards in the backseat, diaper bag, you know, gettin' all the stuff out. And a guy walked up on me and said to me, "Leave Trump alone. Forget the story." And then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, "That's a beautiful little girl. It'd be a shame if something happened to her mom." And then he was gone....I was rattled. I remember going into the workout class. And my hands are shaking so much, I was afraid I was gonna drop her.

That's disturbing for a million different reasons, but also hard to corroborate. It sounds exactly like something a Trump minion would do. (Read this account of a young Trump trying to intimidate Jerome Tuccille, his first biographer, back in the 1980s.) Again, precisely because it's expected from Trump, it becomes less damaging.

But here is where Trump is more media-savvy than many in the media and many of his opponents in both the GOP and the Democratic Party. He knows we've seen this movie before, with Bill Clinton back in the 1990s, and with John F. Kennedy long before that. Kathleen Willey, a Democratic Party donor and White House volunteer, said that Clinton groped her while she was asking for a job and that his people killed her cat as a warning. Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of rape and a physical attack that included biting her lips so hard she bled. (His alleged parting comment to her, "You better put some ice on that," even became a dark tagline in the pre-meme era.) People still talk about JFK's sex life, which included strippers, Mafia molls, and interns. As Joshua C. Kendall writes in The Los Angeles Times,

While Trump presumably confined his grabbing of women's genitals to his pre-presidential days, Kennedy continued to do so while living in the people's house. As described by biographer Geoffrey Perret, Kennedy "brazenly put his hand up their skirts, propositioned them within minutes of meeting and groped their breasts and buttocks even as he danced with them."

None of this exonerates Donald Trump, especially from the charges of nonconsensual sexual behavior that have been levied by over a dozen women, but it strongly suggests that the Stormy Daniels story is unlikely to take him down a peg, much less remove him from office. There remains a question of whether hush money paid to Daniels by Trump's personal attorney violates campaign finance laws, but as former Reason staffer Radley Balko notes, that question is an indictment more of the law than of the president:

Reason, April 2000Reason, April 2000Here is where Trump is very much like Bill Clinton, but even more so: He is not embarrassed by anything that comes out about his personal or even professional life. Trump may well be the raging narcissist that his critics suppose, but being a narcissist means never having to say you're sorry. Clinton survived endless scandals because he "ignored traditional Washington wisdom for dealing with exploding scandal and instead used the capital's notorious scandal machine against itself," Charles Paul Freund wrote in Reason back in April 2000.

Clinton refused to give in to calls for the conventional morality and common decency that everyone simply expected politicians to heed back then, he didn't try to get "ahead of the story" with preemptive apologies that inevitably lead to more trouble, he used the power of the presidency to shift the focus to new areas, and he wasn't afraid to launch the odd missile strike or two to distract attention from domestic tumult. (He delayed his own impeachment trial via bomb runs!) "The lesson of the Clinton example is that [Richard] Nixon should have bombed somebody," Freund wrote. "While it probably wouldn't have saved his presidency, it would have bought him some time."

Trump has taken all of these lessons to the next level. He may not be playing 10-dimensional chess, but he doesn't have to. He's dealing with a press corps and political opponents who simply aren't at his level. This is the guy who managed to squeak out a win against Hillary Clinton, perhaps the only living politician who might have been able to take it to Trump.

Early on in Trump's ascendancy, Politico's Jack Shafer counseled that we should all "stop being Trump's Twitter fool," that we should focus on the song and not the singer. The Stormy Daniels interview lands just a few days after the president signed a ridiculously swollen omnibus spending bill that pours more gas on the nation's dumpster fire of debt while accomplishing virtually none of his party's legislative or policy goals. It also comes after he's named invasion-crazy John Bolton as his new national security adviser. Turn away from conversations about whether the pre-presidential Trump used a rubber during his adulterous assignation with a smart and serious adult-film auteur and start reading the budget bill that nobody in Washington had time to read. It is, like the budget deal preceding it, the worst of all possible worlds: It gives defense fanboys everything they want and more, while also blowing out any possible restraint on the domestic-spending side.

That's where the real damage that Trump and our elected representatives on both sides of the aisle is buried, in plain sight. Trump has already made history, his biggest ambition, simply by improbably becoming president. Whether he and other politicians crater our future through out-of-control spending and other actions is in our hands. But not yet in our sights.

Photo Credit: 60 Minutes, CBS

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...it strongly suggests that the Stormy Daniels story is unlikely to take him down a peg, much less remove him from office.

    And worse, it's taking precious news cycles away from the gun control kids.

  • Rhywun||

    White power! That's what the fist pumping was about, right...?

  • Fancylad||

    This is just Nick's bi-monthly signaling column so he doesn't get disinvited to parties

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    That white trash cousin fucker Palin's Buttplug will be here any second with his sockpuppets to lie about this story, and the bet he never paid.

    I hope you used the money you didn't pay Playa Manhattan to get some fucking dental work you inbred fuck.

  • Libertymike||

    How do you know he is white?

    How do you know he needs dental work?

    Why do you have such a boner over this?

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    Why are you pretending you're not his sockpuppet?

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    You can tell that Dave Weigel is white just from looking at him.

    I don't know if he needs dental work, but that acne remains a serious issue, not to mention his severe manic depression.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    This is the guy who managed to squeak out a win against Hillary Clinton, perhaps the only living politician who might have been able to take it to Trump.

    For a perhaps overly-broad definition of "living."

  • Jerryskids||

    Don't let Nick distract you with this story about a porn actress - demand to know what happened to the lynx.

  • Kivlor||

    ^^^THIS!

    We lost a Lynx last week, and they didn't even bother to post this week's first set! Demand action! Let Reason know you won't tolerate these antics!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    with Bill Clinton back in the 1990s

    We're in the Donald Trump-Harvey Weinstein decade now.

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    Still haven't paid that bet, and are still lying about it I see.

    Tell us again why you never post the thread with the proof you paid? Oh right, you just get indignant and storm off.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Why are you hiding behind a new user name? Are you that ashamed of your old one?

    and you fucking Trump-tards cannot run me off with lies or anything else.

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    Why are you changing the subject from the link of proof you never post and keep lying about?

  • Libertymike||

    You are losing because there is no regular here who would assert that I am PB's sockpuppet. I have been here for more than 10 years.

    PB is kicking your ass - whether he welched on his bet or not.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I paid Reason $20.

    But the real issue is that conservatives hate me because I say that they are every bit the problem as progressives are.

    Look how they disparage the Reason staff as "DuPont Circle liberals". They love the GOP only and want libertarians as their useful idiots.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "But the real issue is that conservatives hate me because I say that they are every bit the problem as progressives are."

    No, people hate you because you're a dishonest piece of shit troll. I'm not a conservative and I dislike you for exactly that reason. And you're no more in the political center than Samantha Bee or Kimmel.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    And you're no more in the political center than Samantha Bee or Kimmel.

    I'm dishonest? After that fucking lie?

    I am a fan of Barry Goldwater and Hayek and match them in my political views. Each also hates what passes for a conservative these days.

    Face it, the GOP has become a pack of Bible-Beating Big Gov bigots.

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    "I'm dishonest? "

    You've been lying about many things, including paying your bet, for many years.

    Post the link to the thread with proof, and stop making stupid excuses and acting indignant.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "I'm dishonest? After that fucking lie?"

    That was an observation, not a lie. An opinion. All I know of you is your online persona, which is somewhere to the left of Atifa. And of course, you called me a fucking liar when I simply posted the widely accepted fact that the campus no-due-process tribunals were kicked off by the "Dear Colleague" letter from the Obama Administration, and doubled down by denying you had ever said that.

    THAT kind of shit is why people don't like you. You're the mirror image of loveconstitution.......

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    "I paid Reason $20."

    Post a link to the thread that proves it then.

  • Headache||

    Well if Libertarians were not useful, they wouldn't want them.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You seem to be all up in Butt's butt.

    No regular on here would ever say that PB is kicking anyone's ass. Butt's comments are troll garbage.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Fuck off, you dumbass Trump moron.

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    "I paid Reason $20."

    Post a link to the thread that proves it then.

  • Libertymike||

    He's claiming that I am PB's sockpuppet. Does that not merit a down-vote on credibility?

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    "He's claiming that I am PB's sockpuppet."

    You are. And now you're talking to yourself.

  • Zeb||

    No regular on here would ever say that PB is kicking anyone's ass.

    Maybe not. Those weirdly obsessed with him seem capable of kicking their own asses, though.

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    "Those weirdly obsessed with him "

    Zeb, seriously, shut the fuck up. You're incredibly tiresome with your above it all attitude, and your stupid condescension, so save it.

    If I want to remind PB that he's a liar, mind your own fucking business for once.

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    Like, seriously Zeb? Why the fuck do you always show up to play this role?

    PB is shitbag, running an obvious sock. Why do you even care that I take some time to kick him around?

  • Zeb||

    Why are you so weirdly obsessed with Buttplug?

    I don't show up for the purpose of commenting on your idiocy. It just happens. And I exercise a lot of restraint.

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    "You are losing because there is no regular here who would assert that I am PB's sockpuppet. I have been here for more than 10 years.

    PB is kicking your ass - whether he welched on his bet or not."

    Jesus Christ guy, first you lie about paying a bet them you go full retard socking for yourself.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Dude, fuck off, with your shitty username obviously set up for trolling. Everyone knows you used to post here under a different username, then left in a hissy fit, and now can't stay away, but are too embarrassed to use your old username.

    And leave Zeb alone. He may have terrible taste in beer, but he's our guy and we love him.

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    I seriously don't have any idea what the fuck you're talking about. I have never had a consistent name so whatever you think you know is about as valuable as the rest of the stupid shit you post.

    In fact, aren't you the guy who is like, CONSTANTLY getting science wrong? And posting stupid shit like whacko theories about but bacteria?

    Why don't YOU shit the fuck up? Why is it you also find in necessary to pipe the fuck up when I'm kicking an obvious shitbag around? I KNOW this is a sock puppet. I dont try to hide it. I don't lie about it. PB does. Among the various other lies, like paying off his bet.

    Zeb is a big boy . He can take some criticism. He doesn't need you to come white knighting for him.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I KNOW this is a sock puppet. I dont try to hide it. I don't lie about it

    What I don't get is why you bother. Everyone knows you're a ridiculous fucktard so why bother with a sock account specifically to waste space bitching at one guy?

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    "Everyone knows you're a ridiculous fucktard"

    See, I don't get why you bother either, everyone knows you're an insufferable prick, and you have to realize by now I don't care what you think, so the petty insults you can't seem to resist making your MO don't get anywhere.

    It's a mystery.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    you have to realize by now I don't care what you think

    Yeah, you're really so above it all.

    the petty insults you can't seem to resist making your MO don't get anywhere.

    So you've decided to try the chatroom equivalent of getting naked, smearing your own shit all over yourself, then screaming at the top of your lungs is the way to go. Well, best of luck with all that.

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    See? Why bother?

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    "So you've decided to try the chatroom equivalent of getting naked, smearing your own shit all over yourself, then screaming at the top of your lungs is the way to go. Well, best of luck with all that."

    Like this. When has this ever worked? Even a little? When are you going to grasp that?

    You would think that after a decade you'd figure it out.

  • Zeb||

    When has this ever worked? Even a little? When are you going to grasp that?

    You might want to ask yourself the same questions.

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    "Yeah, you're really so above it all."

    Well, you haven't slowed me down in more than a decade, hows obtuse do you have to be?

    I get that you don't like it, not mattering to me, but have some common sense.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I get that you don't like it, not mattering to me, but have some common sense.

    Says the guy who took three posts to respond. Ah well, I'm sure someone will get around to banning this bit of nonsense forcing you to make another.

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    And yet, a decade later, here I am. And you can't stop posting about it.

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    "Says the guy who took three posts to respond"

    This is what passes for logic in your mind. You're a faceless nothing, and nothing you have ever done has made any difference, and yet, you can't stop TRYING.

    You know what I'm saying is true. You're nothing to me. Nothing you say or do will have any impact on what I do in any way, BUT YOU CAN'T STOP TRYING.

    You have been potshotting me for how long? What will it take for you to get it? It doesn't matter. Just look at the results.

    "Oh well you took three replies!! Checkmate!!!"

    Yes toolbox, replying is what I do. See? You don't matter. You're just some transient nothing for me to riff off of, and later it will be something else, and you'll still be TRYING. But, the results speak for themselves.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    You're a faceless nothing, and nothing you have ever done has made any difference, and yet, you can't stop TRYING.

    ahem

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    You're another example. I troll, you respond. And yet you think tjat means...what? Nothing changes. I even have you jumping at shadows screaming at Tulpa, but what I do? Still the same.

    And yet you still keep TRYING.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Right, of course. When other people post, they think it means something. When you post, you don't think it means anything. When other people post, you can tell they're trying. When you post, you're not trying. How could I have been so stupid.

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    "How could I have been so stupid."

    Beats me, it seems simple, and yet you're still too stupid to get it.

    You don't slow me down. You don't effect me in any way.

    None of you have for over a decade. You take catty little potshots, but I still post, run multiple socks, get over on you constantly, and you still KEEP TRYING to have SOME EFFECT OF ANY KIND.

    I also don't understand how you could be this stupid

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Zeb likes beer and he's our anarchist might be reasons to tolerate him.

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    I have nothing against Zeb, apart from his contrived above it all attitude and unearned sense of superiority, but this has exactly zero to do with him, so "mind your own fucking business" is a perfectly appropriate response to him.

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    Chipper Morning Baculum|3.26.18 @ 11:05AM|#

    Dude, fuck off, with your shitty username

    Dude, I didn't even catch that, that is some seriously unselfaware shit!

    You maded my day Chipper mediocre 3rdtierposterwhoneededamassexodustoevengetnoticed backscratcher

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Yeah, obviously I am a fool for responding to you. Guys, ignore this sad sack of shit. What he really craves is that little dopamine kick his brain gives him anyone acknowledges him with a response. I will ignore you from now on.

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    Oooh I hurt his feelings!

    " I will ignore you from now on."

    No, you won't. You don't have the will to do that.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The phrase "shit the fuck up" will haunt me.

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    No one cares.

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    " I'm sure someone will get around to banning this bit of nonsense forcing you to make another."

    I didn't really notice this before. What would that matter? Are you really so pathetic and feeble that you still think being banned has even the smallest effect on what I do?

    Come the fuck on, bro. Are you serious?

    What a sad thing to hang your hopes on, somethiing else that has literally no effect.

    Or are you really starting to get it? You don't matter, and you sound broken, so maybe you are finally getting it.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Don't stop thinking about tomorrow!

  • Libertymike||

    When the Clintons appropriated the tune as their campaign song, I wanted to vomit.

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    Shut up PB. You burned this sock.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    By the way, who are you kidding, we know all you Reason leftards DVR'ed the interview last night and are watching it again and again over there at DuPont Circle. That's why we can;t get the links on time this morning.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    You finally have become completely unhinged I see.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Is your buddy the Crustard the links provider? I notice that he doesn't seem to be around today. If he is, tell him to do his freaking job!

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Thanks for confirming.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Anderson Cooper approves this message.

  • AlmightyJB||

    If you can't trust a whore to tell the truth, who can you trust?

  • Jerryskids||

    The whores over at Fox News were explaining this morning how Trump could just take money from the military budget to build his wall because that's how our government works - the legislative branch gives money to the President and the President decides how the money gets spent. Somebody did murmur that there's a codicil in the budget deal that prohibits any money being spent on the wall but that was waved away on the premise that Trump can just declare a national emergency and then he can do whatever he wants.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Yeah I saw that this morning. And the bitch of it is, if Trump does do that he'll get away with it. Some people will make noise, but they won't really do anything. They want to keep the precedent set for when their favorite pol is president.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The big government types in the GOP and Democratic Party consider that government business as usual.

  • Jerryskids||

    The usual suspects - Paul, Massie, Lee, Flake, Amash - will call for a lawsuit just like they called for a lawsuit over Obama's abuse of the AUMF by claiming he had a blank check to bomb anybody anywhere any time. The Dems will join in after suddenly discovering the principle of separation of powers they never knew about when Obama was in office.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    They may call for a lawsuit, but will they really follow through? Or just posture on the Sunday talk shows and accept accolades for their "courage"?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    But it is more than partisan aspirations, and more disturbing to me. I see a continuing civic devolution to seek a more (all?) powerful executive. Either this fondness for a king is wired into human emotion or the royalists have a very clever campaign working.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Either this fondness for a king is wired into human emotion or the royalists have a very clever campaign working.

    People seem to have a natural inclination to dodge responsibility. Having someone in charge that can always be blamed for everything would help.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I think both parties have a vested interest in growing the power of the executive. Either they both figure in the end that they'll end up owning it and shutting out the other; or perhaps they'll use it together in a "bipartisan" fashion.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    And how does this differ from the leftist media theorizing for 6 years on how Obama could use executive orders to enact laws that the GOP House blocked? Partisans gonna partisan.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Is she a whore because of the sex work or because of the affair? If anything, ding her on being a contract breaker.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    She is a whore because she she has sex for money. She admitted it. Its whore in a good way.

    She is a contract breaker too.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    She is a contract breaker too.

    I am inclined to wait for a judge to consider the enforceability of that contract rather than to rely on the legal conclusions of a bunch of half-educated Asperger's kids (or on the quality of Michael Cohen's legal stylings).

    Carry on, clingers.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    None of this exonerates Donald Trump, especially from the charges of nonconsensual sexual behavior that have been levied by over a dozen women, but it strongly suggests that the Stormy Daniels story is unlikely to take him down a peg, much less remove him from office.

    I reluctantly agree. However, Drumpf will ultimately leave office in disgrace because of #TrumpRussia.

    MAGA = Mueller Ain't Going Away

  • Ken Shultz||

    There's a good chance he'll be fired before long.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Ok, I laffed.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's telling that media is relegated to the Stormy Daniels story.

    When they run out of ammunition, I guess they start throwing whatever they find lying around on the ground.

    Obsessing over Trump's tweets doesn't seem to have done any good.

    Maybe they can still blame Facebook for Hillary losing!

    In the meantime, keep hitting him with the Stormy Daniels story.

    My understanding is that if Stormy Daniels talks (which she just did), according to her contract with Trump, she owes him upwards of $20 million. He probably doesn't even have to wait until he leaves office to go after her. He can start after the second midterm in 2022--at the latest.

  • Libertymike||

    Perspective.

    Look at how low Trump's approval ratings are.

    Look at the string of Democrat wins over the Goofy Orange Promoters since last July.

  • John||

    His approval ratings are on par with Obama's. And none of the special elections have involved avowed Trump supporters. Trump didn't support Roy Moore in the primary. The guy in PA and Moore were just bad candidates that the voters didn't like. Trump support failed to work miracles with bad candidates. I don't see how that is a reflection on Trump.

  • Libertymike||

    But its more than just the Alabama senate race and the PA congressional race.

    What about the Democrat tsunami in Virginia? There, Ed Gillespie ran on the Trump agenda, particularly illegal immigration, and he was soundly defeated by Ralph Northam.

    What about the Wisconsin state senate seat that flipped red to blue? Even Scott Walker acknowledged that the loss was a wake-up call for republicans.

    What about Oklahoma last year?

  • Fjvjcdjjs||

    What about you being Palin's Buttplug? You feel good fooling John into talking to you?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Virginia is a big government state where it counts: The counties that surround D.C.

    Wisconsin is a blue state. The shock should be when Republicans win there.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Ed Gillespie ran on the Trump agenda, particularly illegal immigration, and he was soundly defeated by Ralph Northam.

    Yeah, a year after Trump ran on the Trump agenda and was soundly defeated by Hillary Clinton. How is this surprising?

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    ...soundly defeated in Virginia by Hillary....

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Plus, even if Gillespie 180-ed top the Trump agenda, he's spent his career as an establishment Republican swamp-creature. I doubt anyone found his pivot to be believable.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    The Dem victor in PA 18 ran on a strong pro-gun platform. It was all over his commercials on local TV, while the national media (obviously) didn't publicize that.

  • John||

    To the extent Democrats have won, it has been because they ran guys who pretended to be Republicans. If you take Lamm at his word, he will make a better Congressman than most Republicans. And if he does, good for him. I care about results not which team wins. Sadly, I seriously doubt that will happen. Chances are that Lamm was lying his ass off and outside of casting a few meaningless votes over issues that are already decided, he will when it matters vote exactly like the far left leadership of the Democrats tell him to vote.

    I hope I am surprised. If it is the case that there has been a return of conservative Democrats and the Democratic Party will no longer be the "Too crazy and stupid to vote for under any circumstances Party", it will be a great thing for the country and no one will be happier about it than me. I just seriously doubt that is the case.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Part of the reason people have to follow what Trump says is because they are too lazy to follow what a politician actually does. What Trump says is hardly like what he does.

    The Demo victor in PA18 said a bunch of RINO stuff and will do what Democrats do. Why swing state voters fall for this almost every time is beyond me.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Since when have Trump's approval ratings meant anything? Lonely people and those who are too dumb to screen their calls say what a phone interviewer thinks they want them to say?

    So what?

    If you think that's important, have you seen the American people's opinion of the news media?

    http://news.gallup.com/poll/19.....w-low.aspx

  • Tony||

    So polls you don't like are fake and polls you like are true.

    Ken Shultz, a brain in crisis.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It more of a bias issue with things the left really wants to happen.

    The left really wants Trump to be unpopular when he isn't, so the polls are skewed.

    Many Americans know of media bias and the people being polled don't like FOX news, so that's included too. That is why that poll is more accurate but still not even close to the real numbers of people who think media is crap.

    In other words, CNN is really only receiving ad revenue because of airport tv deals not because millions of average Americans are paying to want to watch CNN.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    You know who else relied on polls they liked?

  • Ken Shultz||

    My comment was in response to another specific comment:

    "Perspective.

    Look at how low Trump's approval ratings are.

    Look at the string of Democrat wins over the Goofy Orange Promoters since last July.

    The question was about how seriously to take the media's eternal assault on Ttump.

    The response was about a) how Trump's approval ratings have famously not been predictive of what swing voters do at the polls and b) in a popularity contest between Trump and the media, as bad as Trump's favorable ratings are, the news media's approval ratings are even worse than Trump's.

    If you don't see why both those observations are relevant in that context, especially in reference to the Stormy Daniels non-story, then that's your problem, Tony--not mine.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump's supporters don't get polled like lefty supporters get polled.

    Trump supporters don't care to be polled unlike lefty supporters do. They love to say how great Hillary is and how bad Trump is. Then Hillary gets her ass kicked in election 2016.

    Polls still don't mean shit in 2018 because its garbage in, so garbage out.

  • Rebel Scum||

    string of Democrat wins

    Haven't most of the special elections been won by Team Red? The couple/few recent ones have not, but I don't see a distinct trend.

  • Libertymike||

    Actually, there has been a string of team blue victories starting with the stunning seat flips in an Oklahoma state senate and lower house races last July. Since then, Virginia, Alabama, Wisconsin (another stunning flip from red to blue in a district Trump carried 55-38), Kentucky and PA.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Wisconsin (another stunning flip from red to blue in a district Trump carried 55-38)

    Trump won big in a lot of traditionally blue districts, so the fact he won there doesn't make it red.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Also it's common for the party of the president to lose in the first mid-term election. Nothing stunning about that.

  • Helvetica Standard||

    I wish people would stop using the single state senator from Oklahoma thing as an example of the "blue tsunami"... it was a single transgender lesbian that won a garbage district that is completely irrelevant to the state. It wasn't "stunning" at all because nobody votes.

  • BYODB||

    Isn't a transgender lesbian just, like, a dude that likes chicks?

  • Headache||

    YUP

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Don't stop mike when he's on a delusional roll.

    He still hopes Trump will be impeached.

  • Tony||

    Do you really expect the media to ignore this story? Or what? Maybe all channels should just be FOX News from now on.

    Pathetic toady.

  • Brian||

    Yeah, it's not like we're dealing with Clinton and Rather anymore:

    "I didn't get into journalism to chase sex stories," the CBS anchor said. "One reason I hate it is that I think this story's bad for the country. I don't think anybody comes out looking good, and very few people feel good about it. I don't have any appetite for looking into people's personal lives."

    I guess we all evolved since the 90s.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The media ignored the Bill Clinton sex stories until they could not anymore.

  • Rev. Arthur Ꮮ. Kirkland||

    They should pay it exactly as much attention as they paid JFK's pre-presidential extramarital affairs during his presidency.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    My understanding is that if Stormy Daniels talks (which she just did), according to her contract with Trump, she owes him upwards of $20 million.

    Is that a Regent law degree talking, a Liberty law degree talking, an Ave Maria law degree talking, or just another Intertubes-accredited legal expert?

  • John||

    The only people paying attention to this are the media and people who don't like Trump. No one else cares. Nick is right that this works to Trump's advantage. It just makes the media and his critics look like at best hypocrites and at worse obsessive lunatics. The media treated women like Paula Jones and Juanita Broaderick who were harassed and in Broaderick's case possibly raped by Bill Clinton as whores looking for a buck. For that same media to know treat a porn star who had a totally consensual affair with Trump before he was President as some kind of brave feminist truth teller is beyond the pale even for this country. The whole thing is pathetic and further evidence of how degraded, stupid, and irrelevant the major media has become.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yet The Dotard drug out Bill Clinton's accusers for a debate in 2016 - some 20 years after the events.

    It is odd how only you conservatives get by with molesting little boys, blowing strange men in airport restrooms, and the like while Bill Clinton's bimbos are a 20 year topic of conservation on Fox News and redneck AM radio.

  • John||

    Sure he did. And he won the election. But now he is President and because of the way the media acted with Clinton, none of the stuff about him matters. He won and you lost. Sucks to be you. But no one gives a shit about that either.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Remember when Bill Clinton was buddy-buddy with Epstein and rode the Lolita Express around?

  • Rev. Arthur Ꮮ. Kirkland||

    Yes, after The Hag tried to make sexual conduct an issue in the campaign. A quite effective expose of the left's eyebrows-deep hypocrisy on sex.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    "Turn away from conversations about whether the pre-presidential Trump used a rubber during his adulterous assignation with a smart and serious adult-film auteur and start reading the budget bill that nobody in Washington had time to read."

    But, tits!

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Ugly silicone tits.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Word. Besides, I'm more of an ass-man, myself. Bottom heavy > top heavy.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "Thick" chicks as they say.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    You misspelled "thicc."

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I wonder how Heroic Mulatto is getting on.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I visit the Glib site sometimes and HM looks very happy there.

    I will probably join soon when trolls like Tony and Butt get on the Reason staff.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I'm glad he's happy. I always liked the guy, even though he is an insufferable contrarian.

  • John||

    HM isn't that much of a contrarian or they would have kicked him out.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    John, the fact that they banned you shows me that place is not for me.

  • BYODB||

    There are few things more hilarious than a splinter group of Libertarians leaving one publication to go and start their own where they can ban whomever they want.

    After all, nothing shows off your dedication to free speech like silencing critics, right? ^_-

  • John||

    Thank you chipper. The funny thing is that the post they banned me for had nothing to do with partisan politics. Basically, I gave this long post explaining how if life were just about living by your principles there would be no such thing as a moral dilemma and we would have settled all ethical questions long ago. Principles are great except when they are not. At some point following your principles causes so much harm, you have to violate them to avoid a worse moral outcome.

    It still puzzles me how that was the post that got me banned. But it was.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Yeah, i wouldn't use the word "contrarian" to describe HM. The main things he's contrary to are prevailing theories on the origin of the Basque language, and flat-assed white girls.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I'll axe my peeps.

  • Just Say'n||

    "smart and serious adult-film auteur"

    Remember when everyone called Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, etc "smart and serious"?

  • John||

    Paula Jones was a state employee whose only sin was refusing to have sex with Bill Clinton and then having the guts to sue him after he punished her for saying no. And the media called her trash and a bimbo. "Drag a $20 bill through a trailer park and you can find anything" was the media's attitude towards Jones. But remember, they care so much about women and sexual harassment issues. They just called a woman who was the victim of sexual harassment a whore and allowed people in their industry like Matt Lauer to harass and assault women for years because that is different!!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    NOT FAIR!! LEAVE DONNIE THE DOTARD ALONE!! HE IS OUR GUY!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Aw, poor Butt will never see the hypocrisy by the left even as it does not work.

    MAGA!

  • Just Say'n||

    I've said this before PBP, but it bears repeating: quoting a tyrant who kills his own people in order to insult make believe 'literally Hitler' about sums up the moral relativism that makes the Left in this country so offensive to anyone with any level of decency.

    I'm not defending Trump, but I love how pointing out blatantly obvious hypocrisy has become synonymous with doing so.

  • Just Say'n||

    Normal person: Wait, but that's not how this was covered in the 90's. I suspect the media has an agenda here

    Wacky Leftist divorced from reality: Whataboutism! Why do you love Trump so much?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Now there's the cast for a porno people would have to be paid to watch.

  • Rhywun||

    The Stormy Daniels interview lands just a few days after the president signed a ridiculously swollen omnibus spending bill that pours more gas on the nation's dumpster fire of debt while accomplishing virtually none of his party's legislative or policy goals. It also comes after he's named invasion-crazy John Bolton as his new national security adviser.

    It's almost like the left - which controls the MSM - isn't actually interested in talking about Trump's real faults. They certainly don't give a shit about busting budgets or warmongering.

  • John||

    They don't care about spending because no one cares about spending. If anyone did, we wouldn't be $20 trillion dollars in debt. To the extent they care about his other faults, whatever they are, Trump is so effective at manipulating them and playing on their worst instincts, they can never get around to talking about them. Trump understands the national media in a way no other politician I have ever seen does. They can't make any real criticisms of him, no matter how justified, because they can't get over their desire to virtue signal. There is something about Trump that allows him to bring out all of the major media's status anxiety in just an overpowering way they can't help themselves and end up focusing on manners and their desire to virtue signal over every other criticism no matter how valid. And he does it to the media on both sides of the political divide. It has been amazing to watch.

  • Rhywun||

    It has been amazing to watch.

    He got 60 Minutes to do a chin-scratching interview with a porn star. Yeah, that IS pretty impressive.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    These same Nanny and Police Staters on the left have been going after sex traffickers and advertisements for sex workers for years and now a sex trafficker is the left's #1 girl.

    The media wants to make her legit.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    They don't care about spending because no one cares about spending. If anyone did, we wouldn't be $20 trillion dollars in debt.

    True that. And by the way, Gillespie supports bigger spending on pretty much everything except defense and security. He wants a big European style welfare state.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    They don't care about spending because no one cares about spending. If anyone did, we wouldn't be $20 trillion dollars in debt.

    Well, it's a vicious cycle. Even if you're against deficit spending, there comes a point where opposing it just means you don't get any of the goodies while remaining responsible for the debt that paid for them.

  • John||

    Even if you oppose spending and vote for a candidate who promises to do something about it, nine times out of ten, the guy gets to Congress and immediately sells out because the benefits to him personally of supporting it far outweigh even the threat of losing office.

    At some point, they will no longer be able to borrow money or print more without it resulting in real harm not just to the country but to themselves and the people who pay them off. When that happens, they will do something about spending. It will be painful and awful and only come after they have done God knows how much damage to the country. But that is how it is going to work and there seems to be nothing anyone can do to change it. At this point, I have stopped caring about spending. What is the point? Nothing I do is going to change it. And worse, trying to change it will just result in losing on other important issues and do nothing to address the spending issue. I would love to see the Republicans in Congress get thrown out of office for their spending habits. But, they will just be replaced by Democrats who will spend even more and will be just as bad when they inevitably return to power.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I have to think you/us talking about it with others might help.

  • Lester224||

    The GOP will spend without end as long as the spending has a "defense" label. They will spend on Democratic party social welfare priorities if that's what it takes to satisfy the defense industry lobbyist's priorities for "defense" spending. There is no one who cares to examine the "defense" budget and trim out wasteful spending. We could increase our ware-making capabilities without adding a penny to the defense budget if some of the no-bid contracts and waste was examined. Look at all the money that went missing in Iraq..

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Busting budgets and warmongering are what they LIKE about Trump.

  • In Time Of War||

    "Trump has taken all of these lessons to the next level. He may not be playing 10-dimensional chess, but he doesn't have to."

    I prefer to think of it as...Krav MAGA!

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Nice try, Gillespie, but you won't destract us from how horrible a person Trump is!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    As long as we have 1 TDS article a day, the Cosmo Gods are satiated.

  • Joe_JP||

    A major component of the Trump coalition -- symbolized by the guy who defended religious speakers in the Supreme Court in a bunch of cases being his personal lawyer [Jay Sekulow] -- are evangelists.

    So, yes, his personal behavior here is somehow relevant to the big picture. Clinton's personal problems (which flowed into his public position in certain cases, putting aside if it was bad enough to remove him from office) helped Gore lose in 2000, Bush seen as a more family friendly sort by many voters that would move us pass that sort of thing.

    It's fine to keep our perspective here though it also should be noted that him not using a condom is but one thing at issue here. The parts -- disbelieve her if you like but other cases were cited in trustworthy Trump coverage -- about her being threatened, for instance, is harder to hand-wave as just reality show fodder. It is a reflection of the overall thuggish nature of his administration that bothers even those who like the substantive policy results.

    There is a personal aspect of the office & it's a thing in this country where the position is not merely like the prime minister, but has a "head of state" character. Plus, in general, this country cares about that sort of stuff, like it or not.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Bill Clinton was a perjurer, so American chose a more "moral" W Bush. Americans were wrong on W being moral but Gore would have been just as bad with neo-con excursions around the globe.

    Americans that matter see the media's attempts to undermine Trump and don't like it. It will equate to a rout of Democrats in election 2018 and definitely in 2020.

  • John||

    The behavior does not matter to evangelicals. If it did, they wouldn't have voted for him in the first place. Everyone knew that Trump was a womanizer long before he ran for President. Trump's appeal to evangelicals is the same as it is to the entire white working class; he doesn't act like he is embarrassed to have their support or to stand up for them. Evangelicals understand quite well how much Democrats and the left hate them. What the GOP doesn't get about evangelicals is that they also see how patronizing and embarrassed the mainstream right is to be associated with them. To the extent that the GOP and the old school right-wing press like NR and the WSJ will embrace religious people, it is always religious Catholics or Jews. It is never Protestants.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Evangelicals supported Trump because of who he was running against, nothing more. In the primaries they were behind Cruz.

    Right wing media fave George W Bush was quite religious and played extensively to evangelicals, to the point where I was surprised to find out he was a Methodist after the fact.

  • John||

    Trump won a majority of evangelicals in the primary. Cruz based his entire campaign on winning them and it failed. The other thing is that evangelicals are not single-issue voters. They voted on economic issues just like other people.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Clinton's personal problems (which flowed into his public position in certain cases, putting aside if it was bad enough to remove him from office) helped Gore lose in 2000

    That's overblown. The Dems gained seats in 1998 after the Lewinsky scandal broke, and Clinton's popularity was actually rising. But in 2000 the dot com bubble was starting to pop, leftists were spitting mad at the Clinton admin for NAFTA, welfare reform, and other compromises with conservatives, and of course in Florida the Elian Gonzalez debacle easily cost Gore more than the 600 vote margin that ultimately decided the election. Plus Gore was not remotely a likable candidate.

  • John||

    Al Gore lost because the left was fed up with Clinton's triangulation on economic issues and either stayed home or voted for Nader and because he went left on gun control which cost him Tennessee. Had Nader not run and the left been all in on Gore or Gore not gone left on gun control, Gore would have been President.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I forgot about Nader.

    That fucking guy. Geesh what a tool.

  • Rev. Arthur Ꮮ. Kirkland||

    By the standards laid out by Jesus in the Bible, every time Trump has relations with Melania, he's committing adultery. So all the Stormy Daniels thing means to 'evangelists' is that a man who is in an ongoing adulterous relationship committed adultery. Why would that alter their evaluations of Trump in the slightest? The only people who keep going on about it are fanatics who, while despising evangelicals, also wish they could use the evangelicals as a weapon against Trump.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It's just sex, you hicklib prude.

  • Rich||

    the president signed a ridiculously swollen omnibus spending bill that pours more gas on the nation's dumpster fire of debt

    I look forward to a "March For Our Lives" dealing with this. Our children have the right to live without fear of an economic collapse!

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Read this account of a young Trump trying to intimidate Jerome Tuccille...

    Any relation to J.D.?

  • Zeb||

    I believe it's his father.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Yes, the 2chili family has been bringing the libertarian-affiliated journalistic chops for as long as libertarianism has been a thing.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I believe it usually began with Ayn Rand.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I thought I remembered reading something about his dad being Trump's biographer back during the election, but wasn't completely sure, thanks.

    Based on what else J.D. has shared about his family's past, I'm not sure trying to intimidate any of them is such a great idea.

  • ||

    "that Clinton groped her while she was asking for a job and that his people killed her cat as a warning."

    I don't know why but Newman popped up in my mind when I read that.

    "I was in a parking lot, going to a fitness class with my infant daughter. Taking, you know, the seats facing backwards in the backseat, diaper bag, you know, gettin' all the stuff out. And a guy walked up on me and said to me, "Leave Trump alone. Forget the story." And then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, "That's a beautiful little girl. It'd be a shame if something happened to her mom." And then he was gone....I was rattled. I remember going into the workout class. And my hands are shaking so much, I was afraid I was gonna drop her."

    What are Will Ferrel threatening people scenes?

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    He knows we've seen this movie before, with Bill Clinton back in the 1990s, and with John F. Kennedy long before that.

    Not exactly the same movie. The media completely covered up JFK's indiscretions and only reported on Clinton's when they became impossible to ignore. Whereas they're promoting the fuck out of this washed-up whore's story and trying to make it into more than just a sex scandal to boot.

  • ||

    They showed the 60 Minutes commercial during the basketball game with Anderson Cooper and a porn star. If that didn't induce a raised Bugs Bunny eyebrow nothing will! NUFFIN!

  • Rebel Scum||

    He was married at the time, but the American public seems to care little that he may have committed adultery in his pre–White House years.

    I have it on good authority that this does not affect his ability to function in the office of president. Sorry, Team Blue, I will never take you seriously on this now found standard of morality and ethics.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I don't think we really care if adultery occurs pre, during, or post, the Whitehouse.

    People do care about ganging up on politicians they don't like. It's still principals, not principles.

  • Longtobefree||

    So explain to me exactly what a non-disclosure agreement is.

    And, oh by the way Nick, it was Stormy, not Trump who brought up this 'distraction'.

    And it is YOU, along with all the other click revenue driven web writers who ignore journalism and adopt the philosophy of "all the news that fits, we print", that has made an insignificant contract violation into a national distraction.

  • ||

    I fail to see how this became a story. He had consensual sex with a porn star while a private citizen. If anything, she's the one looking to score some coin off this crap. I thought this was a libertarian publication?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "I thought this was a libertarian publication?"

    Not if The Jacket has anything to say about it.

  • John||

    A motion filed by Omar Mateen's wife, seeking to dismiss the charges, reveal: FBI just admitted that Omar's father, Seddique, worked with the FBI as an informant for 11 years (2005-16) & himself was under investigation for sending $$ to Afghanistan & Turkey

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/292298/

    The media is too busy with Porn stars to cover this. The thing that defines the media more than anything else, more than partisan bias, more than greed, more than status anxiety, is the absolute worship of power. This is be an enormous scandal and the top story on every newscast for weeks. It will not be because the media worships power and is loath to report news that reflects badly on the institutions of power. They don't want the FBI to look bad, the FBI might not talk to them or leak bullshit stories about Trump anymore. That is how they think.

    Good on Greenwald for reporting this. Greenwald is a loathsome socialist, but he has more balls and more integrity than the entire American media combined. Greenwald is just dreadfully wrong about a lot of things but he is at least capable of an honest opinion. The American media is not even capable of that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Greenwald has surprised me with some real journalism sometimes. I almost wonder what his game is since some of his stories go against the power of the state.

    Maybe he just found a niche that works and pays him handsomely. Actual investigative journalism.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Over the line. Greenwald is not loathsome. He has beliefs which disagree with yours (and mine) but he is sincere in them and has a sense of fair play and honor. I would take him over a John McCain or Lindsey Graham any day.

  • John||

    He is a socialist and a total hack when it comes to the Arab Israeli issue. I can't forgive socialism that easily. That being said, he is honest. And that is a hell of a lot more than you can say for most people in the media and politics and certainly more than can be said for the two you mention.

  • colorblindkid||

    half the time I vehemently agree with him. Half the time I vehemently disagree with him. I respect him, though.

    He is completely convinced that the biggest threat to free speech on college campuses is the silencing of anti-Israel opinions, which would be hilarious if he wasn't so serious.

  • Rhywun||

    the biggest threat to free speech on college campuses is the silencing of anti-Israel opinions

    Don't follow Greenwald at all but that's pretty amusing.

  • Rhywun||

    the biggest threat to free speech on college campuses is the silencing of anti-Israel opinions

    Don't follow Greenwald at all but that's pretty amusing.

  • silver.||

    Um. If I walked around the campus of my alma mater wearing anything supportive of Israel I'd be beaten. Israel/Palestine is just another one of those issues you don't bring up in pleasant conversation with college kids. If it does come up just nod your head and be like, "oh man. yeah, Israelis killing all those Palestinians. Shame, that."

  • colorblindkid||

    Remember when the FBI was actively tailing the Mohammed cartoon shooters and knew of their plans, and let it happen? My God there was so much fucking bullshit that happened under Obama that the media refused to investigate its not even funny.

    The entire narrative around Orlando is still that Republican homophobia drove a closeted gay man to lash out and murder people a bunch of gays.

    When in reality there's no evidence he was secretly gay and no actual evidence he even targeted the club because it was a gay club. He was an ISIS-supporting Islamic terrorist, plan and simple. That doesn't fit the narrative, though.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Gay people and their pet monkeys would have to admit that a terrorist played them for being gay to target them effectively.

    Its why Muslim infiltrators get a pass on beards and can act like infidels. To more effectively kill infidels.

  • John||

    It is pretty obvious that the FBI's main way of catching and convicting terrorists is to infiltrate their organizations and then bait them into a plot which the FBI then breaks up and charges everyone. The danger of that is that someone in those organizations does something awful before the FBI swoops in. I strongly suspect that has been the case with several terrorist attacks going back to the Murrah Building bombing. In some cases, like with 911 or the couple out in California, the FBI is all over it and tells you within hours the person's entire history and motive. Then other cases, suddenly they go silent and just refuse to talk about it or explain why they are not talking. The Orlando case is a great example of that. They let the guy's wife go and didn't charge her until public pressure forced them to. I think the reason for that is that they know about these guys and don't do anything because they are too busy trying to bait other people into a plot.

  • A frilly pink thing||

    I'd care more if I had some illusions about an Atlantic City casino owner being clean morally.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    Nice piece, Nick, within "Reason", but I think you give Clinton too much "credit" for defying public opinion re adultery in the White House. He did proclaim his innocence, after all, and would still be doing so if Monica hadn't kept the famous stained blue dress as some sort of souvenir. Still, I don't think banging an intern in the White House, or even lying about it in a contrived legal hustle, is a high crime or misdemeanor, and the same goes for making a porn star/director sit through "Shark Week," even if camera work is pedestrian. So far, Richard Cohen has had the best line. Speaking of the not-Stormy/not-Donald "agreement", Cohen said "I, for one, am understandably mortified that any lawyer named Cohen could be that stupid." So it hasn't been a complete loss.

    Regarding the recent spending bill, and the recent tax bill, I think only a libertarian could be so naive as to be surprised that Republicans could say one thing about government spending and do another, when that is exactly what they have been doing since 1981.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Republicans could say one thing about government spending and do another, when that is exactly what they have been doing since 1981

    because 1994 and 2010 never happened? Obviously once they get entrenched they start throwing around money, but it is not an unbroken pattern "since 1981". I'll take their demonstrated behavior on spending over the Dems'.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Republicans at least have brakes on the spending train unlike Democrats. RINOs just refuse to use them very often.

  • John||

    The Republicans can honestly say they cut spending after taking the House in both 94 and 2010. The other thing is that the deficit was going down between 04 and 06 and by the end of 06 was somewhat back under control. The Democrats took over in January of 2007 and it exploded beyond all previous proportions and we ended up running up more debt in the four year period between 07 and 11 when the Republicans took back over than at any four year period in history.

    Everyone obsesses about the President when it comes to deficits and debt. But, the Constitution works more like it should than people realize. The Congress controls the budget and spending and deficits correlate to which party controls Congress much better than it does to which party controls the White House.

  • Eidde||

    Either my Internet connection is broken, or there aren't any AM links. Are they trying to use Stormy Daniels to distract us from that fact?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    AM Links? We don't need no stinky AM Links.

    The Jacket is just mad because Trump was not impeached immediately after the 60 minutes airing of the prostitute.

  • IceTrey||

    Squeak out a win? He won by 74 votes. That's a landslide.
    Don't forget Ted Kennedy killed a woman and was made a scion of the Dems for it.

  • John||

    And even if he did "squeak it out", whatever that means, who cares? Does the Constitution contain a "if you squeak out a win you are not really President President" clause that I am unaware of? There are no moral victories in politics. You either win and you get the office and all its powers or you lose and get nothing.

  • Tony||

    It's like watching lobotomized monkeys try to make their way around the monkey pen. Landslide? Can't Trump be delusional all by himself without you mouthing his delusional words?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hi Tony. Did you watch FOX this morning?

    I thought for sure you would give the latest on what's happening on that network.

  • Tony||

    Steve Doocy spanked the president with a magazine with the president's face on the cover.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Who's Doocy?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    You could learn a lot from lobotomized monkeys.

    They are all smarter than you.

  • No Longer Amused||

    If you just listened to her speak you could easily tell when she went from relating facts to a rehearsed script. The best lies incorporate the truth.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Did they show any clips from her featurettes?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Who hasn't been on 60 minutes before?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    OK, I can see "don't be distracted by Stormy Daniels", that at least makes sense.

    But "Don't let President Trump distract you with Stormy Daniels"????

    How is this Trump doing anything? He paid her to stay quiet!

  • Citizen X - #6||

    He paid her knowing that he was going to run for president a decade later, and would need her to be tempted to break the NDA in order to provide a distraction from other shenanigans. N-dimensional chess, dawg.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Hey, I heard Amazon is gonna spend $1 billion to develop the Three Body Problem. When they get to the part where the ship is in four-dimensional space, we will finally understand what it's like inside Trump's brain.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    It's like this, but with Trump.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Is Stormy Daniels a Russian Sparrow?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    More like an eagle... piloting a blimp.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    It's all Trumps fault.

  • John||

    It is Trump's fault that the media chooses to focus on a story that would never be reported if Trump were a Democrat. He is the worst.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You know the media hates that they have to use a sex trafficker to go after Trump. They have no more chess moves.

    The media also knew that this would bring Bill Clinton right back into the mix, derailing Hillary's attempts to reform her image.

  • Headache||

    Hillary's attempts to reform her image.

    To fucking late. A 1000 surgeons could not put lumpy slumpy back together.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Well, it is. Surely he could have found a cuter porn star to have an affair with, instead of one so old she's retired.

  • John||

    Maybe he just had a thing for MILFs. And it was over ten years ago. The shelf life of porn stars is pretty short. This chick was probably past her sell by date before she was 25. What did she look like when he was banging her? I don't know but she likely was a lot better looking then than now.

  • Headache||

    It was ten years ago.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Technically, Trump's counsel paid her to remain quiet.

    Cannot trust lawyers to do anything right.

  • GILMORE™||

    "That's where the real damage that Trump and our elected representatives on both sides of the aisle is buried, in plain sight"

    English PhD stuff here

  • Ron||

    Bill had Hillary the attack dog and the media machines to protect him

  • Get lit||

    I think there's an open question of whether criminal conduct was committedin Trump's conspiracy to silence Stormy Daniels. If you consider the events in the context of a greater conspiracy orchestrated by Donald Trump then the criminal acts of guys like Cohen (campaign finance fraud) and the unidentified man who threatened Stormy in the parking lot can legally be attributed to Trump.

  • John||

    What conspiracy? They paid her off and had her sign an NDA. That happens all of the time and is not criminal. What do you mean it is an "open question"? No it's not. There is nothing open about it at all. What Trump did was entirely legal. The only way there is a question is if you expect him to prove a negative and show he didn't do anything illegal. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. It is up to his critics to produce evidence he did anything wrong and they haven't done that.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    No one is ever required to prove a negative.

    Well, except for kangaroo courts on college campuses when someone is accused of sexual assault. Then, of course the default is guilty unless proven innocent. And they make sure that the accused has no chance of proving innocence.

  • John||

    The arrival of the Volkh Conspiracy has coincided with the arrival of commentators who say things like "it's an open question..." or "there are real concerns.." without ever explaining what those questions or concerns are. They won't come out and make their point and defend it because they can't. So, instead, they say phrases like that that imply their point without making it and in their mind at least alleviates the need to explain and defend their point. It is annoying as hell. If you think Trump did something criminal, say what that is supposed to have been and explain why you think it is true. If you can't, then admit that it isn't true. It shouldn't be that hard.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    In this case if there is any "conspiracy" it's most likely one of leftists who convinced/paid the porn star into start talking about it after being quiet all the years afterward until now.

  • Headache||

    And denying it on three separate occasions.

  • Get lit||

    It's simple. If Trump sent a thug to threaten violence upon a woman in a parking lot to silence that women then Trump committed a criminal offense in that instance. If Trump commissioned Cohen to violate the campaign finance laws to accomplish silencing Stormy then Trump is equally responsible for his agent's criminal conduct. Both acts were committed to further Trump's conspiracy to silence Stormy. Trump or any other asshole doesn't get to send thugs or cheat campaigns disclosure laws without consequence.

  • John||

    I suppose but there is no evidence of that. All we have is Daniels claiming someone threatened her. She doesn't even say who. There is no evidence that Trump was behind it. Moreover, she has every reason to lie. Without those allegations, there is nothing here but an affair and a broken NDA. It is those allegations that is giving her the publicity. So, absent some kind of corroborating evidence, there is no reason to believe her.

    Why would Trump do those things? He had an NDA that would allow him to bankrupt her. It makes no sense for him to have done that. But it makes perfect sense for her to lie and claim he did as a way to get her story out and get the publicity without violating the NDA or being able to claim Trump was just silencing her about that if he did. Who has a reason to lie about that? Daniels and her reason to lie is a lot more compelling than Trump's reason to do it. So, her word about it without corroboration means absolutely nothing.

  • Tony||

    Now pretend it was Obama.

  • John||

    It would be just as stupid for him to do that. And I would say the same thing. You would, however, adopt a completely different view. Why do you think projecting your own cravenness onto everyone else is convincing?

  • Headache||

    Stormy would never be with a skinny half white socialist.

  • Rev. Arthur Ꮮ. Kirkland||

    It would never have gotten reported, so nobody would have an opinion.

    Carry on, clinger.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Don't Let President Trump Distract You with Stormy Daniels

    By "you" do you mean Morley Safer?

  • VinniUSMC||

    This is the guy who managed to squeak out a win against Hillary Clinton, perhaps the only living politician who might have been able to take it to Trump.

    This is probably the single most ridiculous sentence posted on the internet, at least today.

    Hillary was probably the only living politician that the Democrats could have run that Trump had a chance at beating. Bernie probably would have beaten Trump.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Really, Bernie would have beaten Trump while his role model for America, Venezuela, was circling the drain?

    The attack ads would have written themselves.

  • VinniUSMC||

    You underestimate the power of the Tide Pod generation. Venezuela wouldn't/doesn't phase them.

    Yes, I believe that Bernie actually would have stood a chance at beating Trump. I think the "I'm not Hillary" card would've played well among millennials.

    I think you may have me mistaken as a Bernie supporter though. Bernie is the second to last person that I, personally, would have voted for (2nd only to Hillary).

  • Tony||

    Why the need to virtue signal your hatred of Hillary? Can anyone name a flaw of hers that Trump doesn't possess 10 times over?

  • Headache||

    She's fat and doesn't age well. She falls down a lot, She wears depends.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    God, if there's any generation that should be banned from voting, its the Millennials.

  • fafalone||

    Seriously. I did a double take when I read that line. Trump won because he was only the 2nd worst candidate in history, and had the good fortune of running against #1 on that list. Rewriting the narrative to say she was an awesome candidate and Trump beat her because he's even better is the kind of deluded shit Trump's sycophants tell him to stroke his ego. You got a little brown there on your nose Nick.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's also telling that the media is focusing on Stormy Daniels and Facebook angles--even while there are bigger stories like free trade.

    If they wanted to criticize Trump on something, why don't they pick a policy issue?

    Is it because they know immigration is a loser at the ballot box?

    Is it because they're anti-free trade themselves?

    Are the elitists in the media in favor of deregulation?

    This is why we're hearing about Stormy Daniels and Facebook. They won't publicly own the issues they oppose Trump on, and they agree with him on the others--so they're relegated to Stormy Daniels and Facebook while they wait for Mueller's witch hunt and the midterms.

    That's what's going on.

  • Eidde||

    "Don't Let President Trump Distract You with Stormy Daniels"

    Seriously, is that his plan?

    I've been told he paid good money in an unsuccessful attempt to keep her quiet. In fact, that allegation is a big part of the scandal, isn't it?

  • BYODB||

    I'm pretty sure that some Judge or another will find that Stormy doesn't owe any money to Donald for breach of contract because the story makes Trump look bad.


    I'm actually pretty confident that this is the state of justice in the United States these days. The law doesn't really seem to matter anymore, especially to the justice system.


    If she was mistreated by Trump, I personally would have hesitated before signing a document to get paid in exchange for silence but I guess since she was a woman she can't be held liable since her silly little head is full of girl thoughts and can't be expected to know what she's doing.


    Did a man sign the contract for her? If not it's void.


    The left is constantly reminding me how women can't really do anything. A woman who decides to trade sex for money, for example, is being sex trafficked by a man because there's no way a woman can be trusted to know what to do with her body outside of abortion.


    /sarc

  • Tony||

    How on earth would you know how "the left" is treating this story? Been reading a bunch of stuff at Slate and the Nation?

    I'll sum up for you the general sentiment: Let's bend over backward to let Trump off the hook for mere sexual indiscretions, as they're none of our business just as we said in the 90s. If he or his lawyer paid hush money 11 days before the election or had someone intimidate Stormy Daniels, there might, however, be legal consequences involved. Stormy Daniels is a free woman who made a laudable career choice.

  • BYODB||

    I guess you can't apply principles consistently, which is par for the course.

  • Lester224||

    Whether Stormy Daniels has to declare bankruptcy or not to pay millions of dollars to Trump, the fact that hush money was paid is already out. If Cohen paid it himself without permission from Trump, he's in violation of N.Y. and American Bar associate rules, and could be subject to bar discipline. If Cohen paid the hush-money to Daniels with permission from Trump and was reimbursed by Trump it could be considered a campaign finance violation.

    I think Ms. Clifford has got a lot of good publicity (all publicity is good for her) out of this perhaps for a book and appearances that will probably outweigh any penalties she ends up paying. If Trump does get lots of money from her, he's admitting the agreement was on his part and that he oversaw $130,000 of hush-money to a porn star. That won't make any difference at all to his supporters, however.

  • John||

    I don't see how it could be considered a campaign finance violation. The money was paid before Trump was a candidate and even if it wasn't, it was almost certainly paid with Trump's own money.

  • BYODB||

    That's what causes me to scratch my head as well. I'm not saying what he did was or wasn't ethical I'm saying that she agreed to it for money.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    It isn't Pres. Trump that threw Stormy into the political cauldron.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Don't Let President Trump Distract You with Stormy Daniels"

    Yeah, Trump did it. The Stormy Daniels Special was all his idea.

    TDS

  • Headache||

    He was dangling the possibility of an appearance

    Nick, good choice of words.

  • Ghost on the Highway||

    Trevor Potter (election expert) is counsel to Stephen Colbert's "Americans for a Better Tomorrow" Super Pac. He has publicly criticized Trump in the media on recent several occasions. Here he is presented as unbiased Bush appointee. Cooper decided his record on criticizing Trump not relevant to the audience.

    Avenetti is high end slick boutique trial lawyer. Known for suing celebs for big dollars, and has baggage of his own. Previously sued Trump. The kind of trial lawyer why people don't like trial lawyers. In it for big bucks and fame. Recently hired. Cooper decided none of this was relevant to the audience.

    Stormy often lies, but now is telling the truth. Lying about lying.

    Cooper dutiful serves up leading questions. I'm sure the whole thing was rehearsed. Democrat money in the background. Who's paying Avenettui?

  • josh||

    I believe everything she says except for her assertion she slept with him because she just found herself in a situation of her own making and it seemed like the thing do. It's almost like she's saying it would've been rude not to fuck him.

    That said, it's not going to matter much. The desperation to impeach is kind of sad, and I say that as someone who wishes he actually did do something impeachable. The media just likes saying porn star repeatedly, I think.

  • WJack||

    Homosexual interviews prostitute on CBS, wow!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online