The problem is lawfare, not Trump, and no one on the right is immune to it
So Trump had never seen Daniels before in his life except for a picture from a golf tournament? Then she shows up claiming to have had a tryst/affair with Trump during the same golf tournament and Trumpworld hands her $130k, maybe on Trump’s instructions and definately reimbursed by Trump?
It’s theoretically possible that Trump is the completely innocent victim in this one, I suppose. It is also a certainty that no other conceivable Republican nominee would have this kind of problem.
But the problem is not Daniels, nor is it the hush money, nor is it a possible affair that may or may not have occurred. The problem is twofold. The first is that there is great publicity and power to be had through false charges, as we can see from the Kavanaugh hearings. Then there was Roy Moore, who may or may not have been guilty of sex with a minor long ago but whose campaign was destroyed by charges that he was. Not to mention Herman Cain – remember him? They tried it against John McCain close to the 2008 election.
The press amplifies such charges against anyone on the right, of course. So that’s one weapon, and a potent one it is. But it’s not limited to sexual matters. Remember Romney and the dog on the car roof? Or Romney, tormentor of gay high school students? No, it really doesn’t matter who it is, the left will find something and in fact many things. And yes, some people give them more to work with, like Trump. But even with someone squeaky-clean, the press and the left will rise to the challenge.
The deeper problem is political lawfare by the left against the right, and/or the threat of it. Given the correct blue venue, it’s not all that hard to get a conviction even on ridiculous charges (Mike Flynn, anyone?). That’s what’s going on with Alvin Bragg and Trump, and whether the case ultimately goes forward or not, the publicity about the charges is part of the punishment.
This is not new. I refer you to the history of the persecution/prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, which ended up changing the Senate balance of power from Republican to Democrat in Obama’s first term and enabled so much that followed, and the prosecution/persecution of Tom DeLay, then Majority Leader of the House. It effectively ended his career, although the verdict was ultimately overturned. Although neither case had anything to do with sex, both cases involved campaign finance rules – the same sort of thing they’re trying to pin on Trump. It’s also the same sort of thing – complete with novel legal theories – that was tried in Israel with Netanyahu.
The left will try this with anyone. And campaign finance laws are a very handy and flexible tool in that endeavor. Those on the left who are guilty – Hillary Clinton, for example – get the wrist slap of a fine. Those on the right are more likely to be prosecuted, if the left feels a prosecution would serve its purposes.
In his famous speech titled The Federal Prosecutor, then-Attorney General, and later Justice Jackson said, “The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America… While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.”
Indeed.
}}} But even with someone squeaky-clean, the press and the left will rise to the challenge.
This may well have been very much the case with Kavanaugh. It’s quite possible that the whole thing was a complete fabrication to smear someone who had never been known to show such behavior in his more recent career.
I personally doubt there was even a small grain of truth to it. Was Kav an asshole when young? Quite possibly, like many such over-wealthy kids… but was he anything to Ford is the real question. Probably not, largely because there was very little reason for contact between them. Kids that age tend to hang out with people in their own class group, not kids several years younger.
}}} Then she shows up claiming to have had a tryst/affair with Trump during the same golf tournament and Trumpworld hands her $130k, maybe on Trump’s instructions and definitely reimbursed by Trump?
It’s quite possible they did it to just make her go away. For someone as wealthy as Trump, 130k is chump change. It’s the lint in his $5,000 Brooks Brothers suit pocket.
Assume he’s a billionaire, and makes 5% ROI annually — that’s 50m dollars. 130k is 26c to him
Seems Georgia wants to jump in on Trump with trying to overturn the election.
Add many other Trump people like Gen Flynn, it’s disgusting and there will be no end since their judges are going along with these cases.
But it can only be successful if voters are persuaded to vote against the targeted candidate. At some point, republicans are going to need to simply ignore these left-wing legal attacks and vote “R” regardless. It’s what democrats do. We are in a war–albeit cultural–and wartime justifies suspension of many rules of peacetime society. The harder the left comes against Trump, the firmer is my resolve to support him, all his alleged deficiencies aside.
I agree NEO. I just wish “our side” could do some Lawfare of our own.
OFF TOPIC: Concerning Ted Stevens. Yes what happened was a travesty as was releasing the divorce papers on Gov Ryan by BO. When Stevens died in the plane crash items in his estate were sold. He had an extensive collection of early American planes. Someone bought one and put it up on EBay. My Wife saw it and read the caption on it – it was made in the 1850s by an ancestor of hers. We bought it and have in a display case.
I personally doubt there was even a small grain of truth to it. Was Kav an asshole when young? Quite possibly, like many such over-wealthy kids… but was he anything to Ford is the real question. Probably not, largely because there was very little reason for contact between them. Kids that age tend to hang out with people in their own class group, not kids several years younger.
==
Ford was 26 months younger than Mark Judge, 20 months younger than Kavanaugh and female. Not too implausible. There are other reasons (where they went to school, where they resided, the holes in her account, the lack of any corroboration) to believe they were not acquainted.
==
The age difference is a strong argument in re Julia Swetnick, who was 20 months older than Judge and 26 months older than Kavanaugh and claimed to be hanging around with them as a matter of routine when she was a community college student and they were high school students. Swetnick graduated from high school in Gaithersburg Md, 20 miles away from where Kavanaugh and Judge were living and attending school. (There is a community college campus in Rockville, Md., where the high school Kavanaugh and Judge attended is located).
==
Kavanaugh’s family was suburban fancy bourgeois. His mother was a schoolteacher-turned-prosecutor and his father was a trade association executive. As Kavanaugh was an only child, they would have had considerable disposable income. There’s no grand reason to think they had a lot of assets. At a later date, his father had an exclusive country club membership, but it’s a passable wager the dues were picked up by his employer; the real coup there was that he scored a memberhip. Mark Judge’s father worked for the National Geographic Society. They could afford private school tuitions but, one might guess, were not wealthy.
}}} While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.”
Indeed. There was a local comic shop owner. He had collected a bunch of books that hadn’t sold into a batch collection for discounted sale (e.g., 10 books for 10 bucks, whatever). One of those included DC comics’ The Score, a mildly mature comic, with warnings on the labels… but it wasn’t anything raunchier than you might see in a borderline “R” movie of the time, not “pornographic” or anything. Not even “hard R”, just “barely R”. Some bare breasts at most.
A woman visiting there with her 16 or 17yo son, he picked it out, she went to the counter and bought it for him. When getting home, she saw the comic, was offended.
Now, a rational individual would have given the shop owner the benefit of the doubt, and called to complain. I can state, from having known the owner for years at that point — he would have apologized profusely, offered a refund, and as soon as the phone was back on the hook would have had his employees going through the packs looking for any similar material.
No, this bitch — and I do mean that — called the local STATE ATTORNEY’s office.
THEY sent in a 17yo shill to buy a similar pack (it was clear plastic wrapped, so you could see the spines of the books, and this book DID have a spine with a title on it).
They made no effort to contact the store owner to have them come in and discuss it.
He got wind of something going on, and called to ask if there was any issue. He was told there was not.
Instead, a day or so later, the cops show up with a warrant and arrest him and carry him from the place in handcuffs… 🙁
Now, several issues here:
1 — it was unquestionably an accident
2 — more critically, the mother was the one who actually bought it, not the son, so they had no cause of action to send the shill in to make the second purchase.
3 — had anyone not been an asshole about the whole thing, as I say, the owner, being very conscientious, would have dealt with it immediately.
They tried to get him to plea bargain. He stood on his rights and refused. They kept coming at him, and he kept fending them off, legally, because they literally had no case, and any responsible prosecutor would know this.
But letting go of it would have required that the prosecutor take one in his “loss” column. So he kept maliciously prosecuting it, knowing that a judge would toss it out so it would not be a “loss” for him.
The case was so egregiously bad that, when it finally got in front of a judge, the judge took one look at the case, publicly admonished him for wasting everyone’s time, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Made no difference to the prosecutor. What did he care? :-/
The shop owner wound up having to close one of his two shops, though, and never recovered, really. He closed up totally about 5y later after 15y in business.
There needs to be penalties in our systems for malicious prosecution.
I suspect a lot of prosecutors are ICNBW narcissists. There are no mechanisms to screen such people out and sanction them for the damage they do, and there should be.
IMO, someone who calls a prosecutors’ office to report a crime should be advised to contact a specialized bureau of the police department and given the number. It is police, not prosecutors, who should be initiating investigations. The prosecutor is there to make the case in court based on material provided by police and advise investigators as to whether or not the evidence they’ve collected suffices to make a case.
}}} Ford was 26 months younger than Mark Judge, 20 months younger than Kavanaugh and female. Not too implausible.
That would put her almost certainly 2 classes behind them both. Seniors do not usually hang out with Sophomores. And Juniors NEVER hang out with Freshmen, the maturity levels are rather significant. Trust me, I remember both sides. I was a Freshman age (skipped a grade) as a sophomore in HS in one place. I *know* I did shit that was immature as hell and pissed off some Junior friends. Later transferred to another High School, which had 9-12th grades, and, as a Junior, recalled some very annoying 9th graders.
Not saying it can’t have happened, but, as you say, the lack of evidence provides considerable support to that idea. The fact that she never ever even commented on it, somehow, to anyone until 20y later is another sign of it. Something that traumatic happens, you’re going to mention it to someone to try and work your way through it. Not 100% guaranteed, but enough to make very timely 20y later accusations quite a bit suspect.
SHIREHOME:
Wouldn’t work. Judges and juries on the right are more inclined to stick to the law.
Steve (retired/recovering lawyer):
This isn’t primarily about how Republicans vote. It’s about how the middle votes. The middle is necessary for Republicans to have a chance to win.
Well judge contreras accepted a plea from general flynn that waa extorted by strzok and another agent i cant recall (it took sidney powell to dig up the transcript three years later) and then judge gleason a fan of habitual landry hsbc continued the process till the doj forced an end
The concept here is “go away money.” My company got sucked into a worker’s comp case. My insurance company settled with the plaintiff, and I asked why. The answer I got was that it was a case where very likely we would prevail in court, but settling was cheaper than defending.
What puzzles me is Daniels’ apparent violation of whatever NDA she had to sign. I would think that that not only means she forfeits the settlement, but she’d have to pay damages to Trump as well, wouldn’t she? As an aged-out adult film actress, her money making days are in the rearview mirror, so where is she going to get the loot to pay? Oh right, some DNC big shot.
Well she had avenatti as her atty (who subsequently robbed her blind) so there is that as he did with all his clients
To go back even further: Ray Donovan, Secretary of Labor under Ronald Reagan. “On May 25, 1987, Donovan (and all of the other defendants) were acquitted with a number of jurors openly applauding the verdict, after which Donovan was famously quoted as asking, ‘Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?'” Sorry, Ray. Sorry, Tom DeLay. Sorry, Ted Stevens. Sorry, Mike Flynn. You’d think we’d have learned the playbook by now, but apparently not.
The movie “Absence of Malice” (1981) comes to mind. The one with the Wilford Brimley cameo.
Another arm of the left’s tactics to control the judicial process is the use of sanctions. Lawyers and plaintiffs that bring lawsuits against egregious election processes are subject to punitive sanctions and even disbarment.
In the case of Kari Lake, her attorneys were sanction for bringing a suit in the spring of 2022 over the use of electronic voting machines.
One of the statements by the federal judge ordering the sanctions was this:
“While the judge generally suggested that the plaintiffs had connected themselves with a less than admirable piece of litigation, he was careful not to bash them repeatedly or entirely. For instance, the judge declined to agree with the government officials that the plaintiffs brought the case “for an improper purpose” — namely when it became “politically profitable” to do so “to further their political campaigns” among voters who believed the 2020 election was “stolen” from Donald Trump.
Despite that finding, the judge did criticize the general trend toward using the federal courts to attempt to settle grievances over allegedly “stolen” elections.
“The Court shares the concerns expressed by other federal courts about misuse of the judicial system to baselessly cast doubt on the electoral process in a manner that is conspicuously consistent with the plaintiffs’ political ends,” he noted.
The courts are the only recourse to election malfeasance, and it looks like liberal jurists don’t like that one bit.
https://lawandcrime.com/federal-court/judge-sanctions-kari-lakes-legal-team-which-includes-alan-dershowitz-for-recklessly-filing-false-misleading-and-unsupported-claims-in-election-lawsuit/
Sullivan, I believe…
(Gleason was his amicus brief best buddy IIRC. Two dirtbags for the price of one, I guess…)
– – – – – – – – – –
As for “No one on the right is immune to it” I’d quibble that no one on the left will be either…
That is, no one on the principled left…whatever’s left of it….
(Or rather, whomever is deemed “enemy of the people” at any particular hour of any particular day…)
Well ken paxton evaded it if memory serves
Im guessing she is over the target
It’s quite possible they did it to just make her go away. For someone as wealthy as Trump, 130k is chump change. It’s the lint in his $5,000 Brooks Brothers suit pocket.
If they had ANY evidence besides the photo, one of hundreds that day, I would be in doubt but Trump is a germophobe and has access to much better looking women who are infinitely less likely to carry diseases down there. Jack Kennedy seemed to revel in sex with sketchy women. I’ve never heard anything like that with Trump and you could be sure, if there were, it would on the NY Times front page before now.
As for Mike Flynn, he got involved in a sexual harassment case between a female FBI agent and one of his tormentors at the FBI, who was the offender. Flynn backed up the female agent’s story and McCabe <a href="https//www.pacificpundit.com/2017/12/04/fbi-andrew-mccabe-accused-of-sexual-discrimination-flynn-investigation-was-revenge/" who got sweet revenge.
I don’t know why that link didn’t work. I ran out of time to edit it.
“This isn’t primarily about how Republicans vote.”
It is primarily, though, about how elected Republicans act. The GOP holds more than enough power in more than enough places to make the Democrats pay dearly for any and all lawfare. They just choose not to do it.
Mike
I thought the Bible said something about “bearing false witness,” which is a concept relevant to a lot of these Lawfare cases. I strongly endorse the idea that malicious prosecution carry really heavy consequences. Of course, “malice” is a bit fuzzy; the actual test might be, “Did you await the unequivocal report of an independent investigative body as to WTF was going on, before you decided to proceed with the prosecution?”
In the end so much of this depends for its utility to society, on intangibles like “decency” and “conscience.” And unfortunately the offices of interest do not attract, indeed can repel, decent people with a conscience.
there seems to be a premium with lawfare, getting stevens out, stealing franken’s seat, was invaluable to securing obamacare, look at everything that passed since 2020, which has been toxic to the body politic, as well as the economy, with mcconnell’s collusion, austin mayorkas, garland, not to mention their deputies,
gleason was part of the get gotti gang, along with weissman (yes that weissman)
how big a deal was gotti, except for his big mouth, as compared to what they allowed bulger to do, with impunity, for kneecapping the providence mob, their mouthpiece was luskin who later saved rove’s bacon, and most recently represented stefan halper, another deep state denizen,
Brilliantly well said Neo, and this is one of the things that has always galled me about the “Well it’s Trump so” crowd. Do they SERIOUSLY expect that this will never be used against others? Against them? Do they not realize the deep level of politicization and corruption that existed well before then, like under LBJ? One of the worst things to happen to our nation and culture has been the climate of impunity and lack of accountability. Particularly one underlined by a very powerful leftist dominated media.
This is dangerous. What are the chances that the Jan 6th Show Trials and detentions without charge would be going on without this kind of aggressive flanking and covering fire? I’d reckon a lot, LOT lower than what they are now. And if we don’t have plans for our own long marches through the institutions, we might well see the death of the Republic. And quickly at that.
Brian E is also right. The lack of accountability or even venues to corrupt corruption and malfeasance in elections is ghastly. It might even be a mortal wound for the republic. We’ve seen it happen time and time again, and particularly hideously in Arizona.
neo – You’re not wrong, but Trump provides a target rich environment.
neo – You’re not wrong, but Trump provides a target rich environment.
==
You’ve had the Russian collusion hoax, Alexander Vindman’s scamming around, and the J6 nonsense. All humbug. If he’s such a target rich environment, why are they trading in his hooey? (Which their voters readily consume).
Sgt. Joe Friday,
You are the only person, other than myself, that I have heard make reference to the fact that Ms. Daniels is legally at fault here. She clearly violated the terms of the NDA she signed.
I have sympathy for Daniels (Avenatti put her through the wringer), and no empathy for Trump, a married man, sleeping with a woman behind his wife’s back, but Daniels signed a contract and the terms were clearly favorable to her at the time. Why does no one mention the fact that she is breaking the law by making this public. The “non” in NDA.
Trump agreed not to enforce the NDA.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-08/stormy-daniels-donald-trump-hush-money-agreement-case-dismissed/10885350
@LordAzrael > thanks for the link. The article also notes this about the case, which may be what Bragg is depending on for his prosecution.
Please note the “and” in that first bolded sentence.
My question: Cohen is (was?) an attorney; he was Trump’s lawyer; he was reimbursed for the payment he made to Daniels to settle a potential legal problem for his client, plus some money for his services.
How is that NOT a legal expense, even if not strictly related to campaigning?
Does the FEC have a list of approved purchases, like the insurance companies have for medical treatments?
And then there are the Democrat Rules, which Republicans never get to play by.
https://thefederalist.com/2023/03/20/if-democrats-really-cared-about-campaign-finance-laws-hillary-clinton-and-obama-would-have-felt-their-wrath-years-ago/
See Powerline’s reporting at the time.
@ Shirehome > “We bought it and have in a display case.”
Please tell me that it is a model replica, not a full size plane!
However, we do have a bowling alley in my ‘burb with a gen-u-ine flying machine in it’s front plaza.
And some people buy old railroad cars for workshops.
@ Owen > “I thought the Bible said something about “bearing false witness,” which is a concept relevant to a lot of these Lawfare cases.”
I’ve always regretted that Protestant Bibles no longer include the story of Daniel and Susanna. It had several good object lessons about morality, ethics, and the law.
One thing pointed out in this commentary is that the judges failed to perform their mandated duty to thoroughly investigate the claims of the perfidious elders, and simply accepted their testimony as conclusive because they both made the same claim, superficially at least.
https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-tale-of-susanna-a-story-about-daniel
Which Daniel proceeds to do for them.
One thing that stands out to me in this story, and also in the New Testament account of the woman taken in adultery who is pardoned by Jesus (and very likely guilty, unlike Susanna), is that in neither case is there any attempt to determine the man who would have had to be a partner in the alleged adultery, even though both should be condemned under a strict interpretation of the Law.
Probably not going to happen in our current judicial system.
The other lawfare is being done by a group called the 65 Project. They target lawyers who are conservative or take conservative causes. Trumps election lawyers quite because their careers were threatened. The lawyer who won the New York 2nd Amendment case resigned from the firm he belonged to.
“I suspect a lot of prosecutors are ICNBW narcissists”
Bwahahahahaha!!! Good one, Art!
So Trump paid her when she extorted him.
THAT was his real fault, though at the time probably understandable given the circumstances. If he’d gone public about the extortion, or gone to the police, he’d have been dragged through the dirt and she’d not have suffered any consequences.
But now him giving in to extortion is coming back to haunt him, which is not a surprise.
@JTW
Agreed, and why I generally refuse blackmail.
But that’s still stupid. Paying hush money to a blackmailer is not a criminal act, and we the vox populi made it that way for a very clear reason. It is quite literally prosecuting the victim. And even if the funds DID come from a source they are not supposed to (which is unlikely in this case) the blackmail is usually regarded as a slightly mitigating circumstance since the payer is not doing it strictly of their own free will.
Art Deco – The hooey sticks because it’s plausible to ordinary middle of the road voters.
The man very publicly cheated on his first wife, allowed himself to be filmed talking like a complete cad on the Access Hollywood thing, allowed himself to be recorded saying creepy things about his daughter, regularly speaks in ways that are degrading to women (“blood coming out of her . . . “), and so on. Now come the porn stars who he paid off to keep quiet about alleged affairs/trysts. Daniels and McDougal might well be lying. It requires a certain level of willful blindness to pretend that Trump’s behavior and overall lack of moral character don’t make him uniquely vulnerable to this sort of thing.
Same with Russia – Trump’s lack of verbal discipline with respect to Putin and other dictators was striking. Sure it was a joke when Trump invited Putin to release Hillary’s e-mails. It was also a joke that no serious leader should ever tell. Serious leaders don’t play international relations for a laugh. If you do, you make yourself vulnerable to those who would paint you as Putin’s stooge, which Trump’s enemies were happy to do.
And Ukraine – The Ukraine impeachment was silly in the extreme, but Trump brought that on himself. It is simply not appropriate to ask a foreign leader to investigate your political opponent. It’s not impeachable, but it is delusional to call it a perfect phone call. Trump handed his enemies the rope that they used to hang him.
That is what gets me about this line of debate. It is unquestionable that Democrats will use any means, fair or foul, to smear and defeat any Republican. You’ll get no argument from me on that one. So yes, Republicans and right-of-center candidates are going to face enemy fire. Trump charges into the fire with his gun pointed squarely at his own foot. As he continues to repeatedly shoot himself in the foot, he insists that we keep sending him into the fire because Democrats are going to shoot at which ever candidate we send.
It really is madness.
Here’s a bit more “Hooey”…(as jounalism’s “five W”s fundamentally transform into one big giant “H”….)
(Hillary? Hypocrisy? Hooey? Harm? Horses*&t?…)
“Memos from 2018-19 shake up Trump case: Cohen denied having incriminating evidence on hush money;
“A lawyer who formerly advised Michael Cohen alleges that in 2018 the ex-Trump adviser claimed to know nothing about the former president committing wrongdoing, including on hush money to women.”—
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/wcohen-wanted-trump-pay-legal-bills-had-no-incriminating-evidence
File under: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUxLVEL7fsU
Barry Meislin – Cohen is completely unrelieable one way or another. The only thing interesting about his 2018-2019 statements is that they demonstrate that you shouldn’t believe anything he says now, or ever for that matter.
Concerned Conservative™ recalls all the ways for all the days that OMB is forever bad.
OMB also blamed China for that disease and stole his lunch money too.
And now it is alleged that the lawyer Trump hired to represent him in the NY case previously tried to represent Stormy Daniels. Apparently they have texts showing that this lawyer received confidential information from Ms. Daniels that may (will?) create a conflict in the current case.
Sleaze attracts sleaze.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/texts-between-stormy-daniels-trump-attorney-handed-over
Just wonderin’ why Tara Reade might make of all this….
What revolting developmemts as thr stomach churns
@Sgt. Joe Friday:What puzzles me is Daniels’ apparent violation of whatever NDA she had to sign.
I’ve never seen the text of that NDA, so I don’t know how we would know she has even violated it.
If she hasn’t violated it by saying what she’s saying about Trump, then the NDA covers something else that neither of them can talk about. So if she says it was about sex, but wasn’t, what can Trump say to refute it? He can’t say what it was really about…
It is his personal life but I do not doubt for one second that Trump had a fling with Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) but I have zero doubts that this is all political. Alvin Bragg is one of those pro-Criminal D.A.’s that Blue cities tend to vote for and then wonder why the cirme rate is so high.
Bauxite
You made many excellent points and I agree with you completely. Donald Trump has zero self discipline and what is worse he never learns (or feels he needs to learn) from his mistakes.
@Bauxite
On this I agree. However, a lot of the reasons it seems plausible to ordinary middle of the road voters is because of a leftist echo chamber designed to demonize all those who opposite it. I know. I lived through the Dubya years and have researched earlier. It’s amazing to see how many people still unthinkingly claim Dubya stole Florida in 2000 and that Saddam had no WMDs.
It makes him vulnerable. But it does not make him uniquely vulnerable and one must have a very selective vision of politicians to believe this makes him uniquely vulnerable. Especially with sufficiently motivated malcontents. Indeed, the number of adulterous Presidents we now know about is staggering.
I’m sorry, but I disagree profusely. Firstly: humor is a tool and weapon like any others, and has been employed successfully by many. Reagan, anyone? Reagan if anything went further by causing a couple international standoffs including a Soviet nuclear alert on the Pacific with his “outlaw Russia’ joke.
Secondly: Trump WAS NOT unique in his “lack of discipline” regarding Putin’s dictatorship or more cloying nonsense. I remember the Obama and Dubya years, and what they said was often much worse. In particular the grotesque “Reset” with Obama, Hillary, Putin, and co while our Georgian allies still had corpses mouldering comes to mind.
It’s just that Trump was demonized more because
A: Obama was the Leftist Messiah and was slavishly worshipped by the MSM and agitprop Left.
B: The Left hated Bush for reasons other than Russia policy and if anything used the “failure” of his diplomacy with Putin as a club to beat him with, alleging they would do it “better” and truly understand Bad Vladimir’s failings.
The Ukraine scandal was brought about by Biden very obviously using his influence in an equally suspicious if not worse fashion. Moreover, it is absolutely normal for POTUSes to ask foreign governments about possible corruption in their nation, ESPECIALLY if it might reflect on them. This was pretty purely created out of whole cloth by the left and is used to deflect away from the corruption and malfeasance (among other things) of the Bidens.
But how many people know that Biden openly gloated about getting the Ukrainian AG fired?
But madness is also insisting we wait for the “right” candidate or have people go to ground when the first shots go out.
Trump was not a perfect President or Politician by any stretch of the imagination, but it is striking to me how much framing you allow the left to set. How you assure OF COURSE that nobody would make a joke about Putin and the emails in spite of Reagan and others. How OF COURSE it was inappropriate or not perfect for Trump to ask the Ukrainian government to investigate what was clearly inappropriate actions (in spite of the fact that even the left would struggle to make a stir about this were it about – say- one of the Congos or Ethiopia).
Give an inch, they will take a mile. And too much hand wringing about Trump I do not see helps us.
Yeah, that was a catastrophic mistake and Trump should have known better.
@ Turtler > “Trump should have known better.”
For him to have known, the lawyer (Joe Tacopina) would have had to tell him.
If the lawyer told him, then it is indeed a catastrophic mistake by Trump.
If the lawyer did NOT tell him, then we need to find out why.
Where did the lawyer come from and why did Trump hire him in the first place?
Were they already connected, or was it a new relationship?
After reviewing some of the material that Bill Shipley has posted about Jacob Chansley’s first lawyer, I suggested that it was not impossible Watkins was a DOJ plant, sent out to get the QAnon Shaman in front of a judge as soon as possible, for narrative purposes, and into jail in a plausible way (“incompetent counsel” seems to be the first line of most appeals these days).
Incompetence has to be judged in relation to the goal.
There isnt any evidence but it appears if you are guilty of any offense like the clintons or the bidens it doesnt practically matter the ziggurat will spend tax payers money to ratify lies
Well he didnt formally represent her, she was represented by some dem hack then avenatti cohens own attorney testified to his clients unethical nature
It’s amazing how all of these calamities befall Trump and all of the people he chooses fail him. Just incredible. The man has such terrible luck.
Hey, let’s nominate him for the presidency again for the third cycle in a row!
Miguel cervantes – It doesn’t matter that Trump’s lawyer didn’t actually represent Daniels. If he received confidential information from her, he shouldn’t have agreed to represent Trump. That is a big no-no in the lawyer biz. And I find it very difficult to believe that the lawyer didn’t remember talking to Stormy Daniels.
Isn’t it incredible how Trump keeps attracting people who are incompetents, crooks, or both? What terrible luck!
@AesopsFan
I’m less generous here. Trump had resources and usually the identity of lawyers’ clients is not outright privleged/confidential knowledge. So he probably should have been able to figure out he had worked for SD and adjusted.
I can believe that.
Kangaroo tribunal called on account of boxing gloves replacement
@Bauxite
Yes it is. Because in addition to his own failures he is also a key target.
Still far better than most of the other potentials, save probably DeSantis.
Which brings us back to the key issue of if he disclosed this failure to Trump. Though I do figure Trump should have been able to research during vetting to see.
Riiight, let’s ignore the track record of pretty much every President for the last twenty years. As well as a lot of systematic violations against more local players like the Alaskan Reps.
Trump’s far from blameless and he was suckered badly by a lot of Swampthings (in part to try and accommodate moderates) but it’s amazing how badly things go when you have systematic targeting designed to limit the pool of people you can employ – let alone TRUST – and moreover to vilify you for anything you do. The fact that you think Trump’s joke re: Putin was so beyond the pale I think helps underline how much of a problem comes from framing rather than how it is.
Getting rid of Trump at most will remove some of the more egregious failures there (at the possible cost of losing someone who has shown he can fight), but it won’t deal with the greater issue.
And let’s also ignore how relatively few other leaders have been willing to touch the issue of the 2020 election and the thievery involved there.
@MBunge
Ok, that got a good laugh out of me. Very true indeed.
Probably consider general flynns first atty he wasted three years not getting to the bottom of the phony plea deal
The left plays for keeps, and many are marxists with very clear agenda’s where the ends justifies the means. Each non-commie candidate-usually reads GOP-is always more of a “Hitler” than the one before him. (lol, zir, they, or whatever) During the Bush years, I thought no GOP’er was ever as hated-Bush was called “Hitler” by so many. With Trump, Bush was resuscitated and was now a “good” guy, and Trump was the evil “Hitler”. Funny how the left never calls any “bad” guy Stalin…what more be said of it?
turtler – You’re rationalizing, and engaging in a heavy dose of whataboutism. Whataboutism is fine when the issue is whether criminal charges should be brought. (I.e., if they didn’t charge their own for the same thing, they shouldn’t charge yours either.) But you’re arguing that we should run a candidate who has a slew of known vulnerabilities because you can cite Democrats who had similar vulnerabilies and weren’t prosecuted or otherwise penalized for them.
You know what, the system isn’t fair. The media and most of our institutions are ideologically captured by committed leftists. Democrats just aren’t going to be penalized, criminally or politically, for a lot of things that should be penalized. Trumpers respond to this situation by backing a candidate who needs a walk-in closet to store all his skeletons and then whining when their candidate is punished for his skeletons and Democrats are not.
And frankly, Trump’s skeletons matter. If Kavanaugh had Trump’s reputation as a womanizer, there’s no way he would have survived what they threw at him.
It’s not a matter of waiting for the perfect candidate, as you suggest. Just run someone closer to Kavanaugh, who prevailed, and not like Trump, who hasn’t won anything since 2016.
OMB in full throttle mode.
How many attys outside advisorshave been cancelled arrested for any association with trump
If you actually fixed a court case in ukraine (greg craig) the dc courts move heaven and earth to protect you same for weber and podesta who actually lobbied for ukraine (they werent even charged) so lets stop pretending that law or ethics enters into this at all
tutler – I think you’re leaning way too much on the argument that Trump has been prevented from hiring who he wanted. Look at his hires over time, Michael Cohen, Bill Barr, Jeff Sessions, Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, Anthony Scaramucci, Elaine Choi, John Bolton, Reince Priebus, John Kelly, Mick Mulvaney, Roy Cohn, etc., etc., etc.
Every single one is either somewhat questionable or cited by Trumpers as an excuse for some kind of failure by the Trump administration.
So again, either Trump has world-record-setting bad luck with his hires, or the problem lies with the person doing the hiring.
om – I hope you enjoy Biden’s second term.
And frankly, Trump’s skeletons matter. If Kavanaugh had Trump’s reputation as a womanizer, there’s no way he would have survived what they threw at him.
==
A bad argument is not improved by repeating it Bauxite.
Art Deco – The hooey sticks because it’s plausible to ordinary middle of the road voters.
==
No, it’s not plausible to middle-of-the-road voters that Trump deserved impeachment for asking the President of Ukraine to look in to Joseph Biden’s efforts to get a prosecutor fired. Nothing Trump did made it ‘plausible to middle of the road voters’ that Trump was a cat’s paw of the Russian government.
The problem with Roy Moore (besides his bizarre dating habits and to me there seemed to be enough evidence to confirm his predilection for youger girls) was he also refused to enforce the laws that he himself did not agree with.
Bauxite
Re: Trump’s hires
He prefers people “who have said nice things about me” instead of competent people who might tell him truths that he prefers not to hear. I did like Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State and Nikki Haley as U.N. Ambassador though. If he wins the GOP nomination in 2024 (God forbid) I can only imagine whom he will pick to be his Vice Presidential running mate as Nick Fuentes cannot be it since he is not 35 years old.
Barr was as blue chip as possible that could be confirmed see whitaker sans the fisa hoax there would have been no mueller investigation. Who would you have picked other than mattis
Concerned Conservative™ can’t seem to grasp that his obsessive OMB is tiresome.
DeSantis seems to be doing a very good job dealing with the left and dealing with President Trump’s x11 political approaches to other republican opponents.
Concerned Conservative™ may need another hobby besides OMB. Don’t start the praises of the Harry Logan (sic intentionally) types of candidates.
CC™ – “Lets go Brandon!”
In general I prefer reading the actual comment that was made, and dealing with that content, to targeting someone with an all-purpose snarky nickname. There are commenters here I agree with most of the time; some, some of the time; but very few who are always objectionable.
@Bauxite
Oh dear, accusations I am engaging in logical fallacies. I’ve never had THAT targeted against me.
That is sarcasm, for the record.
It’s also ironic you are accusing me of whataboutism when not a few comments away you fully accept the Left will try and do similar to any Conservative. And again, I am a veteran of the Bush years, when Dubya so lacked audacity he was unwilling to go into the trenches to point out we had found dozens of thousands of WMD artillery shells in Iraq and plenty of documents about Saddam’s ties to the likes of AQ, with the result that he shot himself in the foot on a more profound level than Trump ever did, which is indeed why someone with Trump’s many personality traits and defects was able to come to the fore (and indeed why some of them were viewed as desirable).
This is a very real issue, and whataboutism charges do not work when the question of “What about x” is a very real issue.
And it is ironic you accuse me of “rationalization” while ignoring how
A: that is one of the major JOBS of partisan political outlets, whether the MSM or campaign trail outlets.
And
B: That you did not address the Very Basic Facts I brought up. That humor is a weapon and tool for politics, and one Reagan used to great effect and even Trump did too. That it is mundane to ask about corruption with foreign governments (and I worked with charity, so I got wind of more of this stuff than most).
You probably do not have a coherent explanation for how it was different when Trump did it from when Reagan or the Bushes or others did, at least on principle. Which is a very key point of rationalization.
No, it isn’t. That’s kind of a definition with why whataboutism is bad. It doesn’t work, and is very distinct from why asking questions of “What about X?” When they are valid is true.
You want to accuse me of intellectual malfeasance, and then come forth with this balderdash showing you apparently didn’t bother reading my points. Great job.
For the record: I did not focus my points on citing DEMOCRATS doing so. The overwhelming majority of the cases I cited were about REPUBLICANS OTHER THAN TRUMP and how they did similar or even identical or arguably worse (again, Reagan causing a diplomatic incident with his “outlaw Russia forever” joke) than what Trump did. Because those issues point to a few crucial things.
Firstly: that you are incredibly quick to accept the delegitimization of what Trump did even when – as in the case of the Putin e-mails joke – it was quite normal or, as in the case of the Ukraine Questions – ENTIRELY LEGITIMATE AND WITHIN HIS DUTIES.
Secondly: it points to a very onerous and more apparently issue with this. The Overton Window dominated by the left isn’t just mock by but Shrinking. The scope of action for a Conservative politician to take is shrinking and has been remorselessly shrinking for years. You might be able to argue that Trump’s follies and personality made that worse (through I would disagree), but that is ultimately secondary – nay, Tertiary – to the more apparent threat posed by the process as a whole.
Thirdly: you don’t seem to realize the fact that the reasons I brought all of this up is the fact that there will come times when DeSantis has to act pointed questions about corruption regarding American leftist politicos to foreign leaders (indeed a President DeSantis will probably have to act about the exact same things Trump did to Zelenskyy or whoever is President of Ukraine), that they will need to use humor and irony to undermine the left and foreign opponents (as he has shown skill at doing), and that he will have to deal with the swamp and untrustworthy folk.
Because that is what Presidents do. Especially the asking about corruption issue. And if you are prepared to throw Trump under the bus because he was “uncouth” and are so prepared to do it you will uncritically accept so much of the left’s framing, you’ll leave DeSantis and yourself exposed without a coherent defense.
And I’m not even specifically arguing Trump should run again. I’d more than accept him if he did and won the nomination, but my personal instincts incline me towards Kate’s position. But I am able to point out that you haven’t thought this through to nearly the point you think you have.
And then you accuse me of rationalizing for pointing out perfectly cogent, valid, and true observations about American politics and the leaders of our own political party.
It’s not just that. It’s that Republicans are penalized and prosecuted for doing things that former Democrat AND REPUBLICAN figures did. As I pointed out.
You do not get to dismiss this Fact by shouting about whataboutism.
You do not get to ignore this Fact by obsessing about Trump.
So how do we go about working to FIX the system and make it MORE fair?
Because if we can’t go about doing that then all we’re doing is bailing out water and buying more time before flooding capsizes us.
Again, you miss the point. I suspect because you find the points I made quite difficult to GRASP.
The issue is much more systematic than Trump. It isn’t merely that he was persecuted for doing things Democrats get away with, but that he was persecuted for doing things the right still lauds Reagan for doing, if they remember he did them at all (because grilling the West Germans about what Teddy Kennedy was doing with Communist officialdom isn’t exactly one of the seminal moments of his Presidency).
That points to the fact that we are running low on time, and it isn’t just about Trump’s foibles. The atrocities against the Jan 6th political prisoners and other nonsense like Ruby Ridge should have told us that.
Obsessing about Trump’s skeletons is not only not going to fix that; but it is in fact playing into the left’s hands.
Oh, and regarding skeletons in the closet? Trump doesn’t have that many on the grand scale of national politics. Indeed the fact that even the Manhattan DA had to resort to this after Trump spent decades as a real estate mogul during the Indian Summer of Tammany Hall and the Five Families’ Heyday says a lot.
Which brings us back to the issue that if you aren’t prepared and do not focus on how you will shape the battlespace, this isn’t going to work even if you get rid of Trump.
They matter primarily because the left makes them matter and is steadily destroying what freedom there is for people to the right of Engels.
Except Trump survived several similar ploys. People don’t tend to remember the many other people that accused Trump of raping or molesting them only to implode due to a skilled defense. Indeed Daniels is devastating in part because unlike those they can demonstrate Trump made some payment to her.
This is why I mention why obsessing with Trump’s skeletons robs you of your ability to see the big picture even handedly and pushes me to defend Trump more than I otherwise would. Because it is classical “looking for the right person” syndrome without realizing that sometimes that isn’t the issue.
Or put it simply, it is special pleading turned negative.
Accusations of the kind hurled at Kavanagh are damaging but fairly simple – if difficult – to destroy, and indeed both Kavanagh and Trump and their legal teams broke many such accusations of Ford’s level over their leg. It was the fact that Trump IS a womanizer and did pay out to Daniels that has made this charge stick.
And even then look at how many people STILL believe Kavanagh was guilty or there was something to the charges.
Again, you say it isn’t a matter of waiting for the perfect candidate while engaging in willfully misguided, rose tinted memories of what Kavanagh went through, the taint he to some degree suffers, and Trump’s track record of similar victories over similar accusations. Handily underlining for me that this isn’t about the merits of the cases or the man, but specifically about Trump.
The irony is that I am the one underlining how this isn’t important because of Trump, but because of the systematic, pathological strategies the Left engages in and how if you cannot gauge then accurately and come up with ways to defeat them, switching Trump out won’t help.
Oh also, “hasn’t won anything since 2016”? Because I’m supposed to believe Maricopa, Millwaukee, and Baltimore?
And I think you are ignoring why I mentioned it.
Or there is a simpler and more likely true answer. Both. That Trump had a deeply flawed grasp of hiring and managing personnel and was not good at taking responsibility on that level, but was also dealing with a toxic swamp with deep rosters and a willingness to subvert him. The former is a Him problem. The latter is an Anyone problem.
We are going to have to come up with strategies to help out Anyone survive this kind of nonsense.
The problem with Roy Moore (besides his bizarre dating habits and to me there seemed to be enough evidence to confirm his predilection for youger girls)
==
There were four cases.
==
In one case, the woman offered as proof a yearbook inscription that was crudely doctored, and in such a way you could tell she’d done it.
==
In another, a woman contended he’d approached her for a date in the waiting room of a courthouse where she was present while her mother’s attorneys were making motions in a custody hearing. Surviving documentary evidence indicates her entire tale could only have occurred during one 12 day period in 1979, because she and her mother relocated very shortly after. It included implausible tales of a phone extension in her bedroom (she later amended that to say she’d yanked the phone cord all the way to her bedroom). The woman in question was just the sort of person who could be readily bought and she provided no corroboration at all.
==
Another was a case of a mall employee who contended that Moore was on a secret list of patrons banned from the mall; this was contradicted by the mall manager of the era.
==
Another incident actually did occur. A woman said she had a date with Moore when she was 17 and he was 31. They went on a country outing, he played his guitar and sang to her, and that was about it. He’d actually cleared it with her mother beforehand and her mother was pleased Moore was taking an interest in her daughter.
was he also refused to enforce the laws that he himself did not agree with.
==
No, he was resistant to respecting case law that was plainly unreasonable.