WSJ: Cohen paid porn star through private LLC created just weeks before election

[JoshuaIsLord]

Medicare-for-all is going to be their rallying cry, and that means you’ll likely be paying for someone’s contraceptives or even abortions, because your money is going to be pooled.

And what is more stupid, A Priest’s Premium should not be 1200, it should be 600.
Let the Priests have a plan that does cover contraceptives and abortion and save the Diocese some money.

 

[Inisfallen]

What the Religious goobers don’t quite understand? THEY ARE STILL PAYING FOR CONTRACEPTIVES AND ABORTIONS.

While your point is well taken (and one I’ve made here at CAF before), using the word “goobers” to describe religious people is a bad idea. It can, and will, be said of us Catholics, too, when we oppose abortion.

 

[petra22]

Mom said, “If everyone else is jumping off the bridge are you going to jump, too?” Just because a large number of people say one thing is good doesn’t make it good… right?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Only because it suits his current populist party

At some point one simply has to acknowledge that some of the things the man has done are good things. Personality is one thing. Personal mores are another, particularly when they’re pretty much 100% “unattributed source” information. But what a man actually does matters more to me than whether he talks in a vulgar manner or is rude to the media people who are rude to him and, frankly, to people like me.

Now, what is the problem you have with the reality? Did you not want him to reinstate the Mexico City Policy? Did you not want a tax reduction? Did you want him to appoint a pro-abortionist to the Supreme Court? Was it important to you that the U.S. Army have jurisdiction over every farm pond in the U.S.? Did you really want to force those Little Sisters to buy abortifacients?

 

[Road-Worrier]

I think Trump opponents must be in pretty desperate straights if they’re basing their hopes of getting rid of Trump on 10 year old infidelity allegations. He’s not going to be impeached over this and nobody is going to care about this in 3 years. If anybody does, it will probably be guys who are thinking they’d sure like to engage in inappropriate relations with a porn star too. Bill Clinton when he ran for President had a saying “it’s the economy, stupid”, and it will be the same way for Trump. If things are going well economically in 3 years, and the early signs are positive, he’ll be re-elected. If not, someone else will. All these prurient discussions seem to be about is Trump opponents attempting to signal their moral superiority over Trump supporters, and the truth is nobody likes uptight “Church Lady” types who live to signal their moral superiority, so I don’t think you’re helping your cause, but I certainly am not going to tell you to do otherwise.

 

[niceatheist]

I think issues like his firing of Comey and attempt at firing Mueller probably have more bearing on his suitability for high office. I do agree the Stormy Daniels story isn’t that atypical for presidents, and indeed powerful men in general.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think issues like his firing of Comey and attempt at firing Mueller probably have more bearing on his suitability for high office

Doesn’t seem so to me. The Dems took Sessions out of the mix with the “ever meet with a Russian” trick. That put Rosenstein in power. Rosenstein was exceedingly critical of Comey and essentially recommended that Trump fire him.

And then when Trump did, Rosenstein used that fact to appoint a Trump reject and Comey buddy, Mueller, to investigate anything on this earth that he wanted to investigate and prosecute.

And there’s no actual evidence that Trump “tried to fire Mueller”. The stories from “a source” vary.

I will readily agree that the Repubs walked into no few traps in this game. But whether that should disqualify them or the Obama remnants is an open question.

 

[ConstantLearner]

I think issues like his firing of Comey and attempt at firing Mueller probably have more bearing on his suitability for high office. I do agree the Stormy Daniels story isn’t that atypical for presidents, and indeed powerful men in general.

One does have to wonder what Trump needs to hide. Of course he’s not going to sit down and talk to Mueller without a subpoena, and truthfully, neither would I in his shoes, innocent or not. So, whether he talks to Mueller or not is up to Mueller. He can get a subpoena and force Trump to talk. Now the Repubs are saying the FBI is “unreliable.” It sounds like damage control before-the-facts-come-out to me, but time will tell.

To all Repubs: No, I do not hate Trump. I just don’t believe he’s fit for the presidency. I don’t judge his soul - ever - and wish him no ill other than impeachment, and doubt that will happen.

 

[ConstantLearner]

And there’s no actual evidence that Trump “tried to fire Mueller”. The stories from “a source” vary.

I agree with you on that. There is no evidence other than an accusation, and not all accusations are true. I am not “evil,” for example, nor do I hate Trump. Regarding firing Mueller, more needs to be known.

 

[ConstantLearner]

I think Trump opponents must be in pretty desperate straights if they’re basing their hopes of getting rid of Trump on 10 year old infidelity allegations. He’s not going to be impeached over this and nobody is going to care about this in 3 years. If anybody does, it will probably be guys who are thinking they’d sure like to engage in inappropriate relations with a porn star too. Bill Clinton when he ran for President had a saying “it’s the economy, stupid”, and it will be the same way for Trump. If things are going well economically in 3 years, and the early signs are positive, he’ll be re-elected. If not, someone else will. All these prurient discussions seem to be about is Trump opponents attempting to signal their moral superiority over Trump supporters, and the truth is nobody likes uptight “Church Lady” types who live to signal their moral superiority, so I don’t think you’re helping your cause, but I certainly am not going to tell you to do otherwise.

I agree that no one likes the “church lady” moral superiority. I hate it. It convinces me of nothing. Probably Melania doesn’t even care about Trump’s affairs at this point. I am glad to see he’s toned down bragging about them since he became president. The president of the US shouldn’t be having affairs, but I know some, on both sides, have.

It’s Trump’s lying that bothers me more. The president of the US should be counted on to tell the truth. Truth isn’t always valued in business, but I think Trump is learning it’s rather necessary for the president. If the Dems regain control of Congress this year, I think Trump would change parties, if allowed, as has already been suggested. He was a Democrat at one time. Wouldn’t be new territory for him.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Canada does have a 2 tier system. The 2nd tier is the US. Lots of Canadian abandon their system every year get treated in the States.

Strange. I dated a man who was born in Canada, but lived in the US (dual citizenship) not that long ago. His mother went home to Canada because she found the treatment there so much better.

I have no first-hand experience of it myself. I do of the UK and Switzerland. I hated medical treatment in the UK even though it was free. In Switzerland, it couldn’t have been any better. They have mandatory private insurance, but insurers are not allowed to ask any health questions or raise rates due to illness. We all paid the same rate for the option we chose - basic, medical w/dental, etc.

 

[Road-Worrier]

I think issues like his firing of Comey and attempt at firing Mueller probably have more bearing on his suitability for high office.

You think Trump thinking of firing Mueller several months ago when Mueller looked like he might be conflicted and his team was leaking like a sieve, and a lot of people were calling for Trump to get rid of him, but than allowing himself to be talked out of it, and now indicating that he’s willing to meet with Mueller and answer questions makes him unsuitable for high office?

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

I think issues like his firing of Comey and attempt at firing Mueller probably have more bearing on his suitability for high office.

You think Trump thinking of firing Mueller several months ago when Mueller looked like he might be conflicted and his team was leaking like a sieve, and a lot of people were calling for Trump to get rid of him, but than allowing himself to be talked out of it, and now indicating that he’s willing to meet with Mueller and answer questions makes him unsuitable for high office?

I have said that Trump didn’t take Nixon’s path, and that’s a good thing. But the problem here is that for months the White House has denied Trump even wanted to fire Mueller. Now we’re left with the a pretty weak defense that he only talked about firing Mueller.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But the problem here is that for months the White House has denied Trump even wanted to fire Mueller. Now we’re left with the a pretty weak defense that he only talked about firing Mueller.

Doesn’t seem like a whole lot of difference here. I absolutely can’t imagine why Trump would not have “wanted” to fire Mueller, particularly if Trump and his people figured out they had been “ensnared” by the Strotz/McCabe/Rosenstein “insurance policy”.

But that doesn’t mean he “wanted” to actually act on it in the sense of being moved to do it or taking any steps in that direction.

When one thinks about some difficult course of action, one talks about it if one has anybody to talk to.

 

[niceatheist]

You are skipping the element of the story where the White House’s chief council threatened to quit. That suggests it was a bit more than just “hey, what if I wanted to fire Mueller”, and suggests an active desire to see him gone, which was only prevented by a threat to quit. So that’s a lot more than a casual “what if” conversation.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You are skipping the element of the story where the White House’s chief council threatened to quit. That suggests it was a bit more than just “hey, what if I wanted to fire Mueller”, and suggests an active desire to see him gone, which was only prevented by a threat to quit. So that’s a lot more than a casual “what if” conversation.

And you’re missing the part where McGhan confirmed that. Just one more tale from “a source”.

And if Trump didn’t want Mueller gone, something would have to be wrong with Trump. Your political enemies set up a full-time prosecutor’s office whose sole function is to get you impeached or prosecuted, and you’re supposed to like it?

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

You are skipping the element of the story where the White House’s chief council threatened to quit. That suggests it was a bit more than just “hey, what if I wanted to fire Mueller”, and suggests an active desire to see him gone, which was only prevented by a threat to quit. So that’s a lot more than a casual “what if” conversation.

And you’re missing the part where McGhan confirmed that. Just one more tale from “a source”.

And if Trump didn’t want Mueller gone, something would have to be wrong with Trump. Your political enemies set up a full-time prosecutor’s office whose sole function is to get you impeached or prosecuted, and you’re supposed to like it?

You’re not supposed to like it, but you’re supposed to realize that any attempt at interference opens the potential of obstruction of justice. It’s the foremost thing that ended Nixon’s presidency.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You’re not supposed to like it, but you’re supposed to realize that any attempt at interference opens the potential of obstruction of justice.

I’m sure if Mueller had found the slightest evidence of interference with justice, Trump would already be charged. As it is, it appears Mueller is going to have to wait until the 2018 elections to see if he can get the house to impeach Trump. That’s why the investigation won’t end until then.

The Democrat “insurance policy” continues.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

You’re not supposed to like it, but you’re supposed to realize that any attempt at interference opens the potential of obstruction of justice.

I’m sure if Mueller had found the slightest evidence of interference with justice, Trump would already be charged. As it is, it appears Mueller is going to have to wait until the 2018 elections to see if he can get the house to impeach Trump. That’s why the investigation won’t end until then.

The Democrat “insurance policy” continues.

It took 14 months for investigators to bring Nixon down. I have no idea why you think the timeline should be shorter this time. And Mueller is doing his job. Perhaps Trump should have picked his compatriots and advisers better. If nothing else, one can accuse Trump of keeping the poorest of company.

 

[ProVobis]

Who’s fault is that?

What I found amusing was Flynn’s (?) comment that he wouldn’t have done what he did if he knew Trump was going to win. He knew what was coming down the hatch.