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

[ConstantLearner]

Yep. I don’t know why people find this so incredible. (Well, I do: because they’ve decided they must find it incredible. If it’s anything less than a video showing full penetration with Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels each holding up a copy of their driver’s licenses, followed by footage of Cohen presenting Stormy Daniels with one of those giant novelty checks with “for shutting up about banging Trump” in the memo line, it’ll be “fake news.”) This is entirely in keeping with what has been his public character for decades. It’s not exactly a bolt from the blue.

Trump supporters would just say that’s Photoshopped. Trump has even indulged in this kind of behavior. Before he admitted his words to Billy Bush were genuine, he said it wasn’t his voice and was dubbed in.

Loading…

www.reuters.com

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think by this point we’re seeing a circling the camp mentality. I think most people are pretty aware that Trump has played the playboy for much of his adult life. Not just played it, but flaunted it. I’m not sure why his supporters would even care

All the same, a more credible story and some actually identified sources would have made this something more than just a garden-variety tabloid-style story.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

The Wall Street Journal isn’t exactly the National Enquirer. It’s not even left-leaning.

I don’t get why Trump supporters even push back against this sort of thing. If your position is, “I don’t care that Trump is almost certainly an amoral sleaze, I like Gorsuch and tax cuts and border walls.” then fine. At least that’s a consistent position. But trying to argue that Trump has not led a very public life of debauchery is like Pravda level denial.

Trump is a sleaze.* Let’s just cop to that and move on. Just admit that you’re willing to excuse his character defects because you like the policies he’s pushing. But doing this weird Kabuki dance where we pretend Trump isn’t Trump is pointless.

• To preempt some common objections, no, Trump is not the ONLY sleaze in American public life.

 

[F_Marturana]

But, there used to be a time where Republicans would denounce not only Democrat sleazy people, but also Republican ones.

Now we are to pretend that promiscuity has nothing to do with character, and that promiscuity has nothing to do with abortion.

 

[niceatheist]

I think you’re just needlessly trying to avoid the obvious conclusion, and the unsurprising one. Would you truly be shocked, or more importantly find yourself unable to support Trump, if you found out he was having an affair with a porn star at some point and then paid her hush money?

The fact is the man has been a proud and notorious philanderer for years. Now suddenly because he’s the Right’s cause célèbre, you have to treat a modern day Caligula like some sort of modern day Vestal Virgin.

Those that voted for Trump knew exactly what kind of man they were voting for, so playing this silly game just doesn’t make sense. He has no good reputation to preserve.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Wall Street Journal isn’t exactly the National Enquirer. It’s not even left-leaning.

I don’t get why Trump supporters even push back against this sort of thing. If your position is, “I don’t care that Trump is almost certainly an amoral sleaze, I like Gorsuch and tax cuts and border walls.” then fine. At least that’s a consistent position. But trying to argue that Trump has not led a very public life of debauchery is like Pravda level denial.

My complaint was lack of actual information. There are certainly “never-trumpers” at WSJ, and unattributed sources are unattributed sources.

Those who hate Trump accept things like this as the gospel truth, then go find another and pile it on, and so on. I would never claim Trump has led the life of a Puritan. But getting all righteous over unsourced information is not warranted.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think you’re just needlessly trying to avoid the obvious conclusion, and the unsurprising one. Would you truly be shocked, or more importantly find yourself unable to support Trump, if you found out he was having an affair with a porn star at some point and then paid her hush money?

The fact is the man has been a proud and notorious philanderer for years. Now suddenly because he’s the Right’s cause célèbre, you have to treat a modern day Caligula like some sort of modern day Vestal Virgin.

Those that voted for Trump knew exactly what kind of man they were voting for, so playing this silly game just doesn’t make sense. He has no good reputation to preserve.

See, there’s that Dem exaggeration thing again. “Caligula”???

Prove with credible information that he had an affair with a porn star, and we’ll go from there.

I don’t doubt Trump might have had more affairs in his time than we even suspect. But after FDR, JFK, WJC, it’s just preposterous for Dems to now go all Jonathan Edwards over Trump’s past relationships, pretending they are somehow morally affronted by that which never affronted them before.

 

[niceatheist]

What part of the WSJ and the 2011 interview with the actress in question do you find less than compelling?

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Maybe it’s unfair to attribute this to you personally, but every time there is some damaging story about Trump and his supporters claim it’s not credible, I get the sense that nothing short of a direct admission by Trump himself would convince them.

Like, what about the Stormy Daniels story do you find unconvincing? Assuming it were true, would you care?

 

[Road-Worrier]

But, there used to be a time where Republicans would denounce not only Democrat sleazy people, but also Republican ones.

And it got them nothing but grief, so like any rational person, they altered their behavior to something more in tune with the times. Progress…

 

[Ridgerunner]

Maybe it’s unfair to attribute this to you personally, but every time there is some damaging story about Trump and his supporters claim it’s not credible, I get the sense that nothing short of a direct admission by Trump himself would convince them.

Like, what about the Stormy Daniels story do you find unconvincing? Assuming it were true, would you care?

After a full year and more of hateful articles about Trump abounding in the media, and not only the left media, no few of which have turned out to simply have been false, I have decided that anything in the media from some unattributed “source” is as likely as not to be false, and if it doesn’t seem likely on its face, it’s doubly to be doubted.

 

[Inisfallen]

I have decided that anything in the media from some unattributed “source” is as likely as not to be false, and if it doesn’t seem likely on its face, it’s doubly to be doubted.

See, here’s the thing. This story doesn’t seem unlikely on its face. We in New York have been watching this guy for 30 years. He’s actually proud of his reputation (deserved or undeserved) as a womanizing playboy.

Now, the story may or may not turn out to be true. Who knows. And I don’t really care – it isn’t going to change my opinion of President Trump one way or the other. But it hardly seems unlikely.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

After a full year and more of hateful articles about Trump abounding in the media, and not only the left media, no few of which have turned out to simply have been false, I have decided that anything in the media from some unattributed “source” is as likely as not to be false, and if it doesn’t seem likely on its face, it’s doubly to be doubted.

What about the financial records the story cites? Do you think they’re forgeries? Does this generalized distrust of the media cut both ways? Like, are you immediately skeptical of any stories about Trump that cast him in a positive light?

It’s just frustrating because there really is no basis for a conversation, because you can’t simply cite an article from a reputable publication anymore. You apparently now need thousands of pages of primary documents, tax filings, and depositions. Trump supporters set the bar for credibility really, really high when it comes to anything that makes Trump look bad.

Let me just ask you this: if, hypothetically, Trump came out tomorrow and said, “Yeah, I banged Stormy Daniels and my lawyer paid her to be quiet about it, but cats out of the bag now. Whatever. It’s my business, back off.” would that change your opinion of him at all? Would you care?

 

[TheLittleLady]

I have decided that anything in the media from some unattributed “source” is as likely as not to be false,

You realize that protecting the identity of a story source is something so foundational to real journalism that journalists go to jail over it, don’t you?

 

[ProVobis]

The difference is that Trump had the endorsement of Evangelicals, and the others you mentioned did not.

 

[niceatheist]

Well, if Evangelicals endorsed a well known New York playboy who spent most of his life as a Democrat, then Evangelicals should have expected what they got. All this “oh it’s so unfair” handwringing, when the man himself happily played up his alpha male-style hypersexuality, is just bizarre.

I just wish Trump’s supporters were wear their decision, rather than trying to deny that which is so obvious. The man was a philanderer, an adulterer, a fornicator, and up until very recently was exceedingly and publicly proud of it.

 

[Mulligan2]

The comments from journalist Sarah Kendzior are very apt: “The idea of Trump having consensual sex is kind of a novelty, given that he’s been accused of sexual assault or rape by over 16 people.”

And yet somehow there are Catholics on this forum who still support this man.

 

[Inisfallen]

Let me just ask you this: if, hypothetically, Trump came out tomorrow and said, “Yeah, I banged Stormy Daniels and my lawyer paid her to be quiet about it, but cats out of the bag now. Whatever. It’s my business, back off.” would that change your opinion of him at all? Would you care?

It would change my opinion – I’d gain a bit more respect for him than I have now.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

It would be refreshing honesty, anyway. But my real point is that I think for most Trump supporters the answer would be “no”. Which is fine, I just think we should acknowledge that so we can all stop wasting our time talking about his character when for most of his supporters it seems to be irrelevant anyway.

 

[ProVobis]

CAF is not only for Trump supporters.