Tag Archives: hush money

Another campaign kicks off? Seriously?

“Our troops didn’t die in Yorktown, didn’t take Normandy beach, didn’t rebuild Europe and secure the postwar peace that you are now destroying, Mr. President, for you to live as a Manchurian candidate in our White House.”

Who do you suppose made this statement today?

OK, I’ll give it up. It came from Michael Avenatti, the lawyer who represents Stormy Daniels/Stephanie Clifford, the porn star who alleges she took a one-night tumble in a hotel room about a dozen years ago with Donald J. Trump Sr.

Why do I even mention this? Why devote any blog space to this guy?

Because he annoys me. That’s why.

Avenatti is becoming the ubiquitous lawyer who seems to my way of thinking to be more interested in promoting his own interests than in protecting the interests of his most famous client.

Avenatti delivered some kind of speech today in front of the White House in which he called Trump a “Manchurian candidate.”

I need some help on many matters. One of them involves whether the content of Avenatti’s speech has anything to do with Daniels/Clifford’s beef with Donald Trump.

Yes, Trump deserves criticism. I’ve delivered my share of it from this forum. Yes, Avenatti also is entitled to criticize the president as well. His public celebrity status, though, is due to his legal representation of a woman who received a hush-money payment from a guy who once was the president’s lawyer/Mr. Fix It.

I am believing now that Michael Avenatti is branching out.

Is there another political career in the making before our eyes?

I’m tired of this guy already.

Strange legal bedfellows?

This is weird.

Lanny Davis, one of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s better friends, is now representing Michael Cohen, who until just recently was supposedly a friend of and legal adviser to Donald J. Trump … although I am unclear just how many “friends” the president actually has.

Cohen is now declaring some form of independence from Trump, the guy he used to work for as a “fixer” and, oh yes, for whom he wrote that $130,000 check to keep the porn star Stormy Daniels quiet about the tryst she had years ago with the man who would become president of the United States.

As The Hill reported: Cohen, who previously worked for Trump, told (ABC News’s George) Stephanopoulos last week that his “first loyalty” lies with his family, not the president. 

I don’t know about you, but this is looking to me as though Cohen is about to unleash all he knows about Trump’s behavior. I am pretty sure the special counsel, Robert Mueller, is going to be all ears.

What about Cohen’s relationship with Lanny Davis? I guess there’s something to be said about strange bedfellows, yes?

It’s not really our business, however …

Donald J. Trump’s lawyer of the moment, Rudy Giuliani, has decided to speak about the first lady’s view of one of her husband’s, um, episodes involving other women.

Giuliani said Melania Trump “believes” the president when he says he didn’t have a tryst with a pornographic film actress, Stephanie Clifford, aka Stormy Daniels, in a hotel room back in 2006.

So, how does the former New York City mayor come to that conclusion? Do you think he asked Mrs. Trump directly? Did he ask the president himself? Or is he just making a conclusion based on nothing at all?

None of this in reality is anyone’s business. However, since one of the principals involved in this idiocy happens to be the president of the United States, it sort of morphs itself into the public domain.

I have difficulty accepting that Mrs. Trump would even answer such a question, even if it comes from the man who’s now representing her husband in his myriad battles to fend off investigations of all sorts. They include this matter involving Clifford/Daniels … allegedly.

I still circle back to the one aspect of that tryst that makes it all so very believable. It’s the payment of 130 grand in real American money that another lawyer, Michael Cohen, made to Daniels to keep her quiet. One must ask: If there was no sexual encounter, why would he have to pay the hush money?

As for whether Giuliani is relying on Donald Trump’s assertion that his (third) wife believes his denials about a one-night stand with Daniels — sigh! — I only can fall back on the many lies Trump has told since he began his political career in 2015.

If it were me — and I am so glad that it isn’t — I wouldn’t believe a single word that flies out of the president’s mouth.

Trump contradicts himself again … imagine that!

When the talk show hosts on the Fox News Channel look nervous while talking to Donald J. Trump, then you know the president is treading where he shouldn’t go.

“Fox & Friends” had the president on the air this morning and Trump took the opportunity to fly off the rails. Take, for instance, what he said about Michael Cohen, his lawyer who now plans to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights regarding Stormy Daniels, the porn star who allegedly had a one-night tryst with the man who would become president.

Trump had denied repeatedly that he knew anything about the $130,000 hush money payment Cohen made to Daniels to keep her quiet about the tryst that Trump denies ever happening.

Today, Trump said that, yep, Cohen represented him on that “crazy Daniels” matter. Huh? Does that mean that Trump knew of the payment, the one where he denied knowledge?

So, where do we stand with the Prevaricator in Chief?

He said he didn’t know about the payment. Cohen said he made it on behalf of his client … that would be the president. Does the president’s lawyer engage in activity without notifying his client? Um, no, not if he is worth a damn as a lawyer.

And did the president today just reverse his prior denials about what Cohen did? It sure looks like it to me.

Therefore, one now understands why the “Fox & Friends” hosts looked so damn nervous while they had their guy, Trump, on the air blathering and bloviating about this and that.

It certainly looked to me as though Trump had come unhinged.

Check it out here.

Simply … amazing.

U.S. has set a new standard for morality

Call me old-fashioned. Maybe even a bit of a prude — when we’re talking about officials who hold high public office.

Thus, when I hear the former director of the FBI declare that the president of the United States is “morally unfit” to hold the office, I nod my head in agreement.

James Comey delivered a blistering attack on Donald Trump, saying that the president’s moral character doesn’t measure up to the office he won in the 2016 election.

Comey — whom Trump fired a year ago because of what he called “the Russia thing” — cited a couple of key examples: Trump’s willingness to place “moral equivalency” between KKK’men, Nazis and white supremacists and those who protested their march in Charlottesville, Va.; and the president’s history of treating women “like meat.”

To be honest, Comey is far from the first American to declare that Trump is “morally unfit” to be president. Many millions of others of us have been said that before he ever won the election.

And that brings me to the critical point: Americans have redefined morality and have exhibited a clear and present tolerance for the kind of behavior that would have disqualified a presidential candidate.

Let’s get real for a moment, OK?

Trump admitted on that “Access Hollywood” recording how he is able to grab women by their “pu***”; he has admitted publicly cheating on his first and second wives; Trump has stated out loud how he was able to walk into beauty pageant contestants’ dressing rooms while they were half-dressed.

We hear now that Trump’s lawyer paid $130,000 to a porn queen to keep her quiet about a sexual encounter she and Trump allegedly had a year after he married Wife No. 3. The president denies the tryst occurred, but … the lawyer paid the money!

Trump has lived an existence filled with excess and moral depravity.

And yet …

He won enough Electoral College votes in November 2016 to enable him to slip into the Oval Office and take the reins of government.

This is the height — or the nadir — of political confusion.

Trump’s base, which comprises a huge chunk of the evangelical Christian movement, gives this clown a pass on his litany of debauchery and infidelity. Why? Because he promises to appoint conservatives to the federal judiciary; and those judges will rule against issues that evangelicals find repugnant: gay marriage, abortion and the prohibition on preaching Scripture lessons in public schools.

James Comey is as correct as he can possibly be in assessing Donald Trump’s moral unfitness for the presidency.

Some of us out here in Voter Land still want officials elected to high public office to represent the best in us. Donald Trump represents damn near the very worst in us.

The man is a disgrace.

Porn star’s polygraph ‘truthful’? Now what?

The porn star who says she messed around with a future president of the United States has taken a lie-detector test. It turns out she is telling the truth. She and Donald John Trump had a sexual relationship in 2006, a year after Trump married his third wife.

She took the polygraph exam in 2011 under the auspices of an entertainment magazine.

Here is what I am left to wonder: What bloody difference does any of this make?

Trump’s political base is giving him a pass on the philandering. That base happens to include many in the evangelical Christian movement; yep, many of the Bible-thumpers, by their silence, are tacitly accepting that the president of the United States happens to have the morals of an alley cat. It doesn’t matter, because he’s on their side on many of the key issues of the day.

The rest of who didn’t vote for Trump or who detest the idea of him being president in the first place also are resigned to this clown’s behavior. We don’t accept it. We condemn it. Again, there’s nothing to be done about it.

I guess the nation is left to its salacious curiosity on a whole array of issues related to the president and this woman.

The only possible matter that is relevant to the public interest is the source of the $130,000 in hush money that Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid to the porn queen to keep her quiet.

Now that I think about it, that issue is separate from the allegation — and I’ll call it that for the time being — that Trump took a tumble with a pornographic entertainer.

Doesn’t this clown make you proud that he’s our head of state?

Porn queen vs. POTUS takes weird turn

Donald John Trump says he didn’t have a sexual affair with a porn queen.

The porn queen so far has been (more or less) quiet, although her lawyer says for the record that the two of them — the porn star and the president — had a sexual relationship.

So … if the president’s denial is true, why is he suing the porn queen for $20 million and seeking a change of venue from a state court to a federal court?

I refuse to name the porn queen because I don’t want to give her any more publicity than she’s already received — which is plenty! It’s too much, if you were to ask me.

But this story continues to get weirder by the day. A part of me shouldn’t give a damn about Trump’s sexual proclivity. He bragged about prior infidelity and those who voted for this clown knew what they were getting when they elected him president of the United States of America.

However, his lawyer reportedly paid the porn queen 130 grand to keep her quiet. She says that Trump never signed the non-disclosure agreement, making it all null and void. She’s spoken to “60 Minutes,” and the segment is going to air on March 25. Trump, though, wants to block it — which has about as much chance of succeeding as Trump actually telling us the whole truth about anything.

The salaciousness of this story gives it its legs, I am going to presume.

As we’ve learned from prior investigations into presidential misbehavior — see President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 1998 — this story might end up in a most unexpected place.

I don’t know where that will be. I am willing to wait to see where it crashes and burns.