From USAToday, we learn:
In Touch magazine has published a 7-year-old interview with a former porn star in which she goes into salacious details about an alleged extramarital affair with Donald Trump that only last week she claimed never took place.A few take-aways:
Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, told the magazine in 2011 that the alleged sexual trysts with Trump began in July 2006 after she met him at a celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, Nev. The meeting and alleged affair came a year after the future president had married Melania Trump, his third wife.
“I actually don’t even remember why I did it but I do remember while we were having sex, I was like, ‘Please don’t try to pay me,’” Daniels said in the 2011 interview that the magazine only recently resurrected. “And then I remember thinking, ‘But I bet if he did, it would be a lot.'”
In the In Touch article, Daniels purportedly told the magazine that she and Trump had several more encounters over the next few years.
- I think we can abandon the idea that the affair didn't happen. To assume Ms Clifford's recent denials are anything other than an effect of the non-disclosure agreement would be silly.
- We've already discussed that golf tournament and the Pittsburgh connection to this story. Will someone please ask Ben Roethlisberger what he remembers about having dinner with Donald and the Porn Star?
- This was not a one time thing.
Ever since former porn star Stormy Daniels’ alleged 2006 affair with Donald Trump became public last week, we, the public, have learned a great deal about the president’s sexual proclivities. It’s too much information to know about anyone, let alone the president, let alone when the president is Donald Trump. And to think, we almost made it without ever having to know about any of this at all! We were almost blissfully unaware because Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen went to great lengths not only to pay Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about the affair just weeks before the 2016 election, but to cover his own tracks while doing so by setting up a private company in Delaware to funnel the payment through. That comes from the Wall Street Journal, which broke the original story of Trump’s affair with Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.And this is what they took from the WSJ:
[Cohen] established Essential Consultants LLC, on Oct. 17, 2016, just before the 2016 presidential election, corporate documents show. Mr. Cohen, who is based in New York, then used a bank account linked to the entity to send the payment to the client-trust account of a lawyer representing the woman, Stephanie Clifford, one of the people said.Yea, tell me again about how Trump is a good man.
Delaware doesn’t require companies to publicly disclose the names of their managers… [O]n its formation documents, which were reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Cohen listed himself as the “authorized person” for the company, rather than hiring a lawyer or an agent to serve in that role, which some company owners do to further obscure their identities. To further mask the identities of the people involved in the agreement, the parties used pseudonyms, with Ms. Clifford identified as “Peggy Peterson,” according to a person familiar with the matter.
4 comments:
Let me dust off the Clinton talking points
It is about his private sex life.
This is none of your business and between him and his wife.
Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. (ref. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)
https://www.pagunblog.com/2017/12/04/charges-of-whataboutism-a-pet-peeve-of-mine/
Some have collectively decided to rename “rooting out hypocrisy and naked partisanship” as “whataboutism.” When I first saw it, I thought it was weak. It was pointed out that it was a Soviet propaganda technique, but while the Soviets used it to cover up their much deeper sins, they weren’t always wrong about the flaws in our own society.
Red Herring. As an informal fallacy, the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies...the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic...The expression is mainly used to assert that an argument is not relevant to the issue being discussed. For example, "I think we should make the academic requirements stricter for students. I recommend you support this because we are in a budget crisis, and we do not want our salaries affected." The second sentence, though used to support the first sentence, does not address that topic.
(ref. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring)
Post a Comment