WSJ: Trump directly involved with hush money

  • I’ll be honest, this isn’t really news. Anybody that thought that someone as obsessed with his own wealth as Trump would not know about payments being made on his behalf was lying to themselves.

    I don’t think its worth pursuing politically. If there were crimes committed, those should be pursued by local law enforcement if the statute of limitations has not expired. If the statute of limitations has expired, moving on from this isn’t the worst thing in the world.

  • Agreed. At this point it isn’t changing anyone’s opinion of the guy. My parents who have made every Monica Lewinsky joke in the book were like “That’s between him and Melania. It’s not my place to judge.” Lol. It’s best to just let it go at this point. You aren’t getting him out of office for this. And truth be told, Hilary probably broke a few Campaign laws as well by essentially taking over the DNC and getting an unfair advantage herself. It’s just not something worth pursuing at this point.

  • I guess it depends if you want a reason to impeach or not. And if this was a campaign finance violation it would be a reason.

  • @approxinfinity

    You have got to stop with impeachment mantra. Democrats have been talking about this since before Trump was even inaugurated; they had no case then and still have no case. TTBOMK, it is not against the law to have affair, pay to keep them quiet and lie about it (as long as it is not under oath).

    Here is an article by ubber liberal attorney and constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz that takes apart the impeachments case against Trump.

    Even if there was campaign violation the worst that will happen is a fine and a slap on the wrist. The Obama campaign was issued the largest fine ever for campaign violations and the MSM did not get its panties in a wad over it and the Republicans did not call for impeachment either. Hillary likely has considerably more campaign violations and I don’t hear liberals calling for her head.

  • There still aren’t the numbers to support an impeachment so its kind of a moot point. Nothing short of a phone call with a Russian asking them for help is likely going to cut it. And at that, half of the Trump supporters still wouldn’t care. Which would mean there probably still wouldn’t be enough Republican’s to even impeach because as long as their supporters aren’t pissed they’re fine.

    At this point, for him to be impeached, it would take him getting elected in 2020 and somehow and overwhelming Democratic win everywhere else AND another event larger than this one.

    I’m not saying what he did was wrong. Not even saying it isn’t impeachable. Just not likely to be what gets him impeached. And, by really pushing for it with something like this, if something new were to come out that was even more serious than it just starts to have the “crying wolf” ring to it. It makes Democrats seem like sore losers (which they kind of are being).

  • @JayHawkFanToo I’ve got to stop what now? I didn’t call for impeachment on this. I don’t have an impeachment mantra.

    I do however believe Trump is a Trainwreck and I am not opposed to impeachment for any illegal activity he has done.

    I agree @Kcmatt7 that impeachment will be difficult to sell to his loyalists. I don’t see how examining illegal activity and determining whether it is impeachable is being a sore loser.

    Let’s see what the output of the Mueller investigation is.

  • @approxinfinity

    You have brought up impeachment before. Exactly what illegal thing has he done? Read the Dershowitz article, even if he called the Russians and asked for help there is no grounds for impeachment since there is nothing in the constitution or the law that makes it criminal. Don’t take my word for it, listen to what a very liberal constitutional scholar and attorney has to say. He is not the only one that leans this way, most every review I have read written by very knowledgeable constitutional scholars and attorneys of all political persuasions seem to agree with him. It is not and has never been a question of having votes in congress, it is a question of whether there is justification and at this time there is none, zero, nada, zilch and it would be overturned in a New York second by the SCOTUS. Again, this is the opinion of people a hell of a lot more knowledgeable and more familiar with the constitution and the law than any one of us here is.

    Maxine Waters and others have been calling for his impeachment since before he was even inaugurated. She still wants to impeach Trump and appoint Hillary president…really? and I mean REALLY? Is she not familiar with the constitution?..and she is a US congresswoman…unbelievable; short of howling at the moon I can’t think of anything that would make her more of a lunatic…and she is the face of the impeachment movement. SMH.

  • @JayHawkFanToo Allen Dirshowitz is a pundit that it paid to say things.

    You are assuming nothing comes from the Mueller investigation. So is Dirshowitz.

    I would have been game for invoking the 25th if Rosenstein had gone through with it.

  • @approxinfinity

    Funny how liberals held on to every word Dershowitz said in support of liberal causes but when he cites the law and constitution to argue against impeachment he is a paid pundit. The double standard by liberals never ceases to amaze me.

    Woodward and Bernstein uncovered Watergate with nothing more than land lines in a few months. Mueller has been at it with an army of lawyers and all resource needed for close to two years and has nothing to show in the way of a Russian collusion with Trump.

  • @JayHawkFanToo I’m not generic liberal X that has espoused every supposed liberal perspective you’ve ever read.

    I’m entitled to have an opinion on Dershowitz without getting chastised for some imaginary liberal Frankenstein archetype you battle against in your head.

    He is a paid pundit. FACT.

    The investigation continues, also FACT.

    You and I and Dershowitz don’t know what the rest of the investigation will reveal, and ascribing the weight of what has been revealed thus-far regarding Trump’s conduct to what will be revealed at the conclusion of the investigation is just speculation.

  • Republicans in the Senate will never convict Trump of impeachment, regardless of what evidence is presented, so it’s pointless to pursue. Better to let the investigations run their course, and, if there was illegal activity, pursue that criminally once he is out of office. Impeachment doesn’t move anything forward at this point because the Republicans in the Senate will just dig their heels in no matter what. They have already shown this in other situations. I don’t see how this would be any different.

    I thought the GOP trying to impeach Clinton for the Lewinsky stuff was silly, and I would find the Democrats attempting to impeach Trump for all of his womanizing equally silly.

    I want to see the new Democratic house attempt to govern. No, their stuff won’t pass the Senate, but I don’t want to see the Democratic party turn into the GOP circa 2010 with everything geared towards stopping Trump with no eye on actually governing. Propose health care policy. Give us budgetary policy. If the Senate sits on their hands, well, the map reverses in 2020 so let the GOP Senators that are up then decide how they want to play this. I want policy, not politics.

  • @justanotherfan

    Does not look like that will happen…


  • It’s tragic that the folks who rejected the traditional republican and democrat candidates because of their alleged corruption chose to support a candidate every bit as corrupt. Hard to believe we can’t find a decent person who can compete against the dregs for the presidency. How dysfunctional is our election process that the scum rises to the top?

  • @JayHawkFanToo

    Perhaps they will do both

    They also are talking about doing something with health care, and a bipartisan effort on infrastructure. The infrastructure thing should be an easy thing to put together, but Republicans will need to play along.

    Whether the Senate and POTUS decide to work with them on those items (or anything at all) will be up to the GOP leadership, but they are looking to at least propose something.

    Of course, until anything gets done, this is all just speculation.

  • In a somewhat relayed story, creepy porn lawyer can now add domestivpc abuser to his resume. What will CNN do, replace him or give him his own show? 82 guest appearances in a couple of months has to be a record.

  • JayHawkFanToo said:

    In a somewhat relayed story, creepy porn lawyer can now add domestivpc abuser to his resume. What will CNN do, replace him or give him his own show? 82 guest appearances in a couple of months has to be a record.

    This story is bizarre. It was originally reported that his estranged wife was the victim, but almost immediately after that was announced, his wife/ex-wife? announced that she had not been the one that filed the charges.

    I’m curious who the accuser is on this. Perhaps a new girlfriend? This story is off to a strange start. I don’t want to assume anything without more facts because this is already really weird.

  • @justanotherfan

    Former wife is the one that said she did not think he would do this, current estranged wife is the one that was allegedly assaulted. Former wife was vouching for him in general and not specifically about the current alleged assault…or at least this is how i understand it.

    He is now representing the individual that allegedly verbally assaulted Tucker Carlson’s daughter and had a n incident with him at a private club in Virginia a couple of weeks ago. The club investigated the incident and revoked that inidvidual’s membership so now he is suing Carlson and creepy porn lawyer is his attorney. SMH.

    He is also announced he will likely run for President as a democrat; you can’t make this stuff up.

  • @justanotherfan

    Here is info on the other topic…nothing really changes.

  • JayHawkFanToo said:


    Here is info on the other topic…nothing really changes.

    Automatic voter registration is something that happens in nearly every new democracy where the U.S. goes to oversee elections. They simply register everyone to vote that is eligible, then hold an election.

    And before you start talking about voter ID, most countries (aside from the U.S.) issue each citizen a voter ID when they reach voting age. Nearly every developed country on the face of the earth does this. It’s actually one of the ways those countries combat fraud because everyone is registered to vote, so you can’t double register, or use someone else’s ID to vote, because that person is already registered to vote and has a voter ID.

    Automatic registration makes double registering more difficult because everyone is accounted for. There’s no possibility that you aren’t already registered, so there’s much less confusion. Automatic registration with an automatically issued voter ID is even better because then you have a unique identifier for each voter. If the GOP was serious about rooting out fraud, they would have proposed this years ago (hint: they aren’t). And before you say no one has suggested it, this exact system exists in many countries around the world. The U.S. has even helped implement a similar system in new democracies.

    As for Citizens United, you should understand that it extends free speech to corporations, and more specifically, to donating money to political candidates, saying that money = speech.

    If you are against politicians being bought by large lobbying interests, you should be against Citizens United because that’s some of what that ruling essentially allows. Now, obviously I am generalizing here a bit, which is always dangerous, but I can’t really type up an entire rant on this opinion.

    As for gun control, universal background checks and mental health screenings have been proposed (and rejected) for years. I doubt we see anything substantive on gun control because too few people lack the political will to do anything on the subject, other than offer their “thoughts and prayers” after the next mass shooting.

    What we will likely see over the next couple of years is the Senate rejecting every proposal coming out of the House simply because the Democrats support it, and the GOP and Trump speed packing the courts - Republicans complain when the Democrats question judicial nominees now, conveniently forgetting that after the GOP took over the Senate, many Obama nominees didn’t even get hearings because the Republicans wouldn’t even bring them before the Judiciary Committee, let alone the full Senate. But that’s another story for another day.

  • @justanotherfan

    I am very familiar with Government issued offcial ID card; in most of Latin America it is called Carnet de Identidad and it is required to do any paperwork with the government. Unfortunately, every time this has been proposed in this country it has been opposed…by liberals…that claim big government is trying to keep track of everybody. if you think this will ever be implemented in this country you are absolutely dreaming. BTW, all this countries that have the government issued ID have even bigger problems with vote fraud so it is not the solution.

    Having to show proof of identity such as a valid license or birth certificate is not not that much of a burden and a samll price to have clean elections. We have to present proof of identity to buy cigarettes or liquor, legally drive, see certain movies or apply for government benefits and no one seems to have a problem with it; it becomes a problem when you want people that cannot prove they can legally do it to actually vote. Do you know the Lakeland Shooter registered to vote from jail, gave the jail address as his address and was legally registered? Our system is broken because there is a vested interest to have ineligible people vote…it is really that simple and fraud is rampant.

Log in to reply