The lawyer still says they didn't do anything! So he pays a liar 130K when Trump just dismisses all other allegations.

He declined to answer several follow-up questions, including whether Mr. Trump had been aware that Mr. Cohen made the payment

Is that really a question?

I look forward to yet another WH press briefing today where Sarah Sanders repeatedly parrots the phrase, "I'm not able to give you any information on that at this time."

And? So...

Nothing will come of this.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

An important fact remains that he made the payment right at the exact time that the “grab ‘em by the pussy” tape came out.

Huckabee, Graham, Pence and all the other evangelicals will dismiss this also. POS hypocrites all.

---

"Your Attitude Determines Your Altitude."

And? So?

Do you think anyone who voted for Trump gives a shit?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

One has to wonder if this is yet another attempt to shift the coverage from the leading story of the day which is either the Porter security clearance fiasco. Or, the testimony yesterday by the intel leaders that the Russians are still attempting to hack our elections and that Trump has not instructed them to try and stop it.

Trump was simply showing his generosity in helping a poor starving actress who had experienced several hard times. He was trying to help her get back on her feet after spending some quality time on her back. You are making a big deal out of something tiny.


I agree that any evangelical that tries to explain this away "should" lose all credibility. I also agree with Blep that this won't make any difference to his core base.

That's what Donnie said to Stormy, after 'failure to launch'...

When it comes to sexual harassment I don't think any side has a leg to stand on.

I guess it's all good, then.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

We really need Duffy to come back and fix this.

Already off of FoxNews homepage after they ran it early this AM with the headline "WH calms the waters". Hahahhahaha.

I make no claims to be a campaign finance expert. But this brings up a lot of FEC questions around in kind contributions, etc.

I want this guy to be my lawyer though. Handing out 6 figures and expecting nothing back. That is a hell of a friend. My friends really need to step up their game.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

I agree that any evangelical that tries to explain this away "should" lose all credibility.

The evangelicals who voted for Trump and have looked past his past and current behavior lost credibility a long time ago.

Someday an invoice will surface showing $130,000 payment to the lawyer from trump but for something totally unrelated, of course!

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

It's amazing that people are so anti-gay, but infidelity, multiple divorces and sexual harassment...no big deal.

And she will receive a 1099-Misc

Serious question for that much money, doesn't that need to be reported on income taxes?

So impeach 45 or nah?

copy / paste from a smart friend:

"...let’s see what he didn’t say that the press are glomming onto:
In talking about the FEC complaint that he facilitated a payment from the Trump campaign to Ms. Daniels, he very carefully does not deny the truth of that allegation but says “the allegations in the complaint are factually unsupported and without legal merit”. This only addresses the papers that were filed, not the actual complaint.
Later he says:
“In a private transaction in 2016, I used my own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford. Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly”
“My own personal funds to “facilitate” a payment of $130k”
Now, that could mean he paid the $130 out of the goodness of his heart and Trump didn’t have anything to do with it. It does not state that he paid the $130. He paid funds to facilitate. That could mean he paid the transaction fees to set up the LLC that paid the money, and it could have been Trump’s money or his campaign’s money. Which makes more sense?
“Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford”
From the reporting we already knew that was true. Cohen, as he admits in his statement, set up an LLC which was the counterparty (payer) to the transaction. People want to read his statement broadly to include the transaction of the money being paid to the LLC - he didn’t say that, and he should be asked about that. This also is not a statement saying Trump or his campaign didn’t pay the money.
“(Trump) neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly”
But, here he means the payment to facilitate, so should that not mean Cohen paid the $130k, but instead said “I’ll pick up the transaction fees”, and then Trump didn’t reimburse him for that, this would still be a factually true statement.
These are smart people (the lawyers). Don’t think it’s far fetched to parse a lawyer’s language, especially if it looks carefully crafted."

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Wait a minute, I thought Mexico was going to pay for it... or am I mixing things up?

One has to wonder if this is yet another attempt to shift the coverage from the leading story of the day which is either the Porter security clearance fiasco.//

You know when the WH is having an especially bad news cycle, and this goes for any WH, they try and pivot to some other story that is positive. Trump's did this when they got the tax bill through, to get off something awful. And right now I cannot recall what that awful was, there has been so much winning in that area for them


But now they have some piece of shit news cycle going on and they can only pivot to the next shitty one so they we can forget the last on. Now that is something new, but of course what positive do they have to switch the news too right now anyway. Guess I could go over to FOX and maybe there would be something, but most likely just a condemnation of the witch hunt against the lawyer now..


And no his supporters do not care, they are in on this ship and will be watching the rats jump off before they do..

Who is saying it's no big deal?

The silence is deafening. Mike pence to start.

I think most evangelicals voted for Trump feeling he was the lesser of two evils. No one has ever accused Donald of exemplifying biblical values.

When it comes to politics, evangelicals are simply anti-abortion. Little else matters and certainly not what Trump did years ago.

Who is saying it is? the evangelical base has been awfully quiet....

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

They usually justify it with this:


http://www.dictionary.com/...cast-the-first-stone

TimeIsUp wrote:

Already off of FoxNews homepage after they ran it early this AM with the headline "WH calms the waters". Hahahhahaha.

-
It's there now, maybe just because there is a plausible explanation, but there none the less.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/14/michael-cohen-trumps-lawyer-says-paid-stormy-daniels-130000-out-own-pocket.html

I think most evangelicals voted for Trump feeling he was the lesser of two evils.

Evangelicals always talked about values and how important it was to vote for someone who believed in God and had the family values that were so important to them. Mitt Romney had a struggle because he was Mormon and there was question if he shared their beliefs.

I have never heard an evangelical say to vote for the lesser of 2 evils, it was all about taking a stand and not compromising. They have looked sideways at everything Trump has done, remaining largely silent and offering only the slightest of criticism when the tapes were released.

They are hypocrites.

I agree with Perseus that evangelicals had a choice to make between the lesser of two evils. As distasteful as Trump is, I can see him still being an easy choice over Hillary.

That being said, I would like to hear some of the mainstream evangelical voices being honest about him, or at least be quiet. Come to think about it, I've said that I prefer that preachers be silent on politics - so maybe some of them actually are.

Maybe they could find a happy medium between stoning him and making him president.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

That's why he made the statement: possible violation of FEC laws.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I'm more interested to see if the Trump voters who were shrieking about Hillary's mishandling classified information can find one fuck to give about the security clearance issues rampant in this administration.

Kidding, obviously. Of course they won't.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Nope. Not even a little bit.

Nothing to see here. Please disperse.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Something that might shake out in one's tax returns. But who really wants to see those anyway.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Gay marriage ruins the sanctity of marriage.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I'm guessing you don't spend much time with evangelicals.

So an LLC was formed in 2016 and it made the payment. This leaves a trail and more questions.

Who are the members of the LLC? If it was Trump, then there is a problem. If it was the attorney, then the Q is where did the $130K come from and how did he treat it on the tax return filed (presumably) in 2017? Was it a capital contribution by the attorney? Was it a loan from someone else? Was the payment treated as a deductible expense, for uh, services rendered?

Still nowhere to be found on mobile site homepage. which definition are you using?

"(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable."

Definitely not reasoble in I did nothing wrong sense. Definitely probable.

"(of a person) skilled at producing persuasive arguments, especially ones intended to deceive."

Absofuckinglutely spot on

I'm guessing you don't spend much time with evangelicals.

I try to keep my distance now but I am a Christian and attended a pretty conservative evangelical church in the U.S for 5 years. I'm pretty clear on what I heard in my men's groups about standing up for convictions against "liberal" politicians who want to destroy the fabric of the country with the erosion of family values. I'm pretty sure I haven't been sleeping for the last 40 years.

The evangelical silence on Trump is a disgrace.

Well it appears that Trey Gowdy does. He sent this letter to John Kelly today, asking all the questions the WH has so far avoided answering.

If only there had been 16 other options prior to the general election that they could have got behind.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

I'm frequently astounded by how many comments I see on news stories, Facebook posts etc with the theme that Trump was somehow sent from God to save America. The guy embodies sleaze (always has, IMO, even before he ran for President) and some of the worst human behaviours and qualities - most of which are in direct conflict with supposed Christian principles and teachings - yet these people view him as their saviour. Fucking baffling.

Fixed it for you.

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

It would be nice if once in a while his plot lines made sense. This one has more holes in it than Lost.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

The evangelical silence on Trump is tolerance.

Fixed it for you.

It's tolerance when Trump has affairs, pays off prostitutes, uses foul language, etc. It's a national disgrace when Clinton did the same.

It seems that the strongly held Christian views of the evangelicals are far more flexible and optional than anyone knew.

But, Gorsuch!

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

No, they just are more tolerant of people who don't live up to them.

The lawyer coming out with this tells you they think the FEC complaint has lega. NDA's go both ways. They violated their side. Stormy will be talking soon.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

http://www.latimes.com/...-20180214-story.html

It's probably time that I disclose that I attended an event a few years ago where Stormy was the guest of honor. I was in Miami Beach for a weekend celebrating my 10th wedding anniversary with some good friends who were married on the same day. We all went to the "Mansion" night club one night having got some free passes from a tout during the day, only to discover that we had stumbled on the opening night party of the Miami Porn Convention! Good times! ;)

If I should need to pay some hush money, I would appreciate some LR volunteers to pay it for me. Please PM me if interested.

It seems that the strongly held Christian views of the evangelicals are far more flexible and optional than anyone knew.

No, they just are more tolerant of people who don't live up to them.

Oh, the irony...

Really? This was the alternative:

What is it specifically that you want evangelicals to do?

Be consistent. Either family values are important to them or not. Its quite obvious they are not, so its time for them to stfu about them until they want to be consistent.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

I know somebody who thinks Trump was chosen by God. I asked her what made her think that,.. she told me "Read scripture -- it's in there."

Literally 16 other Republicans to choose from. So no, that was not the only alternative.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

When is the last time someone other than Republican or Democratic nominee won the presidency?

No, I disagree with Bernies moral world view and political policies.

I'm registered independent so I cannot vote in the primaries, but I would not have voted for Trump.

Respectfully, you didn't answer the question. What is you're looking for from evangelicals? Facebook posts? Peaceful protests? Calls for impeachment because of immorality?

Republicans nominated Trump out of a field of 17. Then they complain that they had no choice but to vote for him. Nope, he is who the Republican Party has become. And they prove it day after day as they fall in line behind him.

Not sure what family gave them their family values, but that family is in some serious need of counseling.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

When Trump won the Republican nomination, I posted a thread blaming the Trump supporters for insuring a win for Hillary. I strongly believed that Trump was so unlikeable, that he would lose to Hillary. And that if they had nominated anyone else, that person would easily beat Hillary.

When Trump actually won, I realized I was mistaken and blamed the Hillary voters/supporters for being partially responsible for giving us Trump.

If only Mitt Romney had waited until this election cycle to run. But it probably wouldn't have made a difference ... God chose Trump to lead out out of this moral decay.

That they please don't vote for him in 2020.
This is a guy who porked a porn actress without a condom while his wife was home w/ a newborn.
Let those without sin cast the first stone - but FFS, don't vote this clown into office for another term.

For years I have said that Hillary could not win, until Trump won the nomination, then I thought she had a decent chance. The only person either one could beat was the other, a match made in heaven.

People just don't like her. I think even a lot of people that support her, would not want to actually spend any time with her.

I stand by my signature line.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Agreed.

Hillary needs to stay as far the fuck away from the Democrat party as possible - and they from her - if she isn't to be the lightning rod that allows Republicans to drum up support against her and win. Again.

The Clinton name is now so tarnished in many people's minds that I cringe when i see articles gushing about Chelsea considering entering into the political world. No. Stay away. Do something else.

What is it specifically that you want evangelicals to do?

Evangelicals keep talking about standing up for family values, how personal character is important in a President, that they stand for candidates who share their views on marriage, divorce, adultery, telling the truth etc. They kept talking about their strongly held Christian values and how important it was to have people in office that they could support. A lot of people didn't agree but they were consistent.

They didn't generally support Trump in the lead up to the election and tended to be behind other GOP candidates. Then, once he is nominated, all the values they stood for for all these years are dismissed and the stand behind a man who doesn't live up to any of the things they said were so important.

Evangelicals are hypocrites when they remain silent when Trump does or says things that they oppose.They are being marginalized because they no longer stand for anything, they simply want to support the winning candidate.

For some reason it seems like no one else really had a chance. By the numbers the closest competitor was Ted Cruz, but he was really disliked. Lying Eyes Rubio never found a base and John Kasich only received more than 20% of the vote one time. I really wanted Carly Fiorina, but she didn't make it very far.

It would be fun to study more when I have the time. I imagine people liked the macho celebrity attitude he brought at a time when they (white middle America) were feeling left behind socially and financially.

Yes the genius of Trump was connecting with these people. He's basically a rich guy (which they admire) who in a lot of ways acts like a "deplorable" (he's one of them to a degree), and then he has no ethics, so he can do his used car salesman thing to say what it is they want to hear.

I don't want Hillary to run again, but the quoted statement would be true of anyone who was the target of a 25-year propaganda campaign. Most people's perception of Hillary Clinton is influenced, at least to some degree, by the relentless and irrational misinformation coming from the right wing media since the early 1990s. This includes Republicans, Democrats, and others. No doubt she is a calculating politician (who among them isn't?), but the fact is that the right-wing smear campaign was wildly successful.

Anybody the Democrats put up will be positioned by the Republicans as a lightning rod, even if they have to make s*** up. They could nominate the Pope and he'd be vilified as too liberal for 'merica.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

For the record, I have never been a fan of the Clintons, either one. They never appeared to have any principles other than wanting to be in power. I much preferred Tom Harkin and Bob Kerrey(sp?) in '92.

It didn't take a right wing conspiracy to make me not like them.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

That's funny.

You should hear what just about everyone that comes in contact with her think of her.

She is the reason Trump is president. Bernie would have beat him.

That would have been fascinating!

Well at the very minimum we can probably expect to see more hilarious memes of Melania using Barry Sanders-grade evasion to avoid holding hands with Trump. In this one she uses an ankle-breaking crossover technique.

I think there is certainly some truth to what you've shared. Many people are Christian in name only. The Barna Group has some interesting studies breaking down the Christian population. For their research they divide groups into people who identify as Christian and people who are practicing Christians.

In my experience people felt Trump was the lesser evil of the two candidates. The Republican party loves to talk about ending abortion and having strong family values but at this point it looks like a lot of virtue signaling. Regardless many people are are not going to vote for a pro abortion candidate, who supports the progressive agenda.

I really really wanted him to hang on to the empty sleeve like it had her hand in it.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

In my experience people felt Trump was the lesser evil of the two candidates. The Republican party loves to talk about ending abortion and having strong family values but at this point it looks like a lot of virtue signaling. Regardless many people are are not going to vote for a pro abortion candidate, who supports the progressive agenda.

I think the evangelicals could have made a strong stand and announced they were going to abstain from voting for President because they could not support either candidate and that they would simply vote in the non-Presidential races. Agree or disagree, that would be making a consistent stand.

When Trump did win, they could come out and publicly distance themselves from some of his talking and support the things they agree with. There is nothing wrong with taking a consistent stand on things and the evangelicals have shown they can't do it and that is where they are hypocritical.

What's amazing is that, in any other administration, this story as well as all the others would be all-consuming front page news. But with Trump, we've become numb to any kind of scandal. In the past, a scandal such as this and the others would have rocked the White House, but now it's just one of many stories that is not of that much interest.

As much as I support many of the policies this administration has been able to implement, I'm not sure they're worth the damage he has caused to public discourse and his attacks on our institutions.

Possibly. But what it also means is that no evangelical Trump supporter will ever be able to credibly claim that individual integrity is something they look for or demand in a politician. Many of those who during the Clinton administration claimed that he was unfit for office because of his moral character have proven themselves hypocrites by supporting Trump.

But it's no longer an either/or situation. (Not that it ever was.) Trump won the election, so it's him and his character that we're dealing with. Hillary lost, and she's no longer relevant to the question. And that question isn't why someone voted for Trump. It's why they continue to support him, often to absurd levels.

I agree completely and is something that I cannot understand. I somewhat understand why a friend of mine who has probably never gone to church supports him. I cannot understand why my devout Christian mother-in-law has a pink "Women for Trump" sticker on her car.

Here's what I would like to see -- some condemnation of his behavior, both past and present. Some recognition that he currently is lying, despicable, self-absorbed idiot. You can do that while still support most or even all of his policies. But the silence and quite opposite, the continued unquestioning support, from the evangelical community is telling. And I get that this is a generalization, that there may be a few voices from that community speaking against him, but overall, I believe the generalization is accurate.

I assume from your defense of evangelical support for Trump that you're an evangelical. If that is true, then point us to a few of your comments in the LR that are critical of him and his behavior.

I agree with you but it sounds like you're looking for something specific or large scale. I remember many Christian leaders said they would not vote for Trump. As an individual I am saying the things you mentioned and so are many people that I know. From where I stand the guy appears to be morally bankrupt. That said, I felt the same way about Hillary. I voted Trump hoping he would do something about abortion, reduce spending, and pump the breaks on the progressive agenda. As you can see it's all worked out really well.

Again, I think people viewed Trump as the lesser of two evils. Had they all abstained from voting it would have given Hillary the presidency but it may have a sent a message for the future.

I agree on the voting issue. I think you, and some others, are looking for loud Christian voice saying Trump is morally bankrupt but I don't know where that would come from.

I think you, and some others, are looking for loud Christian voice saying Trump is morally bankrupt but I don't know where that would come from.

There have been a lot of Christians coming out and denouncing the support of Trump. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention spoke out over the payment to the prostitute and the earlier tapes and said Trump's views are inconsistent with those of Christians.

The reason I think evangelicals support Trump because they are a lot like Trump and not very religious. I think many people, myself included, have always thought the evangelical community was very conservative with strong "family values" but that isn't really the case. For example, the number of people who claim to be evangelicals who regularly attend church is about 50% so they actually relate to Trump. Trumps lack of knowledge of what is in the bible and the fact that he doesn't attend church is pretty consistent with those people.

It is scenes like below that really get offensive. And there are many of them, simply Google "evangelical leaders pray with trump". And I understand that 'evangelical' is not one single bloc of people and that these leaders don't represent every evangelical. But the same group that support Trump also won't allow an analogous argument for Muslims when something bad happens.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

It is scenes like below that really get offensive.

But why is this offensive?

For what are they praying?

If you believe that prayer works, why would you not pray for or even with someone you think can benefit from divine intervention?

Honestly, the Trump horse has already left the barn so I don't realistically see them doing or saying much about him at this point. In the interest of basic consistency, however, I'd implore them to simply put a fucking sock in it the next time they feel compelled to spew any sort of indignant bloviating about the Weiners & Frankens of the world somehow exemplifying the moral decay wrought from the Left. Vote for who you want (the royal 'you'; I don't mean you personally here), but spare us the charade that it's about upholding some sort of virtuous moral character or standards. "Family values" my ass...

Is that a fair answer?

He's just taking that as an opportunity to look at hot chicks.

This site needs a LIKE button! Excellent!