LISTEN: Audio of Trump & Cohen talking Playboy model payoff

[MarkDow]

[anon30760835]

@Brainspore

Sure, but “appropriate/inappropriate” is at least a matter of personal opinion and social norms rather than a question of basic objective reality

Sure, but ‘it took her 20 years’ is a good sign of “Was there anyone this committed to Bill Clinton”. She was.

Trauma bonding?

[Brainspore]

@anon30760835

Sure, but ‘it took her 20 years’ is a good sign of “Was there anyone this committed to Bill Clinton”. She was .

If she was truly committed to Bill Clinton she never would have testified about the affair in the first place, much less provided the, ah, material evidence for said affair to the Starr investigation.

The parts that took 20 years were

1. Coming to grips with seeing herself as a “victim” after participating in a more-or-less consensual affair with a man who exploited a gross power imbalance, and
2. Writing publicly about her thoughts on said affair after two decades of trying to put it behind her

I can’t really fault her for any of that.

[anon30760835]

@Brainspore

I can’t really fault her for any of that.

i sure don’t. That would be weird.

I wonder what the venn diagram of ‘people who would’ and ‘people who currently support Trump’ looks like?

[Brainspore]

@anon30760835

I wonder what the venn diagram of ‘people who would’ and ‘people who currently support Trump’ looks like?

I know that the venn diagram for “legislators who voted to impeach Clinton” and “legislators who continue to support Trump” has a whole lot of red in the middle.

[aluchko]

@Brainspore

I mean, I can remember plenty of Democrats who said lying about Lewinski wasn’t that big of a deal because it was irrelevant to his performance as a President but I don’t remember anyone insisting the Lewinski story was “fake” or that Clinton never lied about it.

I think it’s a bit of shibboleth. They realize he’s had a lot of affairs and he lies about it, but saying you believe the lies is a way of expressing support for Trump.

Plus the fact that they all agree to publicly believe the lies means they’re never really in a position where they have to discuss them (and they may even convince themselves through repetition).

I think the religious right is a bit more clear-eyed about it, they realize he’s a slime ball but believe he’s a slime ball being used to do God’s work.

@KathyPartdeux

Totally exculpatory Rudy!

“Giuliani added that Trump was recorded telling Cohen to write a check, rather than send cash, so that the payment would be properly documented. But a payment was never made, Giuliani said.”

I listened a couple times and I’d say the quote was 80% “No, pay with cash”, and 20% “Don’t pay with cash”.

I don’t think it matters that much, it’s super sketchy and possibly illegal either way, but my worry is that the whole tape discussion is going to come down to parsing that phrase.

[dfaris]

@Brainspore

I have to wonder what happens inside the mind of a Trump supporter when these kinds of things come to light.

Well, if /r/Conservative on Reddit is any indication…

I care more about Trump not waging war with Iran, which he probably won’t, then who he banged on his own time/personal time.

If he survived the Access Hollywood then he’ll have no problem with this.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. Nobody voted for Trump because of his reputation as a great moral leader. Everyone knew he wasn’t an evangelical discussing the sanctity of marriage or lamenting the moral downfall of popular culture. I voted for him for one reason only: he wasn’t Hillary Clinton. However, his policies once in office have been solidly conservative, the stupid trade protectionism aside.

Lmao it’s fucking nothing

He is a Playboy millionaire that has been married 4 times. The American people know exactly who Donald Trump is, and we still elected him, and will re-elect him in 2020

[Papasan]

[buffaloBill]

I suppose if paying six figure bills in cash was a normal thing to do then trump telling him not to use cash would be unremarkable.

[anon75430791]

Not the first to point it out.

On both counts, there’s some incestuous feelings in play. It’s not just the resemblance.

[MeekTheGeek]

I just want to know if the whole “pay cash” thing, or the alleged “using campaign funds to pay for this” thing brings us one step closer to Mueller, or a New York attorney general, or CNN with a copy of Trump’s tax returns for the last 20 years.

[Fef]

[Espry0n]

Hmm, hooker slush fund and illegal use of campaign funds… I wonder if this is as illegal as obstruction of justice or intimidating witnesses?

[tekna2007]

Great concept and execution. Maybe shrink the hands though.

[Immutable_Mike]

Hey, can we stick to pointing out Drumpf’s flaws without besmirching the Harkonnens?

[GagHalfrunt]

It has been suggestedt that “our friend David” could be “David Dennison”, the cover name for Trump in the Stormy Dnaiels non-discloure agreement.

[Fef]

Which, in the casual familiar use in this discussion, suggests that this paying someone off for their silence is a fairly routine thing for DJT.

[richard77]

If I were a competitor of The Coca Cola Company I would seriously consider to use this in the ads… “Trump never said bring me a Pepsi”

[KathyPartdeux]

@aluchko

I listened a couple times and I’d say the quote was 80% “No, pay with cash”, and 20% “Don’t pay with cash”.

I don’t think it matters that much, it’s super sketchy and possibly illegal either way, but my worry is that the whole tape discussion is going to come down to parsing that phrase.

But it’s not the whole tape. The context of the rest of the tape is what will matter. And there’s clearer versions that show it’s not “don’t pay with cash” in either case.

[politeruin]

Just to add to the baron / donny comparisons. But whereas one is a warmonger who wants to strip a planet of its natural resources and has a family of greasy, lying, cheating scumbags the other is entirely fictional.