Does Trump Have an Edwards/Clinton Problem?

220px-john_edwards_official_senate_photo_portraitdonald_trump_president-elect_portrait_cropped225px-Bill_ClintonBelow is my column in the Hill newspaper on the implications of the scandals involving two women who have claimed affairs with President Donald Trump in prior years.  There are real risks here for the White House which has been issuing categorical denials.  Some of the greatest threats to a presidency come from the outer edges. That was the legacy of Bill Clinton whose adultery led to public dishonesty and ultimately perjury.

In both criminal and Olympic trials, routines often seem a combination of the performances of prior individuals. Skaters are judged on whether they can do a “Biellmann spin” after a “triple Lutz.” Those are dangerous moves to be sure, but nothing like the routine facing President Trump in the wake of new allegations of affairs and payoffs. If he is not careful, he could soon be trying an “Edwards” with a “double Clinton twist.”

The president is facing expanding scandals involving alleged affairs with a former porn star and a former Playboy bunny. Up until now, these scandals have been more salacious than legal. However, there is a new alleged pattern emerging that could present a real threat to Trump — a pattern that led to serious legal problems for a prior president and a prior presidential candidate. While I believe that the president can avoid any criminal charge, he will have to stick this landing with care. Unlike the vague references to some crime of Russian “collusion,” there is a criminal allegation emerging in these two alleged affairs.

The routine setup

Former porn star Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, gave an interview in 2011 to In Touch Magazine detailing an affair with Trump that began shortly after Melania Trump gave birth to their son, Barron. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, reportedly threatened to sue the tabloid magazine if the story ran. The threat appears to have spooked the magazine, which buried the story.

Later, during Trump’s presidential run in 2016, Cohen used a fake name and shell company to give $130,000 to the porn star to deny any sexual relationship. That payment was later the basis for a lawsuit by Common Cause alleging possible campaign finance violations. Cohen created a shield company and used a false identity to pay off Clifford. He stated this week that the money was his personal funds — a statement that actually raised even more legal and ethical problems. This includes the claim by Daniels that Cohen’s interviews voided the nondisclosure provisions of her agreement and that she is now free to speak about her relationship with Trump.

As the implications of the Clifford scandal deepen, Ronan Farrow wrote a story in the New Yorker on another alleged affair. This one also occurred during the same period and involved “Playmate of the Year” Karen McDougal. Her account is also quite detailed (and fits a similar pattern) and involved contemporarily written notes. McDougal alleges that Trump friend and owner of the National Enquirer, David Pecker, paid her $150,000 for exclusive ownership of her story. The payment barred McDougal from publicly revealing the affair. The National Enquirer, which is not known for its restraint in publishing celebrity scandals, buried the story and former staffers have alleged that Pecker coordinated such decisions with Trump.

First the ‘Edwards’

The $130,000 payment to Clifford and the $150,000 payment to McDougal could present a serious legal threat to Trump. The confirmation of this money coming from his lawyer and his friend could be viewed as a circumvention of campaign finance laws. Just ask John Edwards. The former Democratic presidential candidate was hammered after the disclosure that he not only had an affair with filmmaker Rielle Hunter but also sired a child with her. He at first denied the affair, as did Hunter. Later it was revealed that Fred Baron, the Edwards campaign finance chairman, was giving money to Hunter, but he insisted it was his own money and without the knowledge of Edwards. Andrew Young, an Edwards campaign aide, also obtained funds from heiress Rachel Lambert Mellon to pay to Hunter.

Ironically, the scandal was revealed by the National Enquirer. This use of third-party payments was viewed as a circumvention of campaign finance laws since the payments were designed to bury an election scandal. Edwards was indicted in 2009 on six felony charges. In 2012, he would ultimately be found not guilty on one count while the jury deadlocked on the other five.

While some, including myself, questioned the basis for the Edwards indictment, it would be willful blindness for the Trump team to ignore the obvious analogies to the current controversy. Where Edwards had the late heiress “Bunny” Mellon and his campaign manager, Trump allegedly had Pecker and his personal counsel. Both payments occurred at the same time as Edwards in the midst of a presidential run.

Now the ‘Clinton double twist’

That brings us to Bill Clinton, whose undoing came not from his affairs. Those allegations did not present a legal threat until Clinton was forced into a deposition in the Paula Jones civil lawsuit. In that deposition, Clinton lied under oath about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. He would continue to lie publicly about not having sex with “that woman.” Clinton was ultimately impeached based on that perjury. I was one of the constitutional experts called to testify in the House hearings. While I voted for Clinton, I testified that such perjury would clearly constitute a high crime and misdemeanor for purposes of impeachment.

So here is the danger: Given the Edwards prosecution and the pending Common Cause lawsuit, there is an obvious basis for alleging a possible crime related to these payments under the campaign finance laws. I still question that interpretation but there is case law to support it. Special counsel Robert Mueller would be allowed under his mandate to ask about the payments. Trump has denied any affair with either woman through White House staff. As a precursor to asking about the payments, he could be asked about the affairs under oath. If Trump lies under oath, it would be an indictable and an impeachable offense.

None of this means that Mueller wants to steer his investigation into the sordid affairs of a porn star or a Playboy bunny. It also does not mean that an Edwards charge is a good use of federal effort and money. Just as I objected to the Edwards charges, the connection to the campaign finance laws for Trump remains a bit thin. The concern is that any effort to protect a candidate from scandal could be monetized or converted into a campaign contribution under this theory. It was clearly not a compelling claim for the Edwards jury. Putting ethical concerns aside, both Cohen and Pecker can note that (unlike the figures in the Edwards case) they did not hold any campaign position.

However, the allegation is directly linked to the election campaign that is at the heart of his mandate. Moreover, Mueller threw every possible charge against prior Trump figures in the Michael Flynn, George PapadopoulosPaul Manafort and Rick Gates indictments. Some of those charges, particularly Flynn’s alleged false statement, were marginal at best. The charges against Manafort and Gates were well removed from both the campaign and Trump. In other words, Mueller has not shown particular restraint thus far in pursuing any or all charges.

I have been critical of the repeated claims of a “collusion” crime with Russians due to the weak legal and factual foundations for a charge. However, this allegation would be anchored in not just a clear criminal provision but two prior cases. For a White House known for self-inflicted wounds, the situation could not be more precarious as the White House issues categorical denials. There are real criminal charges possible in such claims and the trip wires are right under foot for the president.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

102 thoughts on “Does Trump Have an Edwards/Clinton Problem?”

  1. “FDR and His Women”

    “… she was deeply wounded to discover that Franklin had been having an affair with her secretary, Lucy Mercer.”

    1. Love me some Eleanor. . .sure do. . .by all accounts, a wonderful, kind, compassionate and, all-around, wonderful human being. . .I treasure an 8×10 glossy of my father–a high ranking officer in the army, during WWII–which, in a moment, captured him standing side by side, with Eleanor, when she happened to visit his base–but maybe, just, maybe, she was deeply wounded because the affair meant that Lucy was, now, out of bounds for her. . .something which wasn’t discussed or even contemplated by society in those days.

  2. While the public is distracted by shiny objects like the porn star, blog lawyers could write about how money controls and limits free speech. The public-owned Montana State University will vote in a couple of days to decide how much curriculum influence the Koch’s relatively paltry sum of $5.6 mil. will buy.

    1. Linda – I remember when MSU was MSC. Universities get money from a lot of people. ASU has money from about 20 people who helped build buildings, more who supported programs. MSU is small time. $5m is a drop in the bucket to build a college building.

  3. Affairs mean nothing. Look at Vitter, Sanford (went MIA, while governor!), et al. And voters vote them in again.

  4. Johnny Edwards paid a mistress for a Love child and he and Mr. Baron got indicted. T rump pays oodles of porno stars off and assaults other women. No indictments comin his way, He is above da law and many of his cultists think he is a deeply religious king.

    1. The evangelical cultists feel, not “think”, in following their authoritarian leaders like Franklin Graham.

      1. Linda – I thought “feeling” and following Correct the Record was what liberals did? So, what are the bullet points for today?

  5. As the ridiculous Russiagate subsides we now move into the salacious Stormygate. A show of hands -who cares who Trump slept with ? I thought so. How about we let the guy do his job? Here’s something I wrote on the blog years ago. I think it’s still true today: “It’s a time-tested feature of the American Presidency that holders of the office are judged by what they do for people and not how they do it. Lincoln is remembered in the consciousness of the public for ending the Civil War not suspending habeas corpus. FDR is lionized for the New Deal and his leadership against fascism not the court-packing plan. And even ol’ unpopular ‘W” himself has received a popularity renaissance of sorts for his efforts to combat terrorism with hardly a mention of the dubious methods he employed. Why would the public in the last two elections be looking for anything different? Give us someone who can bring about positive change in Washington and the society it oversees was the order from the populace.“

    1. mespo – You give him credit for even comprehending what his job is, or the Constitution. As for “misreading the indictments,” the claims they didn’t make in these 37 pages don’t preclude them from making them in the next, and the next. What you somehow are seeing as the investigation winding down, is just the top of the wind-up for a fastball. You haven’t even seen the heat yet.

      1. He certainly comprehended what it took to get the job far more than his more qualified opponent. For that he’s earned the opportunity to do it.

    2. Why do you think the Russian investigation is “ridiculous” ? Are you claiming that none of the details are true, that they were all made up? Are you claiming that the Russians mentioned in the indictment don’t exist?

      As for your ends-justify-the-means argument, is there no offense that is too serious? Should Trump have a free pass to do anything he wants, so long as there is “positive change”? (positive by whose definition?) Re the Russia investigation, do you mean that even if the Russians did install him in the White House, it’s OK with you? (Do you favor the actions of Duterte in the Philippines, who just murders people he thinks might be involved with drugs, or who otherwise bother him?)

      Would like to hear your further views on all this.

      1. It’s ridiculous ‘cause it spent millions to prove what we already knew. There are Russian internet trolls about! Call out the marines.

        1. Mespo,…
          So you don’t accept Putin’s suggestion that maybe these are just patriotic Russian citizens expressing their opinions😂, and not connected in any way to the Kremlin, or part of any organized group?

  6. Russiagate has never been credible. Millions of people posted millions of blogs, tweets, and comments for and against Hillary and Trump. Why would a few Russian posts be worthy of indicting Russians? Should anyone around the world, who commented pro or anti Trump or Hillary be indicted for interfering in US elections?

    As to human depravity, Mr Trump has a far worse history than either President Clinton or Candidate Edwards. Their sexual misbehavior was their only offense. Mr Trump’s sexual dalliance is one behavior in the long list which seems to include misrepresentation with Trump University, misuse of campaign funds, almost daily lying to the public, voyeurism associated with pageants, violating international law, emoluments, and many grossly unacceptable behaviors like insulting the disabled, supporting white supremacy, insulting people for their race or heritage, insulting leaders of other countries, etc. etc, etc. Collectively there is no comparison between Mr Trump’s depravity and that of Edwards and President Clinton.

    1. Crispy Bacon asks, “Why would a few Russian posts be worthy of indicting Russians?”

      They were not Russian blog posters nor Russian text messengers, Crispy. They were Russian spies–as in paid agents of a foreign power waging informational warfare against The United States. You may find it hard to believe, Crispy, but that’s against the law. Now, if you or I, or any other U. S. citizen, post messages on the internet or the social media, then we would all be, indeed, are all protected by The First Amendment and, if needs be, The Fourth Amendment, as well. Not so for Russian spies, Crispy. You are drawing a false equivalency between U. S. citizens exercising their free speech rights versus Russian spies waging informational warfare against The United States. Why is that so difficult for you to understand, Crispy? BTW, you’re on notice, Bacon.

      1. L4D:
        Actually they were Russian internet trolls who held a rally that 4 people attended. Quite the Murder Inc! Maybe you could expound about anonymous trolls.

      2. “paid agents of a foreign power waging informational warfare against another country” Apparently you are saying that is illegal when others do it to the US but not when the US does it to other countries.

        I was talking about posts from around the world, outside of the US, which were for and against Trump and Hillary. Are they all guilty of interference in the US election?

        Why am I “on notice”?

        1. Fine then, you’re off notice. But be advised, Mueller did not indict 13 Russians for posting messages on the internet or the social media. Why in the world would you have thought that that’s the charge for which Mueller indicted 13 Russians? You know what? On second thought. I’m putting you back on notice, Bacon.

      3. LFD – Russian spies ha ha ha It’s clearly a diversion to take the heat off the real crooks associated with HRC & Co

          1. Lionel is a hoot – reminds me of a character from a Woody Allan movie.

            “He’s self-described as a renaissance lawyer and media legal analyst, a news decoder and essayist. An author, blogger, pioneer podcaster and (out)spoken word performer. He’s a flatpicker and roots practitioner and celebrates before the altar of the immaculate twang of America’s music: bluegrass. He’s a political atheist and has a blackbelt in realpolitik. He eschews left-right paradigms and rejects whole cloth run-of-the mill trite and usual political analysis through the media’s patented worldview, spectrum and prism. He’s a practicing plant-based vegan and as John Pilger suggested, never believes anything until it’s officially denied.”

  7. Trump might actually have a Queen Herodias problem. King Herod got drunk & made a vow. That would be for the head of John the Baptist.

    1. Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russians for election meddling just so happens to provide additional and more detailed verification for two key allegations in the Trump-Russia dossier compiled by Christopher Steele: 1) that Russia favored Trump and 2) launched a propaganda and disinformation campaign to promote Trump and disparage Trump’s rivals. While it is, of course, quite perfectly legal for U. S. citizens to engage in such activities, it is most definitely illegal for the agents of a foreign power to wage informational warfare against The United States.

      Consequently, Christopher Steele is no longer culpable for any crimes analogous to the crimes that Mueller’s indictment alleges against the 13 Russians. And, even more to the point, no one at the FBI or the DOJ is culpable for any crime related to the use of the Trump-Russia dossier to investigate Russian election meddling. That, in turn, entails that Trump will not fire Rosenstein nor Mueller.

      Thus, once again, Robert Swan Mueller The Third remains he who will not be deterred.

      1. Diane – the Russians connected to the Steele dossier are actually in Russia, not the United States. Steele never left Europe and may never have left England. Most of his work seems to have been done by emailing contacts in Russia who in turn emailed blackmail material on Trump. He never talked to his sources face to face nor did he back his material up. He also got additional materials from the State Dept by way of Sidney Blumenthal. Then he shopped it to newspapers who could not back it up, so except for Gawker, did not print it (Gawker is being sued for libel by 5 people and is counter-suing the DNC to protect them from themselves).

        1. Paul, you’re just not paying attention. The criminal referral against Steele that Grassley and Graham sent to Rosenstein and Wray has been obviated by Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russians engaged in information warfare to favor Trump and disparage Trump’s rivals exactly as Steele alleged in the dossier. Every time an allegation from the dossier is verified the potential criminal case against Steele for lying to, or otherwise misleading, the FBI has one less possible count in it. Meanwhile, Steele never claimed that all of the intelligence in the dossier was likely to be true. Just some of it. So I seriously doubt that Grassley and Graham have any more legitimate criminal charges against Steele to refer to Rosenstein and Wray for investigation. And that just so happens to be a major blow to Trump’s cause. Wake up. Snap out of it. Start paying attention to what’s going on around here.

          1. Diane – are you dyslexic? I swear sometimes you read stuff upside down. The 13 Russians are NOT connected to the DNC or Steele. Hillary Clinton and the DNC (which she controlled) hired a law firm which hired Fusion GPS which hired Steele to do op research on Trump in Russia. Steele never went to Russia for his research, it was all done long distance and it appears he paid for at least some of it.

            Steele is guilty of the same thing the Russians are and I hope they charge him. Fair is fair.

            1. Paul, you’re not even close to being correct. Steele gathered intelligence from four confidential informants in Russia. One of them died of a “heart attack” while “napping” in the trunk of his car with trunk lid closed and locked. Steele gave his intelligence reports to the FBI for further investigation. A fair number of the allegations in the Trump-Russia dossier have been independently verified by the FBI. That necessarily means that Steele did not lie to, nor mislead, the FBI. The crimes committed by the 13 Russians at the troll factory known as the Internet Research Agency bear no conceivable resemblance to anything Steele did when he gathered or filed his intelligence reports with the FBI. Just because you desperately want a false equivalence to be regarded as though it were true, doesn’t mean that anyone else is obligated to regard that false equivalence as though it might as well be oh-so-desperately true.

              Nice try, though.

                1. Steele worked in Russia for several years as an MI6 agent; during which time Steele cultivated his Russian informants.

                    1. Paul C. Schulte,
                      It was a dodge, a deflection.
                      You were expecting a yes or a no answere?😄

                  1. Steele used Russian sources to gather information from other Russian sources.
                    I haven’t seen any published material dealing with how well Steele knew his sources, or the “sources’ sources”.

                2. Diane – yes or no, did the FBI fire Steele? And yes or no, did the FBI fail to inform the FISC they had fired Steele, the person who had compiled the Steele dossier?

                  1. 1) Yes. The FBI severed their connection with Steele when they found out about Steele’s contact with Michael Isikoff at Newsweek.

                    2) I do not have access to the FISA warrant application. Do you?

                    1. Diane – it does not take a dummy to realize that had the DOJ notified the FISC that they had fired Steele over the newspaper article (which they offered as supporting evidence for the warrant) that the FISA warrant would have been thrown out.

                    2. Paul Caviler Schulte said, “Diane – it does not take a dummy to realize that had the DOJ notified the FISC that they had fired Steele over the newspaper article (which they offered as supporting evidence for the warrant) that the FISA warrant would have been thrown out.”

                      The Newsweek article was cited in the FISA warrant application for the express purpose of demonstrating that Carter Page was likely to be aware of the fact that he was the subject of an FBI investigation and would, therefore, be more likely to arrange clandestine meetings using clandestine communications. That is the standard operating procedure for FISA warrant applications, because the FISC is going to ask the FBI why they need to use covert electronic surveillance rather than simply tailing the subject of the warrant. Grassley and Graham know that. Evidently, either Paul Caviler Schulte does not know that or Paul Caviler Schulte is pretending that he doesn’t know that for the sake of misconstruing the purpose of citing the Newsweek article in the FISA warrant application. Hence the revealed meaning of his middle initial “C” for Caviler.

                  2. PCS, this whole Steele, “dossier”, MI6, incestuous, circular, convoluted, obfuscatory mis and disinformation, Hillary oppo-research debacle has me so confused I don’t know which way is up. But what really gets me is “Late4Dinner”. Is Late4Dinner Diane, Annie or Inga or all of the above? That seems dubious as L4D never mentions the glorious hijinks of her “nurses” union and her narrative style doesn’t seem to have the same timbre.

            2. Paul C. Schulte,..
              I think there are numerous examples of people saying “look here”, but don’t “look there”.
              The indictment of the 13 Russians in no way “obviates” the criminal referral of Steele to the DOJ.
              There is one set of allegations against the 13 Russians in the indictments, and there are different issues involved in the Steele criminal referral.
              No matter how much Diane or anyway else tries to pretend that one set of indictments makes another criminal investigation irrelevant, that smokescreen doesn’t work.

              1. TN re: “No matter how much Diane or anyway else tries to pretend that one set of indictments makes another criminal investigation irrelevant, that smokescreen doesn’t work.”

                They are still hoping though that the public has a short memory….

                “Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted foreign citizens for trying to influence the American public about an election because those citizens did not register as a foreign agent nor record their financial expenditures to the Federal Elections Commission. By that theory, when will Mueller indict Christopher Steele, FusionGPS, PerkinsCoie, the DNC and the Clinton Campaign? Mueller’s indictment against 13 Russian trolls claimed their social media political activity was criminal because: they were foreign citizens; they tried to influence an election; and they neither registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act nor reported their funding to the Federal Elections Commission.”


  8. It depends on what the definition of “problem” is. To Trump, the two women Turley wishes to limit the conversation to aren’t much of a problem. His supporters know who he is and don’t care whether they be the religious right or the same batch that were repulsed by Clinton’s ethics. That Trump is morally compromised is simply built into the equation. If it ever came down to having to testify, he could tell the truth without repercussion.

    Perhaps the greater concern should be the other 19 women that have accused him of things ranging from sexual assault to rape. These women have not gone away and just because Trump says “they all lied” doesn’t mean the #MeToo movement isn’t growing and won’t ultimately undo him.

    I think he has little danger of the Mueller investigation detouring to look at his affairs. There is so much low hanging fruit in terms of money laundering and yes conspiracy with Russia that there is no need to get sidetracked to an area that his defenders in Congress will use to attack the legitimacy of the probe.

    For those still claiming witchhunt and hoax. I invite you to look at the recent indictment of 13 Russians, two firms and guilty plea of one American. If I was the interface with Cambridge Analytics (Jared Kushner) I’d know they’re just two steps from my door. For those watching the new allegations against Manafort regarding financial fraud. All hopes of Trump’s misdeeds not being noticed by those sifting through Trump’s finances should be gone.

    The porn stars are a diversion, but the real danger lies elsewhere. It’s only a matter of which strikes first.

    1. The Russian hacking operation on the DNC and John Podesta are also still on the table–even though they haven’t been turned face up, yet. I’m looking for something along those lines in Mueller’s next round of indictments. But I could be wrong. In any case, Mueller and Rosenstein are both here to stay. Trump dare not risk the appearance of protecting Putin’s people by firing the Americans investigating Putin’s people.

      1. I think his level of desperation will cause him to do just that. He has no doubt what the outcome will be should he do nothing. I think he’ll roll the dice and think that he is so special he can do what Nixon couldn’t.

        1. I hadn’t considered Trump’s knowledge of guilt. If Trump possesses such knowledge, then your conclusion is far likelier than mine. Uh-oh! SpaghettiOs!

        2. Enigma,…
          IF Trump and/ or some in the Trump camp are considering firing Mueller, it’s likely that they’re weighing the lack of the public’s trust in Mueller v. the lack of trust in Trump.
          The position of special prosecutor in the Watergate era enjoyed a much higher level of prestige and confidence with the American public.
          That level of trust no longer exists. For every person saying “in Mueller I trust”, or “Robert Swan Miller the Third will not be deterred”, you probably have an equal number who question Mueller’s objectivity and fairness.
          A recent Harvard-Harris poll showed an even split between those two camps.
          I don’t think Trump will have Mueller fired, but there’s a much higher probability that he’ll boot Rosenstein.
          But in either the case of firing Mueller or firing Rosenstein, it’s not a slam dunk that the same degree of public backlash that hit Nixon would hit Trump.
          So if Trump is considering firing either (or both), I think he is likely trying to anticipate public reaction in 2018 v. the 1973 Nixon backlash.

          1. I would agree that there is a portion of the public that will support anything Trump does and immediately amplify any reason he gives for Trump’s clear obstruction of justice and attempts to save himself and his family. If it were today, a significant portion of the Republican-controlled Congress would not Impeach him no matter what the evidence. In the meantime (read his tweets today and every day) the man is demonstrating greater instability and losing a bit more of that base daily.

            While there is a great groundswell among the loyalists to criticize Mueller’s impartiality. He has actually said and done nothing in this investigation to warrant that criticism. The evidence is being compiled and is coming to light thru new indictments and guilty pleas.

            1. Enigma,..
              I don’t think that the polls are showing a loss of support for Trump.
              It was never very high, but I think ( depending on the polls) it’s consistently been in the high 30s to low 40s.
              I think Trump’s blunders led Rosenstein to appoint special counsel, especially some of the comments Trump made to Lester Holt and the Russian ambassador and foreign minister after he fired Comey.
              I think it was a mistake to choose Mueller, given his close ties to Comey.
              Aside from that, I don’t really have much of a basis, at this point, to conclude that Mueller is either doing a good job or a poor job.
              There’ll be a lot more to go on, with respect to judging Mueller’s performance, after he’s completed his investigation.

              1. Trump is losing ground, particularly among white women of whom 58% voted for him in the general election. I can’t say there’s much new information but the constant reminder of his cavorting with porn stars soon after his third marriage and again after the birth of his son, plus the reminders of the 19 women claiming sexual assault and rape, plus his defense of a wife beater with no mention of the wives is taking a toll.

                As for Mueller, there is nothing to judge him by other than 15 indictments, and multiple guilty pleas thus far and more to come.

                1. ” Why is Trump’s popularity rising?.
                  – from The Atlantic, Feb.14, 2018
                  This article refers to the fivethirtyeight aggregator, which at 41% is the highest level since May, 2017.
                  The most recent Gallup poll (Feb.5) shows Trump at 40%, up two points.
                  If Trump’s base of support is eroding, it’s not showing up in the polls.

                  1. If you want to base this on one week’s results, feel free. Next week he’ll be back, he’s already politicized a school shooting and ignored Russian interference since that poll. People are watching. I wouldn’t bet against him criticizing the students who watched their friends and teachers die because they criticized him.

                    1. I didn’t just start following the polling numbers this week.,so it’s not ” based on one weeks results”.

      1. more indictments are comin down the pike, counselor. Do you know your T rump cannot fire a grand jury?

  9. By all means, Professor Turley, let’s obsess about Trump’s potential problems with Stormy Daniels and Playboy Bunnies instead of focusing on Trump’s history of indifference, while holding the Office of President, to the events spelled in the indictments handed down last Friday. Which one poses a potentially greater threat to the US going forward? Should we focus on Trump “blowing it” or on Stormy “blowing it”? Is it really that hard to choose?

    1. Or maybe on the inability of The Donald and his administration to address the needs of the nation? Nah, too political, not enough legal.

  10. I’m reading, slowly, chapter by chapter, “The Waste Land” by T.S. Eliot. Seems appropriate for this thread.

        1. I had thought that everyone here, even those I usually disagree with, would know what I was joking about with my literary allusion. But it seems my joke went over some heads here. In T.S. Eliot’s poem, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, there’s a memorable line that goes like this:

          In the room the women come and go
          Talking of Michelangelo.

    1. David Benson – to put it in a word, I have always thought of T. S. Elliot as a waste. 😉

  11. Does anybody really care except the Democrats who are looking for any possible way to run negative stories about Trump??? Plus, the chicks sound to me like they have possibly blackmailed Trump.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. All of these negative stories are being fed to MSM because FOX News looks for every possible way to make Mike Pence look good in comparison to Trump. Just because Trump doesn’t talk about WWJD, that doesn’t mean he isn’t trying to do what Jesus (and Putin) wants.

  12. Terrific! I just KNEW, Jon Turley HAD to write an article bringing Stormy Daniels back into the picture. The man (like other Leftists here) is simply OBSESSED with Stormy Daniels.

    I do, however, have some therapy that I would recommend for Turley and other Leftists of his Stormy-obsessed ilk. Today, they make very lifelike sex dolls made of silicon-like materials that have a metal bone structure that makes the dolls seem almost lifelike. Because of Stormy Daniels’ popularity, they make a replica of Stormy Daniels, right down to her genitals.

    Jon Turley and other Leftists here should each buy one of these Stormy Daniels dolls and use it to satisfy their sexual fantasies of psychically “connecting” with Trump via the Stormy Daniels doll. If Turley and the Leftists use their Stormy Daniels dolls on a regular basis, I’m sure that their initial excitement will begin to wane over time and they may feel less and less of a need to have their Stormy Daniels fix.

    I encourage Jon Turley and his fellow Leftists to try my therapy out for a couple of months. It just might cure them of their Stormy Daniels obsessions.

    1. Ralph Adamo – maybe we could set up a GoFundMe and buy JT a Stormy sex doll. 😉

  13. My view is, regardless of the validity of the origina complainants which seems to be centered around $$$, those complaining the most have the least right to complain by ill virtue of their own personal conduct or their owns support of such conduct. Yet they are casting stones that are covered in their own well deserved blood.

    This is an easily seen common problem of those without recognizable morals nor ethics regardless of which faction. One can hardly expect the Nuremberg Defense to work for them unless they cast themselves at the same level as did the Nuremberg Defendants.

    As for the follow on complainants – primarily many who may not be even loosely described as the media or press be it print or broadcast nor as journalists or reporters – at best they are guilty of casting stones without waiting for the assignment of guilt and thus are deservedly targets of their own folly.

    It is hard to imagine a young person growing up i the shadows of such and coming out whole. .

    1. Utterly incomprehensible. But it fits you well.

      this is to “what was the question again?” georgie

  14. Lewinsky was a young intern at the White House when Clinton, the sitting President, had an affair with her. He was President of the United States at the time. Trump, as we all know, has been married three times. He was a public figure, in the business world, when these, alleged, affairs occurred. He wasn’t f’ing a White House intern. He may, or may not, have had, any number of affairs in his past, but he wasn’t the President of the United States when he was involved with these broads. If he did, in fact, have affairs with these two whores, at least these two whores weren’t young girls, working, in the White House, where they should have been protected from a predatory animal, like Clinton and his hero, Kennedy, before him. Big difference. Big, big difference. Clinton wasn’t questioned about every affair thar he ever had. . .those investigations would still be, ongoing, if that were the case. Trump, as usual, must play by a different standard. A higher standard. His enemies are desperate to get him. Get him by any means, possible. Do we now question ever congressman about their past and present affairs, with both men and women, including the love children sired due to those trysts? Trump may have had a number of affairs, and, yes, he may have had to pay these greedy, disease-infected whores to go away. So what?

    1. You’ve convinced me by repeating “big” three different times.

      this is to “I can’t find anything else to defend this bozo with” bammie

      1. Ahhhh, yesss. . .the word, big. . .a word that you, Marky Mark, are desperate to hear, from anyone. No wonder the word impresses you.

        This is to, “I’ve Got Me Some Little Hands and Some Little Everything Else. . .Won’t Somebody Use the Word, BIG, Regarding Me” Marky Mark.

    2. From what I understand about Lewinsky, she was hardly “prey,” but a very willing and eager participant.

      1. Jay S – I read her testimony and she was willing to help “her President” out. However, even people on the WH staff saw that she was predatory and getting too close to the President and did their best to keep them apart. Damn that blue dress!

  15. I think Trump’s attorneys are trying to keep him away from a face-to-face with Mueller. Last I heard they were working on a list of questions.

    1. Given Donald’s almost nonexistent self-control, direct testimony under oath would be grand entertainment, to say the least.

      1. Jay S – I have seen a deposition of Trump before and he is pretty good at it. I think the longer they keep him at it the less control he will have.

Comments are closed.