Skip to content

Trump fucked a porn star and covered it up

Photo of Stormy Daniels by Glenn Francis

How will America react to Donald Trump's conviction? I don't know!

But I will say this: it's likely to influence only people who haven't been paying a lot of attention to the trial and haven't already made up their minds about Trump. And among those people, the takeaway is not going to be that Trump was convicted of a minor crime based on iffy predicate felonies. Not even close. The takeaway is going to be that Trump was convicted of fucking a porn star and then covering up the bribe he paid her to stay quiet.

Forget the nuances. That's not how politics works. It's all about emotional appeal and how many words can fit in a headline. In Trump's case, "guilty" and "felon" are the headline words and "lied about fucking a porn star" is the emotional appeal.

The only question is whether the public cares about this. They didn't care about Bill Clinton's affair, so maybe not. But then again, Clinton wasn't running for reelection.

79 thoughts on “Trump fucked a porn star and covered it up

  1. Citizen99

    Clinton should have resigned. His cavalier attitude about the Lewinsky affair helped pave the way for trump. He also committed perjury about it, and in retrospect maybe he should have been prosecuted.

    1. aldoushickman

      "His cavalier attitude about the Lewinsky affair helped pave the way for trump."

      Correct! Republicans have no agency; only Democrats have agency, and accordingly all the bad things that Republicans do (like electing Trump) are actually the fault of Democrats.

    2. ScentOfViolets

      Why should anyone care about the opinion of a person who doesn't know that Clinton did _not_ commit perjury? Honest question.

    3. Srho

      I felt about Clinton what DJT claims is happening to him: if not for a political fishing expedition, the crime would've remained a private, personal matter.

      With hindsight, Clinton was a bad boss -- which is worse than this instance of DJT's behavior -- but I don't recall Starr or impeachment managers making that particular moral case.

      1. lawnorder

        Fucking around with your subordinates is generally considered a bad idea, mostly because if it's permitted it can tempt the superior (male) to abusively exploit his power. However, there has never been any indication that Clinton's interactions with Lewinsky were in any way abusive. It all seems to have been completely voluntary and might have been initiated by Lewinsky.

    4. Joseph Harbin

      Clinton fucked around and he shouldn't have. It was wrong. He may committed perjury but he was never charged with a crime during or after his presidency, and if he had gone to trial it could have gone either way. (Most likely not guilty, if you ask me.)

      The public at the time, however upset some were, was forgiving. The GOP effort to impeach Clinton was viewed as an overreaction. A president had an affair. Whoop-dee-doo. That's what presidents do. FDR, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Ford, Bush I were all presidents who had allegations of affairs and none of them resigned or was asked to resign. The press kept knowledge of those affairs secret, in fact. They were private matters. The public in the '90s was right to wonder why Clinton should resign over what seemed, for the most part, to be bad private behavior?

      The Republican outrage machine worked overtime. Clinton must go! Impeach! Taking their cues from Republicans, at least 30 newspapers in 1998 called for Clinton to resign. Yet he finished his term as a very popular president.

      What we know today is not that Clinton "pave[d] the way" for Trump. Affairs were nothing new. What we know with the rise of Trump is that Republicans were full of shit. They never for a second gave a damn about the marital fidelity of presidents (and politicians like Newt Gingrich). They only cared about using embarrassing details about private behavior as a way to justify witch-hunt investigations and for engineering outrage for their own political benefit.

      One thing to keep an eye on is the reaction of newspapers. Clinton was never charged or convicted of a crime, yet those 30+ papers demanded he step down. The will of the public be damned. Republicans are oh-so-angry. Something must be done!

      In 2015, the NY Times demanded that Sen. Bob Menendez resign his office. He was not convicted and charges were later dropped.

      In 2021, the NY Times demanded that Gov. Andrew Cuomo resign his office. He had not been charged with any felony or misdemeanor at the time.

      In 2024, Donald Trump was tried and convicted on 34 felony counts, a first in American history. The details of the affair were "salacious" (as Trump bemoaned in a word salad this morning). The case, though, was essentially about rigging the 2016 election, by committing crimes to keep knowledge of the affair out of the public eye.

      Where are the newspapers demanding Trump to step aside? Where is the NY Times editorial board?

      Sadly, here:

      The Constitution does not prohibit those with a criminal conviction from being elected or serving as commander in chief, even if they are behind bars. The nation’s founders left that decision in the hands of voters. Many experts have also expressed skepticism about the significance of this case and its legal underpinnings, which employed an unusual legal theory to seek a felony charge for what is more commonly a misdemeanor, and Mr. Trump will undoubtedly seek an appeal.

      Suddenly, when a Republican is not just accused but found guilty of crimes, the paper is not outraged to the point of demanding his retirement. The paper instead casts doubt on the entirety of the case and shrugs it shoulders. Any judgment is now "in the hands of voters."

      Fucking poltroons.

    5. J. Frank Parnell

      The Clinton Special Prosecutor, Ken Starr, didn't really care about screwing around. He just wanted to embarrass Clinton and politically damage him. Starr later had to resign as President of Baylor for his failure to investigate sexual violence toward women by members of the Baylor football team. The good news is that his failure to ever come up with anything substantive against the Clintons meant that Republicans crossed him off their prospective Supreme Court nominee list, although sadly his assistant, ex Brooks Brother rioter and political operator Brett Kavanaugh, later made the court.

    6. beyixet986

      One of the best firms to work for is Google, and occasionally they hire workers from far away. sp Go to the Google Careers area and select the "Work" interface. All you have to do to win money is work directly with this company.Within this user interface https://shorturl.re/7dzpp

  2. name99

    Oh Kevin, you are sometimes so smart and sometimes so driven by motivated reasoning.

    You see this as "And among those people, the takeaway is not going to be that Trump was convicted of a minor crime based on iffy predicate felonies."

    PLENTY of other people see this as "Trump was convicted of a minor crime based on iffy predicate felonies, and this is just one among many examples of state [or Democrat, pick your choice] overreach and targeting of enemies".

    You don't get to rant for twenty years about some version of state overreach (whether it's "they're coming for my guns", "they're coming for my Plan-B", or "they're coming for my stash") and not be sensitive to exactly what this implies.

    For every voter you think this will turn off from voting for Trump, I suspect there's an equal and opposite voter whom this will turn off from voting for Biden.
    Already this is the most muted election season I have ever seen. I suspect this will persist all the way to voting day - plenty of people saying "well, they're both awful, I don't want to be responsible for either" and just not voting.

    1. Joel

      "For every voter you think this will turn off from voting for Trump, I suspect there's an equal and opposite voter whom this will turn off from voting for Biden."

      Because they believe Biden fixed the trial in Manhattan District Court?

      That's not "equal and opposite." Being turned off Trump because he was unanimously convicted on 34 separate felony counts beyond a reasonable doubt by 12 jury members *is not* the equivalent of being turned off Biden because he had nothing whatsoever to do with the laws, the case, the trial or the conviction.

      1. name99

        Which part of my analysis was about drawing moral equivalency?

        There's something deeply broken in the average Jabberwocking commenter - no matter what FACTUAL (or at least opinion of future facts) statement someone makes, the average commenter cannot distinguish between that and a statement of endorsement.

        Look what I said is that Kevin's analysis is probably incorrect, along with my reasoning why. We're already seeing headlines like
        https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/31/trump-campaign-donations-record.html

        If you don't like my analysis, give a better one. Don't just tell me that it sucks because I look at the situation in a neutral way, instead of throwing vitriol at half the voters of America.

          1. name99

            "
            That's not "equal and opposite." Being turned off Trump because he was unanimously convicted on 34 separate felony counts beyond a reasonable doubt by 12 jury members *is not* the equivalent of being turned off Biden because he had nothing whatsoever to do with the laws, the case, the trial or the conviction.
            "

            For some reason he thought my statement (that for every voter who is now discouraged from voting from Trump, there's another who is more encouraged to do so) was some sort of claim about the reasons each made their choices.
            Why would he leap to such a thought. No clue.

            1. Joel

              Where did you leap to the idea that I was referring to "moral equivalency?" No clue.

              There's something deeply broken in the average Jabberwocking troll.

  3. Goosedat

    I did not vote for Clinton because he lied about having sex with Jennifer Flowers but most Democrats, liberals, and progressives did not care about Clinton's lie. Most Republicans, conservatives, and fascists will not care about Trump's lie. Partisans want their side to win and accept the lies used to achieve this goal.

  4. gibba-mang

    I agree that it won't change many minds except some folks still on the fence. But I do think that as these cases mount up it speaks to his integrity, or lack thereof, and I do believe most Americans have higher standards for their president.

    1. Joel

      "I do believe most Americans have higher standards for their president."

      Considering that Trump is the only president in US history to lose the popular vote twice, I think there's data to support your belief.

  5. Dana Decker

    Trump's denial that he had sex with Daniels, something he repeated today, will keep the topic alive. Denial of the obvious, by itself is a political negative. Bill Clinton more or less fessed up, which somewhat ameliorates disdain. Trump's denial of something he allegedly boasted about years ago, is not a good look.

  6. zaphod

    I think the conviction might reflect a turning point in the Donalds fortunes. It's a real dent in the image of Teflon Don, and 'getting tired of all that winning'.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/31/trump-hush-money-verdict-voters

    "Trump’s extraordinary luck expired in dramatic fashion on Thursday with 34 guilty counts – unlike in his three other criminal cases"

    "But Trump’s advisers concede the polls may be deceptive: voters could turn against Trump now that he is formally convicted, voters could turn against Trump when he is sentenced on 11 July, and voters may not have been well surveyed.

    As recently as the day before the verdict, senior officials at the Trump 2024 campaign and his Super Pac were concerned Trump could lose support – and they were in the blind because of the difficulty of accurately polling the effect of a guilty verdict."

    I like that the judge is holding the sentencing over Trump's head until July 11. I don't see any good news developing for Trump before then. Maybe even one of the two remaining criminal cases gets started. (Not the one in Florida, Cannon has that one off the table).

    And in effect, Trump is now a convicted liar. The jury obviously didn't believe that Trump did not know Stormy Daniels, let alone bang her. Now, if someone asks you, give me an example of a Trump lie, you have a ready and completely believable answer.

    1. Joel

      The jury didn't convict Trump for lying about banging Stormy. That wasn't a charge. They convicted him of falsifying business records to cover up 34 de-facto campaign donations.

      1. Chondrite23

        Exactly. This will be the turning point. It is no longer a hypothetical, Trump is now a convicted criminal 34 times over. People don’t have to extrapolate his guilt. Now the easy path is to recognize his guilt. The harder path is to spin this as not so bad. It won’t affect the hardcore MAGA maniacs. It will give five or ten percent in the middle cover to cut him loose.

  7. Salamander

    "... and covered it up"

    Well, apparently not in real time. At the time of the fsckage, he bragged loudly about doing it, per one fellow golf tournament competitor.

    We may also note that he didn't pay then; and having invited the lady "to dinner", never provided that, either. Outside of, at best, a vienna sausage.

  8. DFPaul

    I've come to the conclusion that much of Trump's appeal is that TV convinced a lot of people (with "The Apprentice" -- which I never saw, so that's how much my opinion is worth ???? ) that he's a rich guy who cracked the code to getting really rich and doing business.

    I have to imagine "falsifying business records" that much will hurt.

    1. kennethalmquist

      I saw a few episodes of “The Apprentice.” Donald Trump did a pretty good job in the role, but apparently a lot of viewers didn’t grasp that if Trump were actually good at running a business, he would be doing that full time rather than playing CEO on TV.

      Also, on the show Trump fired someone every week. The only way a CEO ends up firing someone every week is if the CEO is constantly screwing up.

  9. Justin

    Watch your posts! Hilarious. Riots and revolution! Bring it on.

    May 31 - Supporters of former President Donald Trump, enraged by his conviction on 34 felony counts by a New York jury, flooded pro-Trump websites with calls for riots, revolution and violent retribution.
    After Trump became the first U.S. president to be convicted of a crime, his supporters responded with dozens of violent online posts, according to a Reuters review of comments on three Trump-aligned websites: the former president's own Truth Social platform, Patriots.Win and the Gateway Pundit.
    Some called for attacks on jurors, the execution of the judge, Justice Juan Merchan, or outright civil war and armed insurrection.
    “Someone in NY with nothing to lose needs to take care of Merchan,” wrote one commentator on Patriots.Win. “Hopefully he gets met with illegals with a machete,” the post said in reference to illegal immigrants.
    On Gateway Pundit, one poster suggested shooting liberals after the verdict. “Time to start capping some leftys,” said the post.

    1. Doctor Jay

      Mostly this is posturing. Of course, there will be some nutcase that will take it seriously, and people will get hurt.

      Our nation, and our way of running it, is under assualt. We are engaged with enemies of the United States, both foreign and domestic.

      As much as they wave "the constitution" around, they hate the way we do things. They hate majority rule once it goes against them.

      If it's to come to shooting, they will lose. They know this. A few will try anyway.

      I am not about to be intimidated by 75 year olds writing things on the internet about "capping" people.

      The remark about "someone with nothing to lose" gives it all away. They aren't going to do anything, they are just hoping for some imagined savior to do it.

    2. rick_jones

      “Someone in NY with nothing to lose needs to take care of Merchan,” wrote one commentator on Patriots.Win.

      Exhorting someone else do do something for you you aren’t willing to do yourself. Isn’t that … socialism?

      1. lower-case

        conscription is the most extreme form of socialism, but i've never met a republican who would admit it

  10. Altoid

    This verdict means that when the MAGAts start talking their usual game we can call a stop and say "No, we *know* what this guy is. *You* know what this guy is. You can't pretend you don't know." Not just one opinion against another, but a conviction, in both senses of the word.

    A lot of us recognized it right away and have known him all along; now it's confirmed for everybody. I stand on more solid ground because of this jury.

  11. roboto

    You heard it here first! Trump has been leading in the polls by 2 points for many weeks and in two weeks he will be leading by about 2 points - maybe 1.5 points.

  12. cld

    I don't think she looks that much like Ivanka, but apparently she looks enough like Ivanka for Trump to imagine it.

    Stormy said that after they did the deed she was shaking so hard she could barely put her shoes on, has anyone ever asked her the elaborate on that?

  13. jte21

    The MAGA base will of course not give the slightest shit about any of this because Trump is their Dear Leader, not merely a political figure, and, like Jesus, everyone is out to get him. Aside from that, though, I think the case and the coverage of it made it pretty clear that this was more than just covering up a tawdry affair -- Trump and his minions engaged in an extensive conspiracy to conceal the payoffs through sleazy catch-and-kill tabloid skullduggery and financial records fraud.

    Why should Trump have been allowed to skate on this stuff? Keep in mind that after he left office, Bill Clinton *did* have to pay a fine and lost his law license over his perjury in the Lewinsky investigation.

    1. ScentOfViolets

      Sigh. How many times does this need to be said? Clinton did not commit perjury. Whyever would you think he did?

      1. Keith B

        Clinton's testimony in the Paula Jones case was intentionally misleading, and in any normal sense of the word, false. Whether it met the legal standard of perjury would have been a question for a jury to decide.

        1. ScentOfViolets

          Wrong. Look up the definition of perjury. Hint: It's not lying while giving a deposition. I know you want to believe he did, but you're wanting it to be so does not make it so.

          1. Keith B

            "The crime of willfully and knowingly making a false statement about a material fact while under oath."

            Clinton was under oath during the deposition. He made material statements that in any normal sense of the term were false. There's no reasonable doubt that he did it willingly and knowingly. I'm unimpressed by his claim that "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." He knew what Jones' lawyers meant.

            1. ScentOfViolets

              Wow:

              I'm unimpressed by his claim that "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." He knew what Jones' lawyers meant.

              Even when you quote the bit where you're wrong you're still right, amirite? Because lawyers never, ever equivocate about the meaning of words as they are commonly defined, nor do they ever try to hang a case on just those narrowly defined terms. And of course, the defendant should always oblige prosecutors by answering the questions they meant to ask rather than the ones they actually did. You're debating skills are weak and pathetic.

          2. Five Parrots in a Shoe

            From the Wikipedia article about the Clinton v Paula Jones case.

            "On April 12, 1999, Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for "intentionally false" testimony in Jones v. Clinton, fined him $90,000, and referred the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct, as Clinton still possessed a law license in Arkansas.

            "The Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton's Arkansas law license in April 2000. On January 19, 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension and a $25,000 fine in order to avoid disbarment and to end the investigation of Independent Counsel Robert Ray (Starr's successor). On October 1, 2001, Clinton's U.S. Supreme Court law license was suspended, with 40 days to contest his disbarment. On November 9, 2001, the last day for Clinton to contest the disbarment, he opted to resign from the Supreme Court Bar, surrendering his license, rather than facing penalties related to disbarment."

            So Clinton was fined $115,000 for making intentionally false statements while under oath, and his law license was revoked, and he chose not to contest those penalties.

            Granted, this is not the same as being convicted of perjury. But come on.

            1. ScentOfViolets

              Tell me, is 'making an intentionally false statement while under oath' a crime? Yes or no? Because you know what this was all about. Because if I said 'Those coveralls do not make my partner look fat', that would indeed be making an intentionally false statement under oath. Don't pretend there isn't a difference between something like that and perjury. Yes, those serial 'becauses' are intentional.

              1. Five Parrots in a Shoe

                "Tell me, is 'making an intentionally false statement while under oath' a crime?"

                Yes. Hence the $115k fines. And criminals are not allowed to practice law in any state, hence the suspended/forfeited law license.

                1. ScentOfViolets

                  You're not citing a statute, by which I'm guessing you know as well as I that what Clinton did was not a crime. C'mon man, you're better than this. Now man up and stop weaseling.

                  On Edit: You're claiming that intentionally lying and saying under oath that 'Those coveralls do not make my partner look fat' is indeed a crime. This doesn't pass the smell test and I don't believe you're really saying that. IOW, watch wat you say here.

                  1. lawnorder

                    In most jurisdiction, perjury is limited to "material" false statements. If the question of whether or not the coveralls make your partner look fat is material to the case at bar, then a false statement under oath on the point is, indeed, perjury.

                    "I did not have sex with that woman" was false; it's not entirely clear that it was material, but it's also not entirely clear to me that it was not.

                    1. ScentOfViolets

                      Thank you. This whole bit about 'lying while under oath' = 'perjury' is something these people maybe soaked up watching a crime show.

                2. ScentOfViolets

                  Thinking this through even further ... no, you know it's not in and of itself a crime. You got some 'splainin to do, Lucy. It's not my practice, but three people have read your reply over my shoulder and they are not happy with your evasiveness. Which, upon rereading your reply, I can clearly see that it is.

                  1. Five Parrots in a Shoe

                    If you were under oath when lying about your friend's coveralls then yes, it's a crime. Courts can compel truthful testimony - if you lie under oath you cannot then claim a 1st amendment defense. And yes, you would need some kind of defense because lying under oath is a crime.

                    If you don't think lying under oath is a crime, then why the $115k fines? It's not like the judge sued him.

  14. cld

    People who vote for conservatives often like to think they're 'independent' from the rest of society, and either a law unto themselves or, among the less wealthy, 'outlaws' or some variation on the theme. It's in this way they will often so deeply identify with Donaldo Pussalini Trump.

    Trump's conviction puts this character into stark perspective. Society has contextualized them. Context is never their strong point and now it is thrust upon them.

    Especially for the older voters many will feel disoriented by this.

    July 11th will be a big deal for them.

  15. D_Ohrk_E1

    You got one big thing wrong, KD.

    Clinton apologized. Trump has never, nor will he ever admit let alone apologize for cheating on his pregnant wife.

    The apology is what lets people (us) both harshly judge Clinton but also let him off the hook for his indiscretion. But Trump, refusing to admit his infidelity, having been adjudicated to have cheated, lied about it, and commited crimes to hide it, will never survive the glare of the true Christian moralist -- which isn't to say they'll vote for Biden but that they'll sit out the election or pick someone else. Granted, most conservatives have chosen to (finally!) reveal themselves as apocryphal hypocrites, but eh, the folks of Sodom and Gomorrah hadn't recognized their sins in the first place, choosing to insist they were right. The far-right fits right in with their fates.

    1. J. Frank Parnell

      Clinton actually developed a reasonably moving apology speech. After the first time he gave it the Republicans replied "so what, he only apologized once". After he gave about two dozen more times, they changed their tune to "enough with all the apologies".

  16. J. Frank Parnell

    Donald said that even Mother Teresa couldn't get away with fucking a porn star and lying about it. I hope he's right.

  17. ruralhobo

    The US is entering a weird horse race: which candidate will lose because his unenthused or disappointed voters sit this election out. So we can hope some Trump supporters will do that because of his felony conviction and others when his whining over it removes his entertainment value. But I fear that won't be enough to compensate for dirty tricks coming from just one side. Already now I wonder if Putin's and Netanyahu's policies aren't in part designed to hurt Biden.

    1. Keith B

      Already now I wonder if Putin's and Netanyahu's policies aren't in part designed to hurt Biden.

      Really? I don't wonder at all. There's no doubt in my mind that both are trying to hurt Biden.

  18. faledal543

    Trump committed those felonies and then was able to appoint 1/3 of the Supreme Court….

    What do you expect from the ‘law and order’ party?

  19. iamr4man

    As a liberal, I really don’t care how many people Trump fucks/fucked. As to whether it was wrong morally, I suppose his fucking Stormy after his mistress left was wrong to the mistress since she was shocked by the indiscretion because she thought Trump loved her and would leave his wife for her. Whether or not his wife was wronged I don’t know. Perhaps they have an open marriage (someone should ask). If not, what he did was pretty disgusting.
    What was and remains annoying is the way people who portray themselves as religious and would never vote for or even think a person should be qualified to run for or hold any political office if they violate their sexual mores which they connect to their religious beliefs. And yet they wholeheartedly support Trump. The hypocrisy is stunning particularly in light of how they treated Clinton’s affairs. And I don’t think any of them buy Trump’s denials. They not only don’t care, they invent excuses like comparing him to the biblical David.
    I find it so strange except to believe it really is a cult.

    1. Five Parrots in a Shoe

      I'm sorry that you seem confused about why Evangelicals support Trump so strongly when they opposed Clinton equally strongly. It's not hypocrisy. They support Trump because he hates the same people they do. Clinton didn't hate the right people.

      That's all.

      1. iamr4man

        As an atheist, I find all actual religious beliefs to be pretty strange. So it’s hard for me to rationalize any of them and it’s hard to imagine people actually believing them. Most people I’ve known who profess to being of some religious faith have more of a theist type belief in a good God and a vaguely nice heaven where you get to be with your loved ones. It gives them comfort when tragedy strikes. But if you question them about specific events in the Bible they are pretty lost.
        But I’ve come to accept that some people have a very solid belief in an all seeing, all knowing, infallible god. I think that for a lot of people Trump is a god. He can do no wrong. But if you wrong him you must be prepared to face his wrath. People like the January 6th rioters believe they are instruments of his will.
        And I don’t think Trump hates the same people they hate. I think it’s more that he gives them permission to hate who they want to hate and that their hatred is righteous.

        1. ScentOfViolets

          It's a source of continual surprise for me that these supposedly devout members of a faith don't know their three-ring binder as well as I do. Dear God, can you at least admit that your 'inerrant' bible draws from at least three different sources? But such feats of academic legerdemain are beyond them it seems, even when it's something so obvious as the Book of Job.

        2. gs

          This is by no means always true, but I know quite a few people who immediately and vehemently say "Ahma christian" even though

          1) they rarely if ever go to church

          2) they've never read the bible

          3) they don't have a charitable bone in their body.

          I conclude that they feel like they have to say "Ahma christian" if they want to be in the maga club. The second they say out loud "I don't believe any of that stuff" they get kicked out.

          This is a lot like the Tea Baggers from 2008. They all had to say "Ahma luh-uh-uv me some U.S. Constitution" when they had never actually read it nor the Bill of Rights; in reality they were just freaked out that a black guy moved into the White House. I seem to remember Michelle Bachman in a gop primary debate not having heard of the separation of church and state, FFS.

  20. lower-case

    today:
    ======
    “I’m willing to do whatever I have to do to save our country and save our Constitution. I don’t mind” “It’s a very unpleasant thing, to be honest,“ he added. “But it’s a great, great honor.”
    ======

    obviously it would be an even greater honor if he faced a jury in georgia or DC

    1. Salamander

      "It’s a very unpleasant thing, to be honest"

      Heh. I read this as "Being honest is a very unpleasant thing." That would make it true.

  21. lower-case

    wapo:

    Black voters like Dawkins — a crucial part of Democrats’ coalition here and nationwide — sometimes asked, “Can you imagine if it happened to Barack Obama?”

    The public “would have hung him out to dry already,” scoffed Sam Harrold, a 78-year-old Black retiree from the city of Saginaw.

    1. Salamander

      Yes. Or any other Democrat, for that matter.

      Republican "moral values" apply only to the behavior and lives of Democrats. They and their leaders are off the hook. Of course, they also don't hold with those blasphemous Enlightenment values of logic, consistency, facts, ...

  22. gVOR08

    The MAGA, at least the guys, envy Trump for doing a porn star.They'd wanna do a porn star if they could. To them it shows Trump's a winner.

    What we should be saying is Trump did a porn star, he ended up having to pay a hundred thou for it, and she made fun of his small ...

  23. barry bear

    MEOOOOOW. The Republicans are being lead around the Nip patch by a CONVICED FELON!! A CORUPT party lead by a CROOK !! A match made in HELL. MEOOOOOW. Kitties know...

Comments are closed.