The Worst Storm from Stormy

It is certainly helpful to the left, so they believe, to subvert President Trump rather than choosing to work with him.  It is not exactly the historic role of the opposition party but, as the swamp has evolved, at the same time race-based redistricting has forced Congress to more polarization, it appears that it is what we will have to live with for the duration.

This is why we have, more than ten years later, some kind of "news" relating to an affair that the president may have had with a porn star, or stripper or something like that, many years before when he was a businessman.  She then supposedly signed a non-disclosure agreement with a lawyer for the Trump folks, and was paid a bunch of money by that lawyer not to say anything.

Now she is apparently saying that she will give the money (a hundred thou or two, I think) back if she can be released from the NDA and become free to say what she wants.  Of course, we assume that George Soros, or some other loaded lefty donor, is the one who would come up with that money to pay back the lawyer, if logic prevails.

That, apparently, is supposed to ... well, that's kind of what this piece is about.

With the RussiaRussiaRussia thing obviously not going to turn into anything except a hole in the taxpayer wallet, assumedly the left needs to come up with something else.  So they have come up with Stormy.

My question is this.  What would any of this be expected to accomplish?

Let us suppose, for example, that all of that stuff is true, that there actually was an affair, that the lawyer paid off the porn star to say nothing.  Now what?

First of all, it doesn't exactly add anything substantive to our general assessment of then-Mr. Trump's approach to marriage (I think he was married when this was supposed to have happened).  He has been married three times and divorced twice, and there have been plenty of assumptions about fidelity during that time.  To add yet another instance to a track record from his somewhat younger days changes pretty much nothing.

I'm not a fan of infidelity.  I do regard it differently from the unwanted groping of Al Franken, or the abuse of power, consensual or not, with a young intern by Bill Clinton, and by countless starlets by the then-powerful Harvey Weinstein, or pretty much any situation that is either not consensual or constitutes an abuse of power.  I do not like even consensual infidelity.

But even if this were to be true, it, too would constitute a consensual, though distasteful, episode, that would merely complement other such actions in what we're told was the man's earlier life.  In other words, we know, or assume we know, about that side of the man's personality and character.  We knew that, or assumed that, when we voted for him, and we know it now.

So what, exactly, should be expected to change such that it's worth it for Soros, or whoever, to cough up a couple hundred grand (or be willing to)?  I certainly don't get it; it will not change a single vote next time around, and it's not going to affect any legislation that is being contemplated now, or for as long as Trump is president.

So this can only be coming from the notion of the "Aha! - see what a bad guy he is" school of politics.  And while the left's shills keep this stuff on the front pages of the papers and all over CNN and MSNBC and network news, President Trump is simply working to check off one policy promise after another that got him elected in the first place.

There is only one thing that is going to change in the 2020 election that could make a difference in a reelection campaign -- whether or not he is able to accomplish what he said he was going to try to do.  If immigration and firearms legislation follow the path of the tax cut and get implemented, there is not a Democrat with anywhere near enough clout to win the presidency, as long as it is a reasonably fair election.

It is a pretty sour commentary that anyone thinks this Stormy thing is a big enough story that anyone would care enough to have it matter, but they have some odd ideas in New York and Los Angeles about what moves the needle.  I would just suggest to them that if their interest -- even if 10% of their interest -- is in making the USA better and not just seeking power, they might want to take a different tack, as opposed to looking for scandals.

Try offering to help govern.

Copyright 2018 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton