As the liberal talking heads yammer on about the latest twists and turns in the Stormy Daniels tale brought about by Rudy Giuliani’s recent utterances, and muse whether Mr. Giuliani’s statements expose President Trump to or help exonerate him from charges that he violated campaign finance laws, I find that … I don’t care. I would suggest that Mr. Trump’s media critics don’t yet realize that with regard to this aspect of the ongoing Trump Saga, the President, by accident or design (a phrase I use a lot regarding the President’s actions), has out-maneuvered them.
Although I strive to maintain civility while making Noise, certain facts are … facts. These are three: Mr. Trump is an admitted philanderer, takes endless liberties with truth, and exults in boorish behavior. An additional fact so true that it has become cliché: the vast majority of his followers – who themselves try to be faithful, truthful, and mannerly – don’t approve of his behaviors, but excuse them because they support his themes.
With all the back-and-forth regarding Ms. Daniels, Mr. Trump has acclimated us to their tryst. I suspect that if you asked an upstanding elderly Evangelical Grandmother, after she’d had a sip of Southern Comfort, whether she thought that the President had a relationship with Ms. Daniels, she’d say, “Of course he did, dear.” The Rubicon of public perception on Mr. Trump’s amorous forays was probably crossed with the Access Hollywood tape, but the various threads of the Daniels affair have trickled in at a pace that has anaesthetized us such that any charges against the President arising from it will be disregarded as ticky-tack fouls. I confess that I don’t consider this type of campaign finance violation, even if established, to be sufficient standing alone to warrant his removal from office. (I further confess that I am disappointed that my own standards have apparently degraded such that I feel so.)
[An aside: one person for whom the Daniels affair is certainly relevant is Mrs. Trump. Unless she is more dedicated to the President than her public body language makes it appear, if advising her I would suggest that she seek competent divorce counsel to determine whether she can legally and effectively indicate to the President that she is going to very publicly leave him unless he (1) now deposits a very tidy sum in an individual account in her name, (2) tears up whatever prenuptial agreement the couple has, and (3) executes a new agreement providing that if they ever enter divorce proceedings, the deposited sum would not be taken into account in the property settlement and (most importantly) that he would not contest her right to sole custody of their son.]
I would offer that except for Ms. Trump, we as a people should not allow the circumstances involved in Mr. Trump’s amorous peccadillos to become entangled with matters that would warrant his removal from office if appropriately established: use of his position to obstruct justice; knowing collaboration (directly, or through knowledge of collaborative activities by members of his campaign team) with agents of the Russian government to affect the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election; or commission of crimes before he was in office that can be used by the Russian government to influence his conduct of the presidency (e.g., the laundering of money for Russian interests in violation of then-existing U.S. sanctions).
Until the fruits of the Mueller investigation are brought to the public, we wait. But let’s have a little less Stormy. Please.
McCoy's Noise 