Trump Paid His Mistress, Stormy Daniels, To Keep Quiet – What, Actually, Is The Problem Here?


There’s something that mystifies about this Stormy Daniels case over in the US. We all knew – or we weren’t paying attention – that Donald Trump shagged around. He’s been, by all accounts, unfaithful to each of his wives with the next one at the very least – Melania not having been replaced as yet being the difference there. We also know there have been any number of others along the way.

We’re also aware that he’s rich and rich men do have a habit of making little problems go away with a decent enough dose of cash.

So, what actually is the problem here? A shag that would be embarrassing if it came out in the middle of an election campaign is provided with some cash so that she doesn’t. And?

US President Donald Trump has said reimbursement to his personal lawyer for hush money paid to porn actress Stormy Daniels was done through a monthly retainer and “had nothing to do with the campaign”.

Not just nothing to do with the campaign, but wasn’t campaign money – despite it obviously enough being beneficial to the campaign that it were paid:

In a series of tweets, Mr. Trump said he had reimbursed his lawyer Michael Cohen the $130,000 that Mr. Cohen paid Ms. Clifford in 2016 as part of a contract for her silence over an alleged one-night stand with Mr. Trump in 2006. “Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll (sic) in this transaction,” Mr. Trump wrote.

The thing is, why is this all an issue?

Mr Trump’s argument appears to be that the NDA was a typical action taken out by celebrities and therefore not an election-related matter.

The bit that really confuses is why is it the liberals – liberals in that American meaning – who are going after this with such glee? Liberals – in that American meaning – clearly meaning, as it actually does, 90% of the American press. For a basic part of that concept of liberalism, about the only concept it shares with classical liberalism, is that what consenting adults get up to in the sack is up to those consenting adults. Bloke shags a bird, or doesn’t as the case may be, that’s up to the bloke and the bird and no one else. There’s not even the quibble about marriage vows and all that as no one on the liberal side seriously believes in those any more either.

So why is there such glee in chasing this? Hmm, what’s that?

It’s about the morals of a man who is President? Sorry, no, it’s about how Trump shouldn’t be President and any reason will do? Ah, yes, you mean they’re being hypocrites, don’t you.

Well, yes, there is that I suppose.