The Goat Pen

I’m honored to be a part of your homoerotic fantasies, Rat.

From the editorial board of the WSJ
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tale-o ... 1522106407
THE TALE OF STORMY DONALD The willful self-indulgence of President Trump may be his undoing

It’s impossible to predict how all of this will play out politically. Many Trump partisans will refuse to believe it or claim it’s irrelevant, but our guess is that at the margin this contributes to a growing public belief that Mr. Trump’s personal flaws are undermining his chances for a successful Presidency.

Two months ago he had emerged from a tumultuous first year with the triumph of tax reform and rising poll numbers. The strong economy had Republicans closing the gap with Democrats on who should run Congress next year. But Mr. Trump can’t resist promoting White House strife and making himself the center of political tumult.

The Stormy Daniels case is typical of Mr. Trump’s pre-presidential behavior in thinking he can, with enough threats and dissembling, get away with anything. He’s never understood that a President can’t behave that way, and this may be the cause of his downfall.

Since when did Democrats - the party of Woodstock, the party of free love, the party of San Francisco, the party that spent the past 50 years mocking any form of traditional sexual restraint, the party of “if it feels good to it,” the party of Hollywood sexual morality - now suddenly care about a real estate billionaire hiring a high priced call girl?

Y’all didn’t even care when Bill Clinton groped and raped women while governor and president. Are we supposed to believe the Democrats are now the party of “family values”? LMAO.

Besides, what does this sudden obsession with Stormy Daniels have to with the year-long mega-obsession with Trump colluding with the Russians? The Stormy story is all just a yuge distraction from the fact that the Trump- Russia has now completely and totally crapped out.

Paula Jones is awaiting the arrival of an $850,000 cheque from President Clinton, bringing an official end to the four-year saga spurred by her allegations of sexual harassment.

Clinton mailed the settlement cheque to Mrs. Jones on Tuesday, even as he braced for the heaviest fallout yet from her harassment suit - an impeachment trial in the Senate.

To finance the settlement, the president drew about $375,000 from his and Hillary Rodham Clinton's personal funds and got the rest of the money, about $475,000, from an insurance policy, a White House official told The Associated Press.

"This ends it. The check is being Fed-Exed" to Bill McMillan, one of Mrs. Jones' lawyers, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The official said the personal funds were drawn from the Clintons' blind trust, which was valued in their financial disclosure statement at between $1 million and about $5 million. None of the money was drawn from Clinton's legal defense fund, which raises money from private citizens to defray his legal bills, the official said.


Looks like Slick did alright. The Clinton shake down machine makes Jessie Jackson look like a pauper.....they've gone from 1-5 mill to untold billions. DJT may be worth trillions by the time this is over.

Speaking of Paula Jones...

[youtube]0WiQRBN8igE[/youtube]

Other than hiding the collapse of the Trump-Russia hoax, the other purpose of the Stormy Daniels story is to try to persuade Trump's female supporters to dump him. This video, by the right wing nutjob CNN, shows this attempt is also failing dismally:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... ident.html

Salient quotes:

"You can throw all that stuff up in our faces as many times as you want, but that means that we will work harder for Trump. Is that not so, ladies?

That's correct.This is the media defining the narrative. The people, we, the people, are ready to define the narrative. And it's not about tawdry sexual peccadilloes.

And so I think the thing is you're looking for a way to impeach my president that I worked very hard for."

You just gotta love the shock and horror of the CNN interviewer at what she was hearing.

I find it so fascinating that you are so sure there will be nothing found in the Trump/Russia investigation. You have absolutely no way to know this, no insights, no expertise, nothing but you are still positive you are correct. It's as if the book The Death of Expertise was written about you. It's a good one. You should read it. It might open your eyes a bit.

Professor Tiger wrote:Other than hiding the collapse of the Trump-Russia hoax, the other purpose of the Stormy Daniels story is to try to persuade Trump's female supporters to dump him. This video, by the right wing nutjob CNN, shows this attempt is also failing dismally:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... ident.html

You just gotta love the shock and horror of the CNN interviewer at what Trump women told her.

Trump supporter dressed in blackface, despicable.

This blurb about that book sums up Prof nicely: " All voices, even the most ridiculous, demand to be taken with equal seriousness, and any claim to the contrary is dismissed as undemocratic elitism." Actually, in fairness to Prof, I don't believe that even he thinks anyone should take him seriously...

Cletus wrote:I find it so fascinating that you are so sure there will be nothing found in the Trump/Russia investigation. You have absolutely no way to know this, no insights, no expertise, nothing but you are still positive you are correct. It's as if the book The Death of Expertise was written about you. It's a good one. You should read it. It might open your eyes a bit.

Your side is making serious allegations against a US President. Okay. The burden of proof is on your side to provide actual, real, trustworthy evidence to support your allegations. If you don't have evidence, you don't have crap. Didn't they teach you that in law school?

Thus far, all your side has is crap. There has been no evidence presented that Trump colluded with the Russians. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. What your side has presented as "evidence" is pathetic. A Coffee Boy colluding with a former Maltese ag minister - crap. Evidence that Manafort had shady deals with the Ukranians before he ever worked for Trump, and lied about it - crap. A retired general who had a conversation with a Russian ambassador - as if NSA's aren't supposed to have conversations with foreign ambassadors as a normal part of their jobs - and supposedly lied about it. Crap. And, oh by the way, most of the evidence against these people was obtained by a fraudulent FISA warrant, so those indictments will likely be thrown out due to prosecutorial malfeasance. If that happens, you will not even have the crap you now have, but the absence of the crap. Did they teach you the legal concept of "fruit from a poisoned tree" in law school?

At least when Nixon was accused of covering up the Watergate break in, the accusers came up with things like, I dunno, real evidence to support the accusation. Like audiotapes where you could listen to Nixon discussing the coverup in progress. At least when Clinton was accused of lying under oath when he denied having "sexual... relations... with that woman..." there was real evidence to prove the allegation. Like his genetic material on Monica's blue cocktail dress. What your side is so painfully lacking is anything remotely like an audiotape or cocktail dress.

Words to the wise:
1. If your side has an allegation against a US president, get evidence to support that allegation before you go on an all-out, year-long, 24-7 MSM disinformation orgy. Evidence first, THEN announce your charges, just like they taught you in the first semester of law school.
2. Reread your law school books on evidence, prosecutorial ethics, "fruit from a poisoned tree", "innocent until proven guilty" and all that stuff, instead of some nifty cool book from amazon.

I guess I should have tried harder in law school. Thankfully you're here to set me straight.

Glad to be of service. You're welcome.

HRC has been on the Trump re-election wagon for a while now....Now John Paul Stevens jumps on too.

Welcome to the DJT second term!!ll

Pop quiz: Was former Justice Stevens call to repeal the Second Amendment the result of:

1. Dementia
2. Loony Leftism
3. All of the above

4. None of the above.

He is a patriot that knows how to help his country, while maintaining a whack lib public appearance.

Surprised you didn't include "manipulated by misguided adults". Fact of the matter is, repeal of the 2nd Amendment is a perfectly valid idea. Wouldn't bother me in the least if it happened and I'd likely vote to repeal it myself if it came to that. Doubt it will anytime soon, but just b/c it's something that terrifies you (which is obvious from your name-calling of anyone who is for it) doesn't mean it's not plausible and perhaps even likely sometime in the future. Who would've thought gay rights would be where they are now 20 years ago? Certainly not you, but guess what, you were wrong. At least you're used to that...

We repealed a constitutional amendment before in our history. As fate would have it, the intent of the 18th Amendment was also to abolish a product that was wildly popular to a large percentage of the population. Prohibition was also supposed to solve a variety of social problems. How did that utopian scheme turn out?

I am not terrified of the prospect of a big gun grab. In fact, I will sit back in my easy chair, and laugh as I watch Prohibition II unfold.

Note to the NSA and FBI: I don’t own any guns. I think they are bad and yucky.

repeal of the 2nd Amendment is a perfectly valid idea. Wouldn't bother me in the least ...

Have at it, and while yer at it, give us a list all the courageous dem congressmen and senatorial candidates that will make this a central theme of their election/reelection campaign upcoming.

More people claim to have seen Bigfoot than those who want to repeal the 2A, yet trumptards now soil themselves about a gun grab. "Parkland Nazi kids vow to round up gunowners and hollow cost them in big ovens."