Watch the clip (it’s short) and then I’ll ask you a question.
If she’s *not* under a nondisclosure agreement, why not give a straight answer one way or the other? If she wants media attention and money from the tabloids for juicy details, the answer she should give, obviously, is “yes, we had an affair.” Trump’s not going to sue her for defamation. It’s not worth his time or money and it’ll backfire by calling more attention to her story. (“President sues porn star over sex claims” is a bad headline even if he’s innocent.) If she doesn’t want attention and/or there really was no sexual relationship, the answer she should give is “no, there was no affair.” How she’d square that with her polygraphed interview with In Touch in 2011, I don’t know. But she inadvertently crossed that bridge a few weeks ago when she put out a signed statement — *before* the old In Touch interview reemerged — claiming that nothing happened between her and Trump. If she was willing to say that in writing, why isn’t she willing to say it here to Inside Edition?
And if the answer to that is, “She got a taste of media attention after her statement came out and discovered she liked it,” then we’re back to square one. Why not just say flatly then that there *was* an affair? She’ll have all the media attention she wants. The coy silent treatment makes sense to me only if there really is an NDA hushing her up.
And if there’s an NDA, why is there an NDA? What explanation could there be except that something happened between her and POTUS?
Those Democratic numbers are … something. You can dismiss them on grounds of hyperpartisanship, but what about indies?
In lieu of an exit question, watch below as Erin Burnett quizzes the clown prince of America’s pro-Trump evangelical leadership, Jerry Falwell Jr, on how he feels about Stormygate. He begins by noting that Daniels has denied an affair with Trump in three separate years, 2011, 2016, and 2018. He’s right about that last one — I linked her statement above — but I don’t know what he’s talking about with the other two. She confirmed an affair to In Touch in 2011 but the magazine never ran the story. She was shopping her claims to outlets like Slate and ABC again in late 2016, telling Slate that she did indeed have an affair with Trump, before she mysteriously hushed up, almost certainly due to hush money and a NDA. Falwell seems to be equating the fact that her allegations weren’t published with her “denying” them, which is some fancy thinking.
Things really get cooking at the end, though. I’ll leave it to religious believers to hash out whether it’s true or not that to lust in your heart for a woman to whom you’re not married is indistinguishable as sin from actually committing adultery with her. But I’m reasonably sure based on my own Catholic education that he’s wrong when he claims that Jesus forgave everyone except “the establishment elite,” as though there’s some Biblical exclusion from divine redemption for cucks who go to Davos or whatever. Right, Jesus flipped over the tables of the moneychangers in the temple, but even they get forgiveness if they repent. That’s the point of Christianity: God’s always prepared to show mercy to the remorseful, whoever they are and whatever they’ve done. I don’t think it’s too harsh to call Falwell’s twist on that idea heretical.