"The central doctrine of Christianity, then, is not that God is a bastard. It is, in the words of the late Dominican theologian Herbert McCabe, that if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you."--Terry Eagleton

"It is impossible for me to say in my book one word about all that music has meant in my life. How then can I hope to be understood?--Ludwig Wittgenstein

“The opposite of poverty is not wealth; the opposite of poverty is justice."--Bryan Stevenson

Thursday, March 22, 2018

Corrupting Absolutely

This is what the Stormy Daniels contretemps is really all about:

Except (and here's where we go deeper into the hall of mirrors), if Trump wasn't a party to the agreement, to whom did "PP" deliver the "property" identified in the agreement that "DD" was effectively buying in order to cover up any evidence of the relationship?  The agreement said "PP" (Daniels) would deliver the "property" (a defined term in the agreement, hence the quotation marks) to "DD" (Trump) as part of the agreement and grounds for receiving the money.  If she delivered but Trump didn't receive, did the "property" go where socks go in the dryer?

There is legitimate concern Trump could be blackmailed with this or similar material, in the hands of Putin or anyone else on the planet.  That he behaved like a lascivious fool and employed a clown for a lawyer is beyond cavil (I've read a number of analyses of this "agreement" between Trump and Daniels that agree with and expand on my opinion:  it's almost laughably unenforceable).  But the attention focuses on Trump somehow being forced to admit he was fooling around with Ms. Daniels.  That's not what Trump is worried about.  That horse is out of the barn, that train has left the station.  This is about the "property."

Indeed, that "property" (the term used in the agreement) went to Trump ("DD" in the agreement), and the bulk of the agreement involves not the silence of Ms. Daniels, but delivery of the property.  What the property is, is not detailed; but what the term "property" in the agreement covers, takes up more space and verbiage than the definition of what the "Confidential Information" is.  Trump was worried about her talking; Trump is more worried about the "property" she has.

Why is that?

That's the question here:  not, did Trump sleep with another woman while his wife was nursing their new-born child?  The question is:  what is in that "property" that Trump wanted protected as solidly as possible?

Inquiring minds want to know.  Especially if that "property" could become material for blackmailing the President of the United States.  And especially since we don't have Clint Eastwood pursuing President Gene Hackman.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home