I am impressed–not to say stunned–that both Paul and Scott sat through Stormy Daniels’ 60 Minutes interview so as to be able to comment on it for our readers.
My dedication is not so great. I confess that I would far rather watch Ms. Daniels in a porn video–her natural milieu–than on CBS News. My commitment to our readers is strong, but not so strong as to sit through Ms. Daniels on the thoroughly disgraced 60 Minutes.
In the post-Clinton era, it isn’t easy to mount a sex scandal. Consensual sex, as described by Ms. Daniels, doesn’t qualify, particularly when it took place (allegedly) not in the White House, but years before the target entered politics. Based on others’ accounts–mostly Scott’s and Paul’s–it seems that CBS’s effort at relevancy consists primarily of Stormy’s claim that she was “threatened” to keep her quiet.
Heh. I thought that was what the $130,000 was for. In any event, those purported threats couldn’t have been too serious. Not serious enough, anyway, to deter Daniels from her once-in-a-lifetime payday, courtesy of the Democratic Party’s crazed hatred for President Trump.
Despite hyperventilating by the insufferable Anderson Cooper, whose own checkered past apparently didn’t come up in the interview, I doubt that anyone whose first name is not Melania will be much influenced by the media storm over Stormy.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.