A SHORT HISTORY OF PRESIDENTIAL SEX There's no sex like presidential sex.
And there's no impeachment talk like today's impeachment talks
Between cigars, kneepads, wieners posted on Facebook, and pussygrabs, one does not know where to hide.
Bill Clinton offered a caseful of cigars, a knee pad, a government job, and a carefully-bent penis to Monica Lewinsky. These inducements were meant to convince Monica to go beyond the call of duty for an intern working at the Oral Office (not a misprint). The liaisons preferably took place during Hillary's voluntary foreign expeditions when the president's commando wife fended off sniper fire in Bosnia.
Hillary's sacrifice, and this is not in the history books, not yet, ended the Balkan Wars. Bill's offer to Monica was not history, bribery, or a campaign violation at the taxpayer's expense using other people's money and her lips. Not even if the money belonged to the taxpayers who paid for Bill's campaigns, cigars, knee pads, and interns. It was therefore, not a crime, just Oral Office sex with photos of Hillary courageously taking fire at the Sarajevo airport. And certainly, not an impeachable offense, even though it took place during the time that the president occupied the Oral Office. And mostly under his desk, which means no one saw the crime taking place. No crime, no offensive behavior, no impeachment. No wife.
For on-the-record campaign violations with his hands in the cookie jar, and for failing to disclose donors to his campaign, Barack Obama had to pay a fine almost three times the sum Donald Trump paid two hookers to settle their extortion demands. Mostly to get them off his back. Or front. Whatever. The money didn't come from the campaign, and even if it did, it was not other people's money, even if it was. No crime, no birth certificate. No impeachment talk.
Chuck Schumer volunteered not to pay a penalty for multiple campaign violations using other people's money while taking bribes under the table illegally funneled through a Boston law firm. This free ticket out of jail was explained to everyone's satisfaction. You see, the law firm, the campaign money, the campaign itself, Boston, and Chuck Schumer, were Democrats who don't commit crimes by committing violations of non-disclosure about from whom the money came, to whom it went, who were involved, and on which planet the alleged offenses took place with money not intended for campaigns. These allegations with the money of other people meant for Democrat's campaigns are not campaign violations when Democrats are playing in the campaign money sandbox. For Democrats it all amounted to no crime, no impeachment. And no wall.
Failed Texas senatorial candidate Democrat Beto O'Rourke allegedly received money from George Soros' Open Society Foundation, and used campaign funds to help Honduran migrants jump the US border after Beto transported them there. Never mind that organizations that exist to break federal laws should be illegal in the first place; and people who fund and operate them should be indicted and tried. If, however, they are Democrat organizations filled with George Soros' operatives and organizations who work for Palestinian jihad and Barack Obama, they are not illegal and not indictable. Never mind that Beto & Co. not only violated campaign finance laws and spent campaign funds to deliberately break federal law, making both the money and for what it was spent illegal, they also used the Democrat's campaign vans as well to ferry MS13 masguarading as brain surgeons up to the border.
No one mentioned impeaching Beto, because the word impeachment exists in the Democrat lexicon only if the target happens to be a Republican. More importantly, his first name appears to be Irish, and his last, Hispanic. Whatever. No one mentioned impeaching Beto Soros over campaign violations during the campaign or after the Irishman, or Hispanic, whatever, would have been seated as the state's second Irish-Hispanic senator. We can speculate that the reason is because Beto illegally used OPM, other people's money, and not his own money. No crime, no impeachment. And no wall.
Aspiring presidential candidate John Edwards paid fines of over $1,000,000 (or about 9 times the money Trump allegedly paid Stormy Daniels and the Porn Lawyer Michael Avenati), for covering up Edward's unwanted baby and his extramarital sex life. Edwards apparently used campaign money. In other words OPM, other people's money, to settle the conflict, divorce his wife, get more hair implants, hit on more future interns, and make of the baby a persona non grata. He understood the political implications and who was to blame: The entire affair was the baby's fault.
Especially after the baby expressed doubt over the global warming process in Paris. More importantly, the baby failed to register a Democrat. At this point Edwards may have contemplated the advantages of abortion and vasectomies.
The upside is, he paid a penalty that was nominally larger than the cost of his haircuts. However, Edwards' forgetfulness and inability to use perforated condoms properly was not a crime at the time, and Sandra Fluke was not yet a person of importance. Because Edwards probably used campaign money, or other people's money, to settle the claims against him, it was obvious he did not use his own money. No crime, no impeachment, no vasectomy. Just an expensive haircut and used condoms. And having good friends with money.
Using taxpayer's money - arguably campaign money - congress set up a slush fund not named The Clinton Family Foundation. Or Trump-Russia Collusion. From this slush fund meant to have been kept secret like the FBI's good work in helping Donald Trump achieve social justice, congress had to settle over 250 sex abuse violation claims against sitting politicians during the election season running up to 2016. Not a single one of those claims were considered crimes because the payoffs were not made by Donald Trump or his lawyer. They were not crimes because they didn't use Donald Trump's money but the taxpayer's. Congress paid Your Fair Share, and you paid your fair share. Both Congress and you paid your respective Fair Shares and all that ends fair is fair.
Congress used the money from the US Treasury to free their clearly innocent politicians and their carefully-bent penii from the taint of criminality and responsibility, because the word "responsibility" was never in the Democrat lexicon either. Therefore, no crime was committed, no one was responsible for unwanted impromptu sex or sex behind the water cooler, and there never was any talk of impeachment of any of the 250 members and ex-members of congress calling for Donald Trump's impeachment.
Donald Trump however committed a crime because he used his own money, and not your money and not the taxpayer's money. None of the money to pay off two hookers was taken from, or given to, any campaign to settle attempts at extortion from these two women. That is the reason, and it is clear, Trump violated campaign laws. Because he didn't.
Obviously, when extortion attempts were made against Donald Trump, the extorters did not commit crimes. Hookers happen to be one of the underprivileged groups discriminated against by people who don't have sex with hookers. These were just extortion attempts by another name. The money paid to the extorters is evidence that Donald Trump committed a crime, because all victimless crimes have victims. What crime Trump committed by spending money in behalf of his own election prospects has not yet been established in statute, since a candidate by law and practice can spend any amount. One might ask what crimes can be litigated through impeachment proceedings, but then Hillary can answer that by asking: what difference at this point does it make?
A few months earlier 11 women brought forward by Gloria Allred, a Hillary Clinton delegate, to charge Donald Trump with rape, disappeared from the face of the earth. Each and every one of these women had made claims against Donald Trump who obviously raped them. And some of them had made claims against other men who had money. Curiously, no claims were made against men who had no money.
We looked for these women on the planet Venus, but they are nowhere to be found, they are gone. Along with their collections of 44 D-cup bras and 5 inch heels they wore to bed on date nights.
Neither they nor a gene testing kit or string underwear to prove that Donald had ever touched them could be found, and none of them had ever proved they ever met Donald Trump. Seriously Hillary, what difference at this point does it make?
Donald Trump is guilty, because the only crime he committed did not happen during the campaign, or during his presidency, and he never met these women. This fact made his criminality obvious impeachable offenses. Moreover, they are all the more impeachable because the money didn't belong to other people who gave it to him for the purpose of paying off extortion demands. The problem, it appears, is back to square one. He legally used his own money. That fact makes the entire affair criminal in intent and content. Apparently Donald Trump used his own money to do with it as free men might occasionally do with money they kept after having been shaken down: spend it wherever they pleased in a free country filled with 44D-cup bras and $1000 Manolo Blahniks.
The problem however never occurs when the nation's taxpayers have been ripped off to pay off claims against Democrats in Congress, using campaign or US Treasury money meant to benefit The People. The People are not all Democrats. That last will never be a crime, even if in fact that money was stolen from the people for immoral and illegal purposes to benefit criminal politicians who want to impeach Donald Trump.
The crime, the entire problem, the whole narrative, once we have unpacked the story to its bare and sexiest essentials, and to existing statute and practice, is the very existence, victory, success, and yes, triumph of Donald Trump's presidency.
And that folks, is what makes Trump's most significant presidency very impeachable.