Debate Now Trump's Abuse of Office

[Crepitus]

2. Of course when President Obama returned Iran's money it was meant to influence the favorably to the deal. The difference is it was not for personal gain, it was for the good of the nation. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. The current *president* was not working for the good of the county, but for the good of himself.

There is not one, single, solitary shred of direct and verifiable evidence to back up that party man stooge talking point....Zero.

Not even mulvany's email withholding the aid 90 minutes after tRump's infamous phone call?

There's a pile of evidence and it keeps growing.

That's not evidence...That's more speculation and supposition.

Your "pile" adds up to bupkis.

A months long effort to use the power of his office to gain political benefit isn't evidence? There was much testimony to that effect. What else would you require?

 

[alang1216]

Trump has the resources of the entire US gov't behind him and they told there was no evidence of corruption.

Trump had already been told there was no evidence of wrongdoing so there was no reason to ask for an investigation. He asked anyway.

Told by whom?

His own intelligence agencies.

What Trump really wanted was Ukraine to PUBLICLY announce an investigation so he could have chants of 'lock him up' at his rallies should Biden win the nomination.

100% speculation.

Not at all, it is based on witness testimony. If you don't believe them you should demand that Trump testify in the Senate. Under oath. Just what Clinton did.

If anyone thinks the Steele Dossier and FISA warrants were wrong, they should think the same about a Ukraine investigation.

Non sequitur....One does not beget the other....Not an argument.

That is your opinion, I disagree. I see them as examples of what it takes to kick off an investigation.

 

[protectionist]

1. If you state a fact, provide a link to substantiate it. If you state an opinion and it's not yours, provide a link. If you do not provide a link then whatever you post is considered to be your opinion, which by the way is fine.

2. No one-line fly-bys. Rationales and reasoning for your opinions are required.

3. Disagreeing with someone's post is acceptable, even encouraged, but attacking someone's post is not. If you characterize someone's post as garbage, that's an attack. If you say 'I don't believe that' or 'I don't think that's right or true', that's disagreeing and you should state why.

The line between a president's political and personal benefit for a given act may be somewhat indistinguishable from his intent to further America's est interests. For instance, one might say that Obama's decision to return billions of dollars to Iran influenced them to agree to his deal with them, thus adding to his political legacy. Was that bribery? One could say he did it to delay Iran's nuclear weapon capability which it was argued made us and our allies safer. But his legacy was enhanced, was it not? At least he thought so. How does one delineate between his benefit and ours? Could it be both?

Now look at Trump vis-a-vis Ukraine. Once Joe Biden announces his candidacy for president, should the American public not be told of any involvement he and/or his son might have had in association with Burisma and the ex-vice president's own admission that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, allegedly for looking into any possible corruption? The Bidens do not and should not get a free pass now that Joe is running for president, true? A case could be made that President Trump actually had a duty to ask the Ukrainians to look into those dealings. So, was his (Trump's) actions solely based on his political/personal well-being? I don't think that is cut and dried, there is room for doubt.

It is my opinion that other presidents have, shall we say, coerced other countries into doing his will to our benefit but also to his benefit too. Politically if not personally. Surely this is not the first time a US President has withheld aid or support of some kind to get something he wants. Are we to assume that no president ever did so without some political if not personal benefit? I ain't buying it, I think quid pro quo goes on pretty much all the time. We just may not have been made aware of the details of what really happened. So, is that fair, to single Trump out for impeachment, for doing what many other presidents have done? Did Trump abuse the power of his office?

My vote? NO.

I have more debates to follow on the Trump impeachment. But rather than have one thread with all sorts of tangents, I have elected to focus on one issue at a time.

1. You've broken your own rule and provided no links to your assertions.

2. Of course when President Obama returned Iran's money it was meant to influence the favorably to the deal. The difference is it was not for personal gain, it was for the good of the nation. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. The current *president* was not working for the good of the county, but for the good of himself.

As you paint it.

 

[Oddball]

His own intelligence agencies.

Which specific agencies?...Source?....Would these be the same "intelligence agencies" that have continuously undermined him since the day he came down the escalator?

Not at all, it is based on witness testimony.

Which witness testimony?
So far, there has been only one "witness" who was on the call, and his testimony did not uncover any wrongdoing.

If you don't believe them you should demand that Trump testify in the Senate. Under oath. Just what Clinton did.

Another non sequitur...One has nothing to do with the other...Not an argument.

That is your opinion, I disagree. I see them as examples of what it takes to kick off an investigation.

Your disagreement doesn't change the fact that one has nothing to do with the other.

 

[protectionist]

2. Of course when President Obama returned Iran's money it was meant to influence the favorably to the deal. The difference is it was not for personal gain, it was for the good of the nation. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. The current *president* was not working for the good of the county, but for the good of himself.

There is not one, single, solitary shred of direct and verifiable evidence to back up that party man stooge talking point....Zero.

Not even mulvany's email withholding the aid 90 minutes after tRump's infamous phone call?

There's a pile of evidence and it keeps growing.

That's not evidence...That's more speculation and supposition.

Your "pile" adds up to bupkis.

A months long effort to use the power of his office to gain political benefit isn't evidence? There was much testimony to that effect. What else would you require?

The problem with this naive notion (and that of the entire Democrats' dopey charade) is that there was clear corruption going on by the Biden bad boys.

If there had not been, you might have had a case for "political benefit".

 

[Oddball]

Not at all, it is based on witness testimony. If you don't believe them you should demand that Trump testify in the Senate. Under oath. Just what Clinton did.

BTW, Clinton testified in a deposition, that was entered int evidence during the HoR impeachment proceedings....He did not testify before the Senate in the trial.

 

[alang1216]

Not at all, it is based on witness testimony. If you don't believe them you should demand that Trump testify in the Senate. Under oath. Just what Clinton did.

BTW, Clinton testified in a deposition, that was entered int evidence during the HoR impeachment proceedings....He did not testify before the Senate in the trial.

I can live with that. I'd love to hear about Trump's affairs.

 

[Oddball]

Not at all, it is based on witness testimony. If you don't believe them you should demand that Trump testify in the Senate. Under oath. Just what Clinton did.

BTW, Clinton testified in a deposition, that was entered int evidence during the HoR impeachment proceedings....He did not testify before the Senate in the trial.

I can live with that. I'd love to hear about Trump's affairs.

Irrelevant to anything.

Fact remains that he is under no obligation to testify anywhere.

 

[alang1216]

That is your opinion, I disagree. I see them as examples of what it takes to kick off an investigation.

Your disagreement doesn't change the fact that one has nothing to do with the other.

And your claim that your opinions are 'fact' does not make them so.

Feel free to keep your fingers in your ears and hear no evil.

 

[Oddball]

That is your opinion, I disagree. I see them as examples of what it takes to kick off an investigation.

Your disagreement doesn't change the fact that one has nothing to do with the other.

And your claim that your opinions are 'fact' does not make them so.

Feel free to keep your fingers in your ears and hear no evil.

Which opinions?

You keep making the accusations and recriminations, yet only reply in vagaries, irrelevant comparisons, and speculation as to motives .....Where is your direct and verifiable evidence?

 

[alang1216]

Fact remains that he is under no obligation to testify anywhere.

Let's take Trump out of it and make it a theoretical president in the future. This theoretical president is accused of wrongdoing, doesn't matter what. Who should investigate the accusation?

• No one, the President can do no wrong
• The Executive branch, headed by the President and staffed by his, hand-picked men
• The Legislative branch as in the Constitution
• An 'independent' council picked by and working under the rules of the Executive branch,

 

[Oddball]

Fact remains that he is under no obligation to testify anywhere.

Let's take Trump out of it and make it a theoretical president in the future. This theoretical president is accused of wrongdoing, doesn't matter what. Who should investigate the accusation?

• No one, the President can do no wrong
• The Executive branch, headed by the President and staffed by his, hand-picked men
• The Legislative branch as in the Constitution
• An 'independent' council picked by and working under the rules of the Executive branch,

Irrelevant to the fact that he, just like anyone else accused of something, is under no obligation to testify to anything....Clinton was a fool to allow his deposition.

 

[alang1216]

Fact remains that he is under no obligation to testify anywhere.

Let's take Trump out of it and make it a theoretical president in the future. This theoretical president is accused of wrongdoing, doesn't matter what. Who should investigate the accusation?

• No one, the President can do no wrong
• The Executive branch, headed by the President and staffed by his, hand-picked men
• The Legislative branch as in the Constitution
• An 'independent' council picked by and working under the rules of the Executive branch,

Irrelevant to the fact that he, just like anyone else accused of something, is under no obligation to testify to anything....Clinton was a fool to allow his deposition.

Maybe someday you'll see just how much you and Trump are maintaining the swamp and shredding the Constitution.

 

[Oddball]

Fact remains that he is under no obligation to testify anywhere.

Let's take Trump out of it and make it a theoretical president in the future. This theoretical president is accused of wrongdoing, doesn't matter what. Who should investigate the accusation?

• No one, the President can do no wrong
• The Executive branch, headed by the President and staffed by his, hand-picked men
• The Legislative branch as in the Constitution
• An 'independent' council picked by and working under the rules of the Executive branch,

Irrelevant to the fact that he, just like anyone else accused of something, is under no obligation to testify to anything....Clinton was a fool to allow his deposition.

Maybe someday you'll see just how much you and Trump are maintaining the swamp and shredding the Constitution.

Not evidence....Not an argument.

 

[Dick Foster]

1. If you state a fact, provide a link to substantiate it. If you state an opinion and it's not yours, provide a link. If you do not provide a link then whatever you post is considered to be your opinion, which by the way is fine.

2. No one-line fly-bys. Rationales and reasoning for your opinions are required.

3. Disagreeing with someone's post is acceptable, even encouraged, but attacking someone's post is not. If you characterize someone's post as garbage, that's an attack. If you say 'I don't believe that' or 'I don't think that's right or true', that's disagreeing and you should state why.

The line between a president's political and personal benefit for a given act may be somewhat indistinguishable from his intent to further America's best interests. For instance, one might say that Obama's decision to return billions of dollars to Iran influenced them to agree to his deal with them, thus adding to his political legacy. Was that bribery? One could say he did it to delay Iran's nuclear weapon capability which it was argued made us and our allies safer. But his legacy was enhanced, was it not? At least he thought so. How does one delineate between his benefit and ours? Could it be both?

Now look at Trump vis-a-vis Ukraine. Once Joe Biden announces his candidacy for president, should the American public not be told of any involvement he and/or his son might have had in association with Burisma and the ex-vice president's own admission that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, allegedly for looking into any possible corruption? The Bidens do not and should not get a free pass now that Joe is running for president, true? A case could be made that President Trump actually had a duty to ask the Ukrainians to look into those dealings. So, was his (Trump's) actions solely based on his political/personal well-being? I don't think that is cut and dried, there is room for doubt.

It is my opinion that other presidents have, shall we say, coerced other countries into doing his will to our benefit but also to his benefit too. Politically if not personally. Surely this is not the first time a US President has withheld aid or support of some kind to get something he wants. Are we to assume that no president ever did so without some political if not personal benefit? I ain't buying it, I think quid pro quo goes on pretty much all the time. We just may not have been made aware of the details of what really happened. So, is that fair, to single Trump out for impeachment, for doing what many other presidents have done? Did Trump abuse the power of his office?

My vote? NO. No more than any other president has, and not too the level of impeachment.

I have more debates to follow on the Trump impeachment. But rather than have one thread with all sorts of tangents, I have elected to focus on one issue at a time.

What the hell are you to be laying down what others should say and how, some self appointed hall monitor?
Go scew yourself and you've provided all the evidence necessary.
PS I am for Trump although I didn't see what your opinion was because of the way you said it.

 

[task0778]

alang1216: "Trump has the resources of the entire US gov't behind him and they told there was no evidence of corruption."

OP: I think the question of the Biden case in Ukraine has some bearing on the Abuse of Office claim, I mentioned it as a possible reason why Trump asked for an investigation. IOW, that request could have been for legitimate reasons. I would dispute alang's supposition that no one told Trump there was no evidence of corruption, in fact there was plenty. We can't know what Trump knew at the time, but I suspect he knew more than we did and do now. And BTW, as I started digging into this I realized how deep this stuff goes, it really needs it's own thread to flesh out the story. Which I intend to do.


So - no evidence, huh? Let's review what was known prior to the July 2018 phone call:

May 2014: Hunter Biden was hired by a natural gas company called Burisma to join it's Board of Directors. He gets paid a lot of money for somebody that doesn't know about natural gas or Ukraine, I've seen estimates between $50,000 to as high as $83,000 per month. I see that and I think that there can only be one reason to pay a guy like him that much money: his dad is or was at the time the Vice President of the United States.

Note:
The New York Times published a story noting that Burisma hired Hunter Biden just weeks after the vice president was asked by President Obama to oversee U.S.-Ukraine relations. That story also alerted Biden’s office that Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin had an active investigation of Burisma and its founder. Does that not make you wonder?

------

... the activities of Burisma Holdings had soon attracted the attention of Ukrainian law enforcement agencies. The company was suspected in tax evasion, money laundering and embezzlement of state funds. Soon after, in January of 2015 the General Prosecutor’s Office, headed by Vitaliy Yarema, put the company’s owner Mykola Zlochevsky on the wanted list. Later, Yarema’s successor in office, Viktor Shokin, continued with the Burisma case, with the aim of mounting an inquiry into corruption allegations, and even started a separate investigation into the activities of the firm’s Board of Directors, which included Hunter Biden.


Solomon: These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden's Ukraine story


Hunter Biden’s American business partner in Burisma, Devon Archer, texted a colleague two days after the Times story about a strategy to counter the “new wave of scrutiny” and stated that he and Hunter Biden had just met at the State Department. The text suggested there was about to be a new “USAID project the embassy is announcing with us” and that it was “perfect for us to move forward now with momentum.”
.
.
At the time, Shokin’s office was investigating Burisma. Shokin told me he was making plans to question Hunter Biden about $3 million in fees that Biden and his partner, Archer, collected from Burisma through their American firm. Documents seized by the FBI in an unrelated case confirm the payments, which in many months totaled more than $166,000.

Some media outlets have reported that, at the time Joe Biden forced the firing in March 2016, there were no open investigations. Those reports are wrong. A British-based investigation of Burisma's owner was closed down in early 2015 on a technicality when a deadline for documents was not met. But the Ukraine Prosecutor General's office still had two open inquiries in March 2016, according to the official case file provided me. One of those cases involved taxes; the other, allegations of corruption. Burisma announced the cases against it were not closed and settled until January 2017.

[same link as above]

Note:

Devon Archer is/was a friend of Secretary Kerry’s stepson, Christopher Heinz, who had been a business partner with both Archer and Hunter Biden at the Rosemont Seneca investment firm in the United States.

Heinz, however, chose not to participate in the Burisma dealings. In fact, he wrote an email to his stepfather’s top aides in May 2014, pointedly distancing himself from the decision by Hunter Biden and Devon Archer to join Burisma’s board.

hmm.

Hunter Biden’s Ukraine gas firm pressed Obama administration to end corruption allegations, memos show | John Solomon Reports


So, then VP Joe Biden goes over and actually commits a clear act of bribery. He admitted during a 2018 videotaped speech that, as vice president in March 2016, he threatened to cancel $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, to pressure Ukraine’s then-President Petro Poroshenko to fire Shokin. Which they did. Do I need to copy and paste what he said in that video?

[first link]


And this raised the troubling prospect that U.S. officials may have painted a false picture in Ukraine that helped ease Burisma’s legal troubles and stop prosecutors’ plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

For instance, Burisma’s American legal representatives met with Ukrainian officials just days after Biden forced the firing of the country’s chief prosecutor and offered “an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures” about the Ukrainian prosecutors, according to the Ukrainian government’s official memo of the meeting. The effort to secure that meeting began the same day the prosecutor's firing was announced.

In addition, Burisma’s American team offered to introduce Ukrainian prosecutors to Obama administration officials to make amends, according to that memo and the American legal team’s internal emails.

[first link]

Don't tell me there was no evidence. And this ain't the half of it either.

So Trump goes over there and asks for the Ukraine president to do an investigation. I can see where he has a personal/political reason to do so, but it's possible he also had a legitimate reason too.

 

[protectionist]

Not at all, it is based on witness testimony. If you don't believe them you should demand that Trump testify in the Senate. Under oath. Just what Clinton did.

BTW, Clinton testified in a deposition, that was entered int evidence during the HoR impeachment proceedings....He did not testify before the Senate in the trial.

I can live with that. I'd love to hear about Trump's affairs.

Why ?

 

[protectionist]

alang1216: "Trump has the resources of the entire US gov't behind him and they told there was no evidence of corruption."

OP: I think the question of the Biden case in Ukraine has some bearing on the Abuse of Office claim, I mentioned it as a possible reason why Trump asked for an investigation. IOW, that request could have been for legitimate reasons. I would dispute alang's supposition that no one told Trump there was no evidence of corruption, in fact there was plenty. We can't know what Trump knew at the time, but I suspect he knew more than we did and do now. And BTW, as I started digging into this I realized how deep this stuff goes, it really needs it's own thread to flesh out the story. Which I intend to do.


So - no evidence, huh? Let's review what was known prior to the July 2018 phone call:

May 2014: Hunter Biden was hired by a natural gas company called Burisma to join it's Board of Directors. He gets paid a lot of money for somebody that doesn't know about natural gas or Ukraine, I've seen estimates between $50,000 to as high as $83,000 per month. I see that and I think that there can only be one reason to pay a guy like him that much money: his dad is or was at the time the Vice President of the United States.

Note:
The New York Times published a story noting that Burisma hired Hunter Biden just weeks after the vice president was asked by President Obama to oversee U.S.-Ukraine relations. That story also alerted Biden’s office that Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin had an active investigation of Burisma and its founder. Does that not make you wonder?

------

... the activities of Burisma Holdings had soon attracted the attention of Ukrainian law enforcement agencies. The company was suspected in tax evasion, money laundering and embezzlement of state funds. Soon after, in January of 2015 the General Prosecutor’s Office, headed by Vitaliy Yarema, put the company’s owner Mykola Zlochevsky on the wanted list. Later, Yarema’s successor in office, Viktor Shokin, continued with the Burisma case, with the aim of mounting an inquiry into corruption allegations, and even started a separate investigation into the activities of the firm’s Board of Directors, which included Hunter Biden.


Solomon: These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden's Ukraine story


Hunter Biden’s American business partner in Burisma, Devon Archer, texted a colleague two days after the Times story about a strategy to counter the “new wave of scrutiny” and stated that he and Hunter Biden had just met at the State Department. The text suggested there was about to be a new “USAID project the embassy is announcing with us” and that it was “perfect for us to move forward now with momentum.”
.
.
At the time, Shokin’s office was investigating Burisma. Shokin told me he was making plans to question Hunter Biden about $3 million in fees that Biden and his partner, Archer, collected from Burisma through their American firm. Documents seized by the FBI in an unrelated case confirm the payments, which in many months totaled more than $166,000.

Some media outlets have reported that, at the time Joe Biden forced the firing in March 2016, there were no open investigations. Those reports are wrong. A British-based investigation of Burisma's owner was closed down in early 2015 on a technicality when a deadline for documents was not met. But the Ukraine Prosecutor General's office still had two open inquiries in March 2016, according to the official case file provided me. One of those cases involved taxes; the other, allegations of corruption. Burisma announced the cases against it were not closed and settled until January 2017.

[same link as above]

Note:

Devon Archer is/was a friend of Secretary Kerry’s stepson, Christopher Heinz, who had been a business partner with both Archer and Hunter Biden at the Rosemont Seneca investment firm in the United States.

Heinz, however, chose not to participate in the Burisma dealings. In fact, he wrote an email to his stepfather’s top aides in May 2014, pointedly distancing himself from the decision by Hunter Biden and Devon Archer to join Burisma’s board.

hmm.

Hunter Biden’s Ukraine gas firm pressed Obama administration to end corruption allegations, memos show | John Solomon Reports


So, then VP Joe Biden goes over and actually commits a clear act of bribery. He admitted during a 2018 videotaped speech that, as vice president in March 2016, he threatened to cancel $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, to pressure Ukraine’s then-President Petro Poroshenko to fire Shokin. Which they did. Do I need to copy and paste what he said in that video?

[first link]


And this raised the troubling prospect that U.S. officials may have painted a false picture in Ukraine that helped ease Burisma’s legal troubles and stop prosecutors’ plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

For instance, Burisma’s American legal representatives met with Ukrainian officials just days after Biden forced the firing of the country’s chief prosecutor and offered “an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures” about the Ukrainian prosecutors, according to the Ukrainian government’s official memo of the meeting. The effort to secure that meeting began the same day the prosecutor's firing was announced.

In addition, Burisma’s American team offered to introduce Ukrainian prosecutors to Obama administration officials to make amends, according to that memo and the American legal team’s internal emails.

[first link]

Don't tell me there was no evidence. And this ain't the half of it either.

So Trump goes over there and asks for the Ukraine president to do an investigation. I can see where he has a personal/political reason to do so, but it's possible he also had a legitimate reason too.

He has no political reason. Biden is a clown who has no chance to become president.

 

[toobfreak]

1. If you state a fact, provide a link to substantiate it. If you state an opinion and it's not yours, provide a link. If you do not provide a link then whatever you post is considered to be your opinion, which by the way is fine.

2. No one-line fly-bys. Rationales and reasoning for your opinions are required.

3. Disagreeing with someone's post is acceptable, even encouraged, but attacking someone's post is not. If you characterize someone's post as garbage, that's an attack. If you say 'I don't believe that' or 'I don't think that's right or true', that's disagreeing and you should state why.

The line between a president's political and personal benefit for a given act may be somewhat indistinguishable from his intent to further America's est interests. For instance, one might say that Obama's decision to return billions of dollars to Iran influenced them to agree to his deal with them, thus adding to his political legacy. Was that bribery? One could say he did it to delay Iran's nuclear weapon capability which it was argued made us and our allies safer. But his legacy was enhanced, was it not? At least he thought so. How does one delineate between his benefit and ours? Could it be both?

Now look at Trump vis-a-vis Ukraine. Once Joe Biden announces his candidacy for president, should the American public not be told of any involvement he and/or his son might have had in association with Burisma and the ex-vice president's own admission that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, allegedly for looking into any possible corruption? The Bidens do not and should not get a free pass now that Joe is running for president, true? A case could be made that President Trump actually had a duty to ask the Ukrainians to look into those dealings. So, was his (Trump's) actions solely based on his political/personal well-being? I don't think that is cut and dried, there is room for doubt.

It is my opinion that other presidents have, shall we say, coerced other countries into doing his will to our benefit but also to his benefit too. Politically if not personally. Surely this is not the first time a US President has withheld aid or support of some kind to get something he wants. Are we to assume that no president ever did so without some political if not personal benefit? I ain't buying it, I think quid pro quo goes on pretty much all the time. We just may not have been made aware of the details of what really happened. So, is that fair, to single Trump out for impeachment, for doing what many other presidents have done? Did Trump abuse the power of his office?

My vote? NO.

I have more debates to follow on the Trump impeachment. But rather than have one thread with all sorts of tangents, I have elected to focus on one issue at a time.

1. You've broken your own rule and provided no links to your assertions.

2. Of course when President Obama returned Iran's money it was meant to influence the favorably to the deal. The difference is it was not for personal gain, it was for the good of the nation. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. The current *president* was not working for the good of the county, but for the good of himself.

I'm sick of hearing those horseshit assertions repeated over and over as if they were FACT:

1. The difference is it was not for personal gain. PROVE Trump did it for PERSONAL GAIN.
2. It was for the good of the nation. PROVE Trump's inquiry wasn't for the good of the nation. Mind you, a former AG (I think the one under Bush) has already gone on record in interview saying that it absolutely was.
3. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. SHOW US what Trump absolutely "gained" with the Ukrainian phone call! Impeachment? Knocking Biden out of 1st place? Getting Biden to resign or be investigated? What????

 

[alang1216]

Not at all, it is based on witness testimony. If you don't believe them you should demand that Trump testify in the Senate. Under oath. Just what Clinton did.

BTW, Clinton testified in a deposition, that was entered int evidence during the HoR impeachment proceedings....He did not testify before the Senate in the trial.

I can live with that. I'd love to hear about Trump's affairs.

Why ?

I bet they're better than Bill's. I also wonder if they are still going on, are they happening in the Oval Office, and is Trump open to blackmail.