Donald Trump versus Bill Clinton in a pay-per-view MMA match.
Imagine the possibilities.
Trump’s ex wives could be ring-card girls, along with a certain adult film star.
Clinton has plenty of ex trollops that could serve as ring-card girls, as it is doubtful many of them would turn down a paycheck these days.
This completely fictitious battle royal comes to mind now that Trump finds himself facing a lawsuit by a porn star he allegedly had an affair with related to an agreement which included a $130,000 payment for her to keep her mouth shut.
For those who have forgotten (or never knew - millenials), a former president of the United States of America was impeached in 1998 for lying under oath about his own affair.
Here is the difference - so far - about Trump vs. Clinton.
Trump has yet to lie under oath about this lawsuit. I would bet lunch that Trump wouldn’t hesitate to tell a whopper - even under oath - if there was enough benefit for him.
However, those wanting to compare Clinton’s scandal to Trump’s latest scandal are premature.
Back in the day, many wanted to give Clinton a pass because supposedly prude Republicans were on a witch hunt (sound familiar?) to nail Clinton. Republicans were allegedly obsessed with sex, and what happens between consenting adults is no one else’s business.
Nonsense. The president lied under oath - about what is irrelevant. For the normal Joe Schmo, lying under oath will get you in all sorts of trouble. (Oh, wait. The president didn’t lie. He just “misled” people. Verbal diarrhea.)
I recall people in these parts more or less cheering when the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach Clinton. U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Clarendon, voted in favor of three of four articles of impeachment, voting against “abuse of power.”
The reaction around here today, if social media is any indication, is that some want to give Trump a pass because this scandal is a private affair, pardon the pun. (Those who claim this is not news, please send me a copy of your journalism degree. I would like to see it.)
If it is proved that Trump violated campaign finance laws by paying a person for silence so he could get elected, then it is no longer private.
Don’t get me wrong. If it comes down to it, I say the odds are 50/50 Trump would stretch the truth farther than Palo Duro Canyon. However, in this case, until Trump does it under oath, comparisons to Clinton are not valid.
AGN Media Director of Commentary Dave Henry can be reached by email at firstname.lastname@example.org.