A friend of the porn star currently claiming to have had an affair with Trump over a decade ago says there may be a dress. Sound familiar?
According to The Hill, “Alana Evans, a friend of Stormy Daniels, said the adult-film actress held on to the dress she wore the day of her alleged affair with President Trump… Maybe a keepsake, maybe it’s because it’s actual proof,” Evans added when asked why Daniels might have kept the dress. “I can only speculate the things that may be on that dress, especially if it’s never been washed.”
To what point and purpose? Those who hope this scandal will bring down Trump are insinuating that this is Trump’s “Miss Lewinsky.” See! There might be a dress with Trump’s stuff on it…that’s proof positive he cheated on Melania! We impeached Clinton because of Monica; we’ll impeach 45 over Stormy!
We didn’t get a blue dress with Clinton because someone decided to come out twelve years after a consensual sexual encounter with the individual who had yet to become president. We got the blue dress because Clinton was being sued for gender discrimination and, as Ann Coulter writes in High Crimes and Misdemeanors, “evidence that Clinton had engaged in similar conduct with other women would be valuable for [Paula] Jones’s case.” It’s a common procedure in state criminal cases. Prosecutors will file a motion to admit proof of other crimes in order to present the jury with the defendant’s pattern of behavior. I witnessed several instances where a defendant's crimes spanned across jurisdictions. The natural thing for a prosecutor to do is to file a motion to include these other crimes as proof that the specific crime is consistent with nature of the offender. Every crime by itself has little value unless it is combined with a known history. Coulter also points out that when Jones’ case made it to the Supreme Court, Clinton’s attorney conceded the fact that Jones’ attorneys would be able to depose those who have encountered Clinton. We have the blue dress because an individual who witnessed some of the alleged harassment thought it was relevant that the current victim preserve evidence of it. Not to mention the perjury, the suborning perjury, and the overall unethical manner with which the Clinton Administration handled the “bimbo eruptions.”
The blue dress proved a point in a legal proceeding, a proceeding where the president lied under oath about a sexual relationship with a White House intern. The blue dress was not used to prove that Clinton was a sleaze, a creep, or anything else. The blue dress was not used to impeach Clinton for adultery. The blue dress was used to corroborate claims made by Paula Jones where evidence of other acts was used in lieu of eyewitness testimony.
Stormy was not a White House intern. She says it was consensual. All we’ve got is adultery. Trump has not lied under oath regarding any of this. Trump has not suborned perjury. Stormy has not suborned perjury. There may be claims about the financial aspect of the settlement or whether there were threats directed at Stormy, but none of this has come out in a civil suit directed at Trump for conduct that occurred while Trump was governor of Arkansas. Did I say governor of Arkansas? I meant a reality TV star.
You want to impeach Trump for being an adulterer? Go ahead. I like high ethical standards. But we’ve got to retroactively impeach every adulterous president then. And do we make distinctions for presidents who cheated before, during, or after their term in office?
Liberals, the media, and politicians in both parties ridiculed the impeachment proceedings against Clinton for being “just about sex.” There’s even a political organization whose very name wants us to move on from Clinton’s sex life. It was never about sex. It was perjury, corruption, and abuse of power.
Moral objections aside…Trump and Stormy? That is just about sex.