o sung wo!as an ex cop you may well have seen some dreadful things, doubt however you did not give the woman a fair hearing in such matters? Clintons action was foul, Trump? well he is far less than a man, the world is unimpressed with him as am I one being wrong, in no way, lets the other off the hook, or do you think it does?runner can you get your hands on one of those Russian dolls for me?

Dear O Sung Wu,

Bill Clinton did not regard oral sex as having sex.
Monica Lewinsky performed oral sex on the former
US President. Just thought you should know.

Dear o sung wu,

You wrote, "They're all the same, wilfully purjured individuals, every last one of them!"

That's like saying all cops are bent. Academics, politicians, leftists, rightists, gun-owners, anti-gun owners almost any group you can name gets demonised on olo. Regardless of which group a person belongs to, every individual belonging to the group is not the same. I'm pretty sure you know that.

Hi there FOXY...

I was aware of what happened between the young female Intern and President CLINTON. The fact it was oral sex means naught. The fact remains, the most powerful individual in the western world, took advantage of a young impressionable Intern. And when questioned later, dodged and weaved his way out of it, by some inane technical interpretation of what 'sex' constituted?

However, after spending many years in a job where trying to unravel and tease out the truth, can become a somewhat complicated affair. Therefore I do realise it takes, 'two hands to clap'? I've no doubt whatsoever, this young lady was effectively exercising her feminine guile on this 'naively enthusiastic' President, to some full measure. Known as the 'Honey Trap' or the 'Vertical Smile'. And in turn he was tacitly offering some inducement in an effort to attract her, eg smashing through the glass ceiling? Why the Bureau didn't charge this man...well who knows. Conversely, why the Bureau didn't charge Mr Trump is also another mystery, considering the amount of 'product' they had on him as well?

Hi there DAVID F...

Golly you've got me again. Would it help if I claimed the 5th? Probably not, you'd have some way of getting around it. Would you accept insanity eg McNAGHTEN's Rule perhaps? Seriously it was merely a 'throw away line'. Though it's not too much of a stretch to claim, many of our elected representatives, do little to earn their salaries, let alone our trust for that matter. Thank you DAVID F, you're very much my moral conscience, whether you believe it or not? Thank you.

Our thoughts and opinions about Donald Trump will be measured right or wrong by history, that test starts in the mid term elections to come, this world, all of it, can not avoid a truth fear honestly held, baseless or not, of migration and refugees, is driving and will continue to drive, right looking parties,in time to come the wanted out come, by those truly in power, may be a one world type world, much pain is to come before that,I hope for more aid, used better,less dictator rulers in power because they serve others interests, will let humanity live a life worth living in the country the are from, but till then SOME of us forget humans come in all sizes and colors

Dear Belly,

You wrote:

“Our thoughts and opinions about Donald Trump will be measured right or wrong by history, that test starts in the mid term elections to come.”

What is right or wrong is decided neither by history nor by voting. If Germany and Japan had won WW2 that would have made them right in the minds of many Germans and Japanese but not in my mind. As far as I am concerned the darkest day in history was the day Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Possibly, most people would disagree with that.

Voting decides what people prefer at a particular time not what is right or wrong. Here is what Henry Thoreau said about voting:

"All voting is a sort of gaming, like chequers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting _for the right_ is _doing_ nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. _They_ will then be the only slaves. Only _his_ vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote."