It obviously is unethical to seek out “dirt” on a political opponent, and only a special class of lowlife would ever express interest in obtaining “dirt.” It is obvious that the Trump campaign, in the person of Donald Jr., responded to a Russian’s offer of “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. This is universally considered to be wrong, immoral, unethical, nasty and perhaps illegal. "Why?" is the Clinton campaign’s purchase of “dirt” on Donald Trump in the form of a dossier not considered to be equally as bad? After all, the Trump campaign received no “dirt.” The Clinton campaign not only received “dirt,” it received it from Russian sources, AND it paid for it – AND it was fictionalized to boot. Funny how the same people who are talking impeachment over what the Trump campaign tried to do aren’t at all interested in what the Clinton campaign actually did.
How about this? The major news media outlets in America were strongly opposed to Donald Trump’s election, and supported Hillary Clinton with equal fervor. Of course, that is their right, but the “Why?” part is, given the overwhelming and incessant pounding that the President has been subjected to (and we are not taking a position on whether or not it is just, or justified), why is the media outraged that the President treats them with contempt? Why is it OK for them to treat him poorly and not OK for him to respond in kind?
City officials in West Hollywood want to remove Donald Trump's star from the Walk of Fame. It has frequently been vandalized and is a focus of protests. They aver that Mr. Trump's lack of morals precludes the honor. How many other Hollywood celebrities will have stars pulled for the same reason?