NY Daily News front page
GOP hypocrites impeached president Bill Clinton in December of 1998, charging “perjury” and “obstruction of justice”:
ARTICLE 1:
On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following:
(1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee;
(2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him;
(3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and
(4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.
…
ARTICLE II
In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.
These spurious charges (Mr. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate) were in regard to his behavior with a consenting adult woman who initiated and eagerly continued a sexual relationship with Mr. Clinton. The acts in question had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Mr. Clinton’s conduct of his public office. At no time did his behavior in any way threaten or compromise the United States. At no time was any foreign power remotely connected to any of this — the charge was never even brought. During the debate and subsequent trial, multiple GOP officials (including Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House, and his likely successors) had to step aside from leadership roles because they were themselves embroiled in steamy adulterous affairs. The hypocrisy was breathtaking even then.
Today, we have compelling and documented evidence of perjury, obstruction of justice, and at least attempted collusion between the Donald Trump administration and the Kremlin. These and other crimes are CENTRAL to the election of Mr. Trump and to his subsequent conduct of office. These crimes are CENTRAL to the integrity of the American electoral system and American government.
Our GOP Collaborators are deafeningly silent.
If the GOP had ANY integrity AT ALL, an impeachment resolution would be forthcoming NOW, led by the GOP. The GOP controls the House and a bill of impeachment must be brought by the House. These cowards, who were so eager to impeach a sitting president for lying about a blow job initiated by a consenting adult woman, have NOTHING to say about this brazen attempt to conspire with Russia in an apparently successful effort to elect their stooge, Donald Trump. The foot-dragging by GOP co-conspirators reveals the depth of their moral cowardice, corruption, and utter unfitness for office.
The American electoral system is under attack and trial, and the GOP is cowering in the shadows.
The whole world is watching.
IOKIYAR. It’s OK if you’re a Republican. ” Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.” ANON
Actually the quote is from Oscar Wilde, I believe.
Thanks, Paul. Didn’t Oscar Wilde also say: ” Scandal is gossip made tedious by morality.” ?
Well, to be fair —
— they’ve never had much faith in it, with all the widespread voter fraud and all.
I agree with this post 100% and the hypocrisy has became so standard that they’ve actually undermined the cresibility of our government because of it. On purpose. To continue their nakedly partisan agenda to pass drastic cuts to the safety net over 70% of voters including their own oppose. And for the party of Eisenhower and Reagan to roll over and allow Russian intelligence to install their man in the White House just because he’ll sign their tax cuts is truly appalling.
That said, while Clinton was indeed the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy he also should’ve known better. This was an own goal, that it led to impeachment is on them. That it totally distracted from his second term was entirely preventable and on him.
I don’t like the trope of blaming the other woman for the failings of men, especially when the other women was an unpaid subordinate. Otherwise a solidly argued piece.
Blame? I meant nor intended no blame. A canard offered all to often is that Mr. Clinton was an abuser or attacker. He was not. The reality that Ms. Lewinsky initiated the affair is well-documented and has been part of the public record since she was hoisted into the public eye by Mr. Starr (who coerced her to cooperate with his witch hunt).
In my view, there is no “blame” here. An affair between two consenting adults took place. Mr. and Ms. Clinton have made their peace with each other
All of it pales in comparison to what is happening literally each and every day right now.
Reminds one of the attitude taken by he Saudi towards their women who make men do bad things…
You know a Saudi women who was instructed by RNC lawyers to continue the affair and obtain a sperm sample?
Read the Starr report – she definitely initiated, but then again all you listened to back then was Rush, right?:(
Agree w jc regarding the assigning of blame. It’s Clinton’s fault, as an older person of supposed judgment, an “adult”, a boss, and, well, the President.
I don’t see where blame is relevant. We’re talking about impeaching the president of the US. The cited charges were perjury and obstruction of justice, both stemming from a consensual affair.
If we again get sucked into a stupid, moralistic, and hypocritical debate about a blow job that happened twenty years ago, then we are no more than foot soldiers in the absurd hypocrisy of Ken Starr and the GOP.
Shouldn’t we be talking about “high crimes and misdemeaners”?
That would have been morally nice and politically made his life easier, but still no legal exposure.
I don’t see any judgement, which would be necessary for “blame,” I see only description.
S’tom said nothing regarding ‘failings of men’ or anything about ‘the other’ woman. He simply described a situation and then he described how that situation had nothing to do with President Clintons work and how the GOP response to the situation (then) is wholly reversed from their response to the similar situation (now.)
So any man could have fallen “victim” to Monica’s spell…..no cause to place any responsibility on William Clinton.. , the lengths to which some will go to defend those two….
Give it up. You’re again just lying about what I said.
Any man, and the president, no less, needs to take full responsibility for his own actions and not blame others for his shortcomings.
I’d ask you to give up your support of the Clintons, but I doubt that will ever happen.
How do YOU compare the apparent high crimes and misdemeanors of Donald Trump and his entire administration to Mr. Clinton?
Do you think the impeachment of Mr. Clinton was justified? Really?
I can compare the acts of Trump and Clinton. In my opinion, both were immoral. Both broke the law and both would be impeached and removed from office if I were in charge even though Clintons act’s were far less egregious. I have NO tolerance for a president who breaks the law, but you, it seems, do so long as his agenda is in line with yours.
And that’s the problem I am having with independents who see both parties accepting illegal behavior because “their guy” is in charge.
Clinton lied under oath. I do not tolerate liars, no matter what party they belong to.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
By the standard you are applying to Mr. Clinton, we would have to have impeach a great many of our presidents, including:
– FDR (who had a long-running “immoral” affair)
– Dwight Eisenhower (same)
– JFK (made Bill Clinton look like a choir boy)
– LBJ (a notorious womanizer)
There are rumors about a great many others.
The primary difference between those presidents and Bill Clinton is that congress did not pursue them with the vigor that it pursued Mr. Clinton.
I view the probable crimes committed by Donald Trump and his administration as qualitatively different from the misdeeds of any president until now. I know of no other president who has so brazenly conspired with a foreign power to violate the very bedrock of the US electoral system.
Not to mention the long and growing list of flagrant betrayals of American interests to the Russions.
At least I understand where you’re coming from. We disagree, but I understand your stance.
hugga-mugga-wha-frumpki-bata-whatsky???
Me: So that happened
You: That means you approve of that happening.
Me:: Um, no.
You: And your approval condones this corollary thing that may or may not have happened.
Me:: are we having the same conversation?
You: Strawberries!!
I make fun of this ‘reasoning’… and there’s very much fun to be had… but in fairness to johntmay, this ‘reasoning’ is far more prevalent than we like to think.
The Muslims have a saying, mayhap it is even in the Quran (I don’t know) … that God divided desire into ten parts and one part he gave to man and the remaining nine parts of desire he gave to women, and this is the underlying reasoning for the burqa. Men won’t be able to control themselves in the presence of women so it’s up to the women to cover themselves. This is just another way of rationalizing men who won’t control themselves. And yes, Bill Clinton falls into that category.
None of that, however, is what SomervilleTom was getting at…
This is the culmination of the GOP’s war on America that includes major fronts on the truth, the electoral system, and political norms.
Just one small point…..the whole world is not watching. Some have their televisions locked onto FOX where you’d think nothing is really there to see.
I was referring to Chicago in 1968.
STom wrote “These spurious charges (Mr. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate) were in regard to his behavior with a consenting adult woman who initiated and eagerly continued a sexual relationship with Mr. Clinton.”
This is a disgusting sentence. When the most powerful person on earth, a man over the age of fifty, makes a play for a woman young enough to be his daughter, it is pure scum behavior. That is why Ailes, O’Reilly and others are out of their jobs. If any person reads this blog tried the same, they would be out on the keister, deservedly so.
Blaming the victim sucks, even worse when done by an older man who claims to have progressive values. Your comment is utter filth.
You’re saying an adult woman isn’t capable of thinking for herself? How Republican of you.
I know its much more fun to attack me and twist what happened out of all semblance to reality.
Ms. Lewinsky herself describes the affair as consensual. She bragged to friends at the time that she was going to Washington to “get her presidential kneepads”..
In fact, your adamant and steadfast refusal to accept the reality that Ms. Lewinsky WANTED this affair is itself offensively patriarchal and sexist.
Monica Lewinsky was not the victim of Clinton, but very much the victim of Linda Tripp and Ken Starr. Nobody is arguing that Clinton was the victim of Lewinsky. It shouldn’t have happened and it would have been nice if it hadn’t, but that’s not the point of this thread.
Ok, guys.
We can fill this thread with yet another interminable rehash of a consensual affair that happened 20 years ago.
I’m calling out johntmay and thebestdefense explicitly by name to ask two specific and pointed questions:
1. Was the impeachment of Bill Clinton right, proper and deserved, and
2. Given that Bill Clinton WAS impeached by the GOP, should that same GOP now impeach Donald Trump
That’s what this thread is about.
1, Yes.
2, Yes.
And should the Democrats win the house in 2018, will they go for impeachment? At the moment, I’m thinking “no”.
Ok, well — there you have it (your answer to 1).
My point, in the thread starter, is that THE GOP should be bringing the impeachment. From you answer to my question 2, you agree.
Today’s GOP epitomizes hypocrisy and cowardice.
So sad, STom. It does not matter that Lewinsky was a willing participant. It does not matter that HRC has reconciled herself to her husbands ways. It is a question of whether we will continue as a society to look the other way when men in power create a workplace where women who provide sex to their bosses get ahead of their colleagues.
The thread is abut the words you wrote, not the ones you wish you wrote. Nice attempt to divert attention away from your comments. But the answer to both questions is no.
(Also, he was a truly awful President beyond this issue.)
Or as Shirley McLane was quoted in comparing Tricky Dick to JFK : ” I’d rather have a President who screwed his woman than one who screwed his country.”
And now I think we have both!:(
Funny how our oh-so-tough men have so much to say about what women should and should not do.
See, TBD, it DOES matter a great deal whether Ms. Lewinsky was a willing participant. She has agency, she is able to make up her own mind with big strong men like you “protecting” her.
So you think the GOP should NOT impeach Donald Trump?
Interesting.
You had a valid point in your post but threw it away by making a moral defense of a sexual creep.
Sure, the GOP should impeach Trump. They will not, however, so pointing out the hypocrisy is pointless – as it has been with pointing out the GOP’s hypocrisy for 25 years to absolutely no avail.
I made no “moral defense”. I insisted, and insist, that the facts of the case be presented accurately. The facts are that the affair that provoked the impeachment charges against Mr. Clinton was consensual.
Mr. Clinton was impeached by the GOP for perjury and obstruction of justice because of his handling of an affair with a consenting adult. That same GOP is deafeningly silent about the unfolding conspiracy of the Donald Trump administration to betray America.
Even if it is pointless to spotlight the hypocrisy, I still insist on doing so.
Clinton lied to Congress. It was, and he was stupid. I don’t think it rose to the level of impeachable but that is one consequence of perjury.
You both seem to think it is okay if you can justify sexually exploiting an intern in a government office. I wonder what the rules are in your office. I am sure it would be easy for you to copy and paste them here.
STom, you still fail to understaff that what you call “oh-so-tough men” are actually the men who defend against sexual predators in the labor market. You might want to lift yourself to that level. Please let us know how it works in your workplace.
Here are the rules:
– no supervisor of an underling employee can have sex with them even if it is at the underling’s instigation, regardless of gender;
– there is a double punch down when there is a 30 year age difference between the male boss and the intern;
– triple punch down when the perp is the POTUS;
– quadruple punch down when the deed was performed in the most important monument to democracy and equal rights (NOT sexploitation) in the world.
This is the guy you called the epitome of cool when he was doing his crap. And then you spent fifty percent more words defending Clinton in a post that was allegedly about Trump.
You might want to google a few phrases like “white male privilege,” “hostile work environment,” and “Trump pervert.”
Are any of your rules above actually law or just your moral judgement? If the latter, that’s a valid opinion and I may even sympathize, but one gets impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors and not for a moral failing.
As I have repeatedly written here, Clinton should not have been impeached for his sexually inappropriate behavior. I have spent enough time near him and family to know he is often sexually inappropriate but the voters chose him with some of knowledge of his pervy-ness.
He was impeached because he lied to America: “I did not have sex with that woman.” Put your daughter in Lewinsky’s position and determine if you might want to beat the pathological liar to a pulp.
That is a Big F***ing Deal and the Clintonista Defense Front (CDF) needs to stop using it, as STom did, Everyone should ask what would happen if you had sex with an intern or underling in your office, what if you were caught. Your career would end and your spouse and children would recoil. It is time for the progressive democratic world to stop defending Clinton as “not as bad as Trump.”
This moral relativism sux. It is stupid politics. The Trump team is bad because they are bad on virtually every economic, gender, race and environment issue imaginable. Dragging the impeachment of Pervert Clinton into the issue puts progressives on the defensive and forces the worst kind of excuse making.
He was impeached for perjury – lying under oath in the answer to questions which never should have been asked. Publicly lying to the people is not per se impeachable either. I know it takes a lot of legal twisting of common definitions, but according to the meaning the lawyers worked out as I recall he didn’t have sexual relations with her. Yes, that is one of the times he should have stopped being a lawyer himself for a minute and he hurt more than helped himself.
I have to add the final personal comment: if you do not understand the simple rules I stated, then you have personal problems with gender and power equality. Even asking the question you did is horrific. Talk to your peer counselor about this please.
Personal comment? I suggest you take your own advice. Your commentary is filled with words and phrases like “want to beat the pathological liar to a pulp”, “double punch down”, ” triple punch down”, etc.
Morality is generally different from law because the first IS personal and the second is not. What you call “moral relativism” others might call recognition that different people have different moral standards.
There are some who, like Jimmy Carter, take the biblical admonition about “lusting in your heart” quite literally. There are marriages where even looking at another person in the eye is a grave moral offense and a betrayal of the marriage. There are marriages where a boundary is drawn at conversations. Others where a boundary is drawn at arousal (“occasion of sin” is the operating phrase in the Roman Catholic church). Others where a boundary is drawn at kissing and touching. Others a boundary is drawn at oral sex. Some marriages agree that “casual” sex outside the marriage is fine.
I suggest that moral absolutism also “sux”, even though it often makes great politics — especially when directed at others while excusing oneself. The GOP has been offering master classes at this for decades (cf Newt Gingrich, Robert Livingston, et al).
I am, in fact, quite familiar with the policies of my world-wide fortune-1000 employer. Those guides qualify each of the items you mention with an important adjective that you’ve left out: “UNWANTED”.
I hate to break this to you, but men and women who work together in offices have sex a LOT. Sometimes with peers, sometimes with superiors. By construction, when someone has sex with a superior someone else has sex with an underling. This is what some HR consultants call “yellow behavior” — not desirable, not recommended, and also not illegal and not even a matter of discipline.
In order to meet the LEGAL definition of harassment, the behavior must be UNWANTED.
I don’t doubt that your overly loud protestations reflect your personal morality and the standards that you apply to whatever office you are in. Your attempt to generalize those to matters of universal business governance and law you are very incorrect.
Can you give us the language in your employment manual where it approves of the CEO having an intern perform oral sex on him in his office. Tell us also where the manual says lying about it is also permissible.
This is your attempt to shrink the definition of Clinton’s behavior to what you call the “LEGAL definition of harassment.” At no point have I said Clinton was guilty of sexual harassment. It was much worse, sexual exploitation of a woman in the workplace, on the office desk, where the power imbalance between the supreme boss and an intern could not be more stark.
Again, please google the phrases “white male privilege” and “hostile work environment.” It was not simply Lewinsky who was victimized by a sexual aggressor. It was also the White House workplace and then the public’s trust in a man who used his office to gain sexual favors and perjured himself to cover up.
Do I think Clinton’s sexual activities were an impeachable offense? Hell no. But you are chomping at the bit to impeach Trump and we do not have a legal finding by anyone in a responsible position that he even committed perjury.
I invite you to reread this: “This is what some HR consultants call “yellow behavior” — not desirable, not recommended, and also not illegal and not even a matter of discipline.”
Is there something unclear about this?
Presumably you have the same contempt towards JFK, LBJ, Eisenhower, and LBJ — each of whom violated the personal moral code you so loudly espouse.
I am “chomping at the bit to impeach Trump” because the evidence already on the table — before prosecutions have even begun — compellingly points to intentional acts against America FAR worse than perjury.
A CEO equivalent, in this case the President of the United States, having oral sex with an intern thirty years his junior in the executive office is not “yellow behavior.” It is forbidden practice, “red behavior,” which is why I mentioned that even FoxTV fired its biggest people for acts that were less egregious than the Clinton offenses. Again, please share your company’s personnel policy language on the CEO screwing an intern in his executive suite. I am guessing that you won’t.
I encourage you to stand up in your Democratic ward committee and tell your neighbors that you think Lewinsky was at fault, that Bill Clinton was led astray by a 22 year old. Let us know the response, please.
Alas, it is typical of your behavior that you would write a post that attacks Trump but starts with 397 words about Clinton and follow with 183 words about Trump and then pretend your post is about Trump. Your math does not work and your politics don’t work. Leave your idolatry of Clinton out of this.
The question you asked in your original post, whether Trump should be impeached, was as typical incompetently asked. Impeachment is about the written law, We the people of the US do not yet have all of the evidence. If we follow your horrible advice, we follow the GOP into the hell they dumped on Clinton, with no resolution. That is a path that is only followed by people who do not participate in real politics, people who have no power.
You want impeachment because you have a weird definition of scandal. Your definition gains the progressive electorate nothing. Nothing. We have the opportunity for the non-partisan/bi-partisan/rational GOP establishment to discover the full depth of the Trump corruption. It won’t happen if progressives listen to idiots who demand impeachment without any consensus on whether there was even a misdemeanor. And since you keep bringing Clinton into this argument, he was found guilty. Maybe progressive democrats can ignore the people who once claimed Trump is worse than Hitler.
Blah blah blah.
Right. I remember again why I gave up attempting to have any sort of dialog with you.
Still waiting for you to post the url to your corporate personnel manual where it says the 50+ CEO can have sex with the 22yo intern on his desk.
@ TBD “still waiting”:
You wrote:
Sorry, but you’re just digging your hole deeper and deeper.
Here is the “Workplace Color Spectrum”, as described in my employers mandatory training:
The definition of unlawful sexual harassment is clear enough (emphasis mine):
Behavior that is consensual is not, by construction, unwelcome.
Note that in order to be “Red”, the behavior must be unlawful. In order to be unlawful, the behavior must be unwanted. Consensual oral sex, even on the CEO’s desk, is not unlawful. Since it is not unlawful, it cannot be “Red”.
At least right now, sex between consenting adults is not unlawful anywhere in the US. I get that we have a great many moral absolutists of all claimed political affiliations who would change that. I hope that common sense prevails.
Underneath your bluster, it appears that your understanding of the law and of corporate standards is woefully incorrect. Regarding corporate policies regarding harassment, the burden of proof is on you since you are the one making the claim.
The fired executives at Fox News demonstrated a long-term pervasive pattern of UNWANTED advances. They demanded sexual favors in exchange for air time and career advancement. They threatened their victims for complaining. The behavior for which Mr. Clinton was impeached had NONE of these aspects.
The rest of your comment is overblown hysterical hyberbole. I don’t recall anybody here writing that “Trump is worse than Hitler”. I explicitly stated, multiple times, that “fault” and “blame” are irrelevant. In my view, this was a private affair that had no relevance to the public. The public interest in it strikes me as primarily voyeuristic, verging on pornographic.
The bluster and hyperbole of your comment overwhelms any actual information it might contain.
The behavior of the Fox personnel was UNWANTED. Tom won’t stand up at his ward meeting and claim Lewinsky was “at fault” and neither will I. There is NO fault to be had, and no, that is not to be inferred by pointing out the fact, in the Starr Report itself, that she was the initiator. Again, nobody is saying that Clinton was helplessly led astray either.
You’re right – no perjury, but we haven’t gotten anyone under oath yet, and the accusation is far worse already than a little white lie about oral sex. Lewinsky was NOT victimized by an aggressor – she initiated and there was never any testimony that Clinton pressured her. This is exactly why this never should have seen the light of day. Ken Starr was investigating harassment against Paula Jones and inexplicably decided consensual action with another woman was somehow relevant.
I request the editors delete the above comment for violating rules against personal attacks. For the record, I said I would sympathize with your moral judgement.
@ Christopher “Are any of your rules above actually law…?”
Not according to the policies of my publicly-traded fortune-1000 employer. Those policies, and our mandatory training required of every employee every year, says that the law requires behavior to be unwanted in order to meet the criteria for harassment (there are other limitations as well).
Let’s recenter here, if possible. I see some valid points in the comments below. I don’t want to get into the weeds of it, but it got me thinking.
IF they impeach Trump, it should be on the merits of impeaching Trump. Bill Clinton has nothing to do with it, nor should he. In fact it’s not technically “the same GOP” — it’s a much harder line, more ideological GOP. Most of them don’t mind Trump at all.
There’s also, as I’ve noted before, the Pence factor. If you’re Paul Ryan, you’d rather have Trump collapse (so you can run) than have to be a good soldier working for Pence-Ernst ticket in 2020.
Richard Nixon resigned rather than face certain impeachment and conviction. That certain impeachment also came from a reluctant, but nevertheless willing, GOP.
Here, from Wikipedia, is a summary of the three articles of impeachment that would have been brought had Mr. Nixon not resigned:
Note that none of these alleged improper conduct in connection with Mr. Nixon’s conduct of office.
In my view, a comparison to precedent is a valid and significant aspect of a contemplated impeachment of Donald Trump (and his administration). I agree, of course, that any impeachment of Mr. Trump must be based on the facts of the current situation.
Consider an analogy — if we have prosecuted individuals for stealing a thousand dollars worth of merchandise from the back of a delivery truck, then surely we should also prosecute an owner of a trucking company who uses its trucks to divert merchandise by the truckload from shippers who retain that company.
Mr. Trump has betrayed the core values of America. He has conspired with a hostile foreign government to manipulate election results. There is strong evidence that he has improperly shaped American policy towards that hostile government as quid pro quo.
The behavior of this administration makes the conduct of Mr. Nixon and Mr. Clinton pale by comparison (I don’t know enough history to have an opinion about Andrew Johnson).
Andrew Johnsons impeachment was almost purely political. Johnson was the only US Senator from a southern state (Tennessee) to repudiate secessionists and remain with the union through the Civil War. So he wasn’t trusted to begin with by the Republicans (of the day,,, ) and he repaid that distrust (in spades) by being every bit the underhanded racist they suspected him of being and completely undermining Reconstruction, at first sneakily and later openly sympathetic to southern whites and former Confederate politicians. The Congress passed a law saying he couldn’t fire anyone in his cabinet knowing full well he would pay no attention to it, which is what happened, and they used that as a pretext to impeach him.
My opinion of Andrew Johnson is that he emboldened and empowered the defeated south to end Reconstruction, which is what happened in the Compromise of 1877: the election of Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden was so close that the three southern states in doubt agreed not to make a stink and seat Hayes if Hayes and the Republicans agreed to remove troops from the former Confederate states, effectively ending reconstruction and leaving us with battles we’re still fighting unto this day.
All of this is to point out how the politics of the right now are often born of politics of the ten or twenty years ago…. As Andrew Johnson in the mid 1860’s set the stage for the late 1870’s so to did the GOP of the late 1990’s set the stage for now, which, if only indirectly, was part of your point, Tom, in this diary.