How does the fact that Clinton engaged in a consentual sexual relationship with someone other than his wife show him to be at all given to making unwanted sexual advances towards women? He shouldn't have lied about Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case, but it also shouldn't have ever been brought up. One's consentual sexual past has no relevancy in a matter of non-consentual sexual advancements.
The only purpose for bringing up such things in a trial is to try to embarass the accused into a settlement. Marv Albert was another example of this. He was accused of sexual assault by a woman he had a consentual affair with for years. The only evidence they had were bite marks and a parade of depositioned former sex partners that were forced to tell the world what Marv's sexual kinks were.
The fact that Marv liked dressing up like a woman, or liked having threesomes with a guy and another woman in no way show him any more or less apt to have sexually assaulted his accuser. But it damn sure publicly humiliated him, threatened his career, and ultimately got him to pay her a bunch of money to end it.
Bill Clinton's two terms were just a string of similiar investigations, allegations and tactics perpetuated by his adversaries. That the only thing they found him guilty of was perjury regarding what should be a private matter goes a long way to making me believe that this was nothing but an 8-year-long smear campaign. If they had been able to prove some of the more serious (and yes, you do have to consider degrees here. Even the law does it. i.e. capital murder, murder in the 3rd degree, etc...) allegations against him, then I might feel differently.
As it is, I can't believe that Kenneth Star and the Republican party were ever concerned with justice or the rule of law given their conduct in this mess. Hell, they bent and stretched the law whenever they felt like it. I am still trying to figure out what Clinton's testimony in a sexual harassment case has to do with whether or not he knew that the McDougal's hadn't paid back a federal loan.
No, it wasn't about anything so noble. It was about undermining a presidency. To either destroy the public's confidence in Bill Clinton to such an extent as to make him unable to influence the direction of the country, or to make him resign outright. I am damn glad they failed for the most part. And I would feel the same way if the shoe was on the other foot.
Anyway, that is why I can only feel so disappointed in Bill Clinton for his perjury. The other side earned so much more of it.
