A digression

But one I probably ought to take. The Clinton impeachment is irrelevant to the present situation, which concerns a completely different factual basis. It is even less relevant to the question of the current Resident's mental and moral condition and his fitness for office, which is what my previous post is about. In other words, it's an attempt to change the subject, a typical troll tactic.

So I'll take the subject change right here. Regarding the exact nature of Mr. Clinton's misconduct, I believe that Paula Jones initiated the activity. I don't think Clinton demanded it of her and I don't think he promised her anything in exchange. Nevertheless she expected to get something for it and she was understandably angry when she didn't, and felt exploited. Monica Lewinsky fully stipulated that she initiated the relationship.

Nevertheless, Clinton was absolutely obliged to refuse them both. His conduct was grossly unethical and also incredibly foolish. In the case of Lewinsky, who was besotted and barely an adult, it was irresponsible and contemptible. And by the way, I've had students come on to me and I know never to go there.

However, the articles of impeachment did not address the underlying conduct, but only deceit. I think the allegations of subornation lacked an adequate factual basis, but Clinton undoubtedly lied personally, both in public and under oath. The argument against removal from office hinges on the misconduct not being related to his official duties as president.

I think that if a similar set of circumstances were to occur today -- which is obviously highly unlikely -- it would be incumbent on all Democratic party leaders, elected officials, and people who generally support Democrats to demand the perpetrator's resignation. This would certainly be the case for members of Congress, and all state officials. The culture has changed. We don't tolerate this any more. Viz. Al Franken, whose sins are much lesser. The integrity of the party would demand it. Obviously, Republicans don't feel that way, but hypocrisy is their middle name.

If Clinton had been removed from office or resigned, what might that have meant for the 2000 election? Counterfactual history is probably a fool's game, but Al Gore might well have been better off running as the incumbent with the baggage of Clinton's misbehavior much lightened, in which case the election would not have been close enough to steal, there would have been no Iraq war, and we'd be living in a completely different timeline. As they circle the wagons around their mad king, Republicans might want to think about that.