Conservatives were right about Bill Clinton; once he failed to resign he deserved to be impeached

New York Times ^ | November 18th 2017 | Ross Douthat

[Ennis85]

In the longstanding liberal narrative about Bill Clinton and his scandals, the one pushed by Clinton courtiers and ratified in media coverage of his post-presidency, our 42nd president was only guilty of being a horndog, his affairs were nobody’s business but his family’s, and oral sex with Monica Lewinsky was a small thing that should never have put his presidency in peril.

That narrative could not survive the current wave of outrage over male sexual misconduct.

So now a new one may be forming for the age of Harvey Weinstein and Donald Trump. In this story, Kenneth Starr and the Republicans are still dismissed as partisan witch hunters. But liberals might be willing to concede that the Lewinsky affair was a pretty big deal morally, a clear abuse of sexual power, for which Clinton probably should have been pressured to resign.

This new narrative lines up with what’s often been my own assessment of the Clinton scandals. I have never been a Clinton hater; indeed, I’ve always been a little mystified by the scale of Republican dislike for the most centrist of recent Democratic leaders. So I’ve generally held what I’ve considered a sensible middle-ground position on his sins — that he should have stepped down when the Lewinsky affair came to light, but that the Republican effort to impeach him was a hopeless attempt to legislate against dishonor.

But a moment of reassessment is a good time to reassess things for yourself, so I spent this week reading about the lost world of the 1990s. I skimmed the Starr Report. I leafed through books by George Stephanopoulos and Joe Klein and Michael Isikoff. I dug into Troopergate and Whitewater and other first-term scandals. I reacquainted myself with Gennifer Flowers and Webb Hubbell, James Riady and Marc Rich.

[Terry Mross]

Fred Thompson sat with his head in his hands while the congressmen talked to. The senators.

[Terry Mross]

Fred Thompson sat with his head in his hands while the congressmen talked to. The senators.

[ForYourChildren]

You’d better put some ice on that.

[neverevergiveup]

As long as the left is now admitting that Clinton deserved to be impeached, and should have stepped down, I’m sure they’d have no problem removing from office all of Clinton’s judicial appointees appointed after the Lewinsky story broke.

[uncbob]

Yep
Read the book SELLOUT for what really happened with the impeachment

[RooRoobird20]

The Bent One not only committed perjury, he committed subornation of perjury. He also was guilty of obstruction of justice. Those were the “high crimes” for which he was impeached.

The Rat @ssholes today want to reinvent history and pretend that the SinkEmporer merely had a “consensual” relationship with a 24 year old intern, and there was nothing more to it than that.

Liars, filthy disgusting Rat LIARS.

[madison10]

Yes. Set-up.

[Campion]

It occurred to me today that Clinton beating impeachment may have been providential. If he had lost, Gore would have run for President as the incumbent in 2000. He would almost certainly have won -- he barely lost as it was.

That would mean Al Gore would have been President on 9/11, and for at least three years thereafter. Let that sink in a bit.

[Inyo-Mono]

-an editorial in 1960 reproaching Japan, saying they had no right to attack Pearl Harbor and that the US was justified in declaring war on the Empire.

-a scholarly article in 1931 stating that an iceberg has struck the Titanic, that the passengers will likely freeze to death in the water and that all nearby vessels should travel at flank speed toward the last know location of the mighty ocean liner.

-a DC constable in 1884 warning that local actor John Wilkes Booth doesn't seem right, and someone should tail him.

Uh should that be 1941 for Japan, 1912 for the Titanic and 1865 for Booth?

[Inyo-Mono]

Never mind, now I get it.

[Revel]

The NYT”S would play the same game as they did with Clinton, right now here today if it was a democrat president on the line. Only a fool would not see that.

[Anima Mundi]

If they are sincere they will call for removal of his name from public places, monuments and other things that could trigger abuse victims...or is that only for reprobates like Thomas Jefferson?

[BwanaNdege]

“After doing all this reading, I’m not sure my reasonable middle ground is actually reasonable. It may be that the conservatives of the 1990s were simply right about Clinton, that once he failed to resign he really deserved to be impeached.”

[ops33]

Exactly. He wasn't impeached for having an affair with Monica, he was impeached for perjury and suborning perjury.