12 ms·

Bill Clinton was not impeached for a blow job. Bill Clinton was impeached for committing perjury in a sexual harassment lawsuit brought against him by a former

Bill Clinton was not impeached for a blow job. Bill Clinton was impeached for committing perjury in a sexual harassment lawsuit brought against him by a former employee, and trying to convince other witnesses to commit perjury as well, obstructing justice. In addition to the House of Representatives impeaching him, he was found in contempt of court by the judge presiding over the lawsuit and had his license to practice law suspended for violating ethics rules.

scarmig 10y ago
That's all well and good, but the scandal part of it that captured the public's interest was certainly because of the blowjob/where'd the cigar go aspect of it. And I wasn't even referencing Clinton in particular--I'd put things like Anthony Weiner's sexts and Larry Craig's foot tapping in the same category. In the sense, they're on the trivial side of things and mostly get the public attention because of prurience, not salience for good governance.
- tptacek 10y ago
  The public was so interested in the "blowjob/cigar" aspect of the story that the Republican party suffered a historic defeat in the midterms that were seen as a rebuke to the GOP's attempt to make hay out of the story, and ended Newt Gingrich's career.
  - zevyoura 10y ago
    > ended Newt Gingrich's career Apparently not.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      He resigned in disgrace.
      - TallGuyShort 10y ago
        That ended his job, not his career. He's been relatively politically active since then, being one of the top contenders for the presidential nomination from the exact same party despite other scandals of a sexual and moral nature. Definitely not a career-ender, apparently.
        tptacek 10y ago
        At no point has Gingrich ever been a contender in any Presidential race. Getting on TV doesn't make you a contender. Even Herman Cain managed to do that.
        scott_s 10y ago
        There is a non-zero chance Gingrich gets a substantial appointment.
        mason240 10y ago
        There is a non-zero chance you get a substantial appointment.
        TallGuyShort 10y ago
        Okay, then, the almost $500k/yr he was making a year in speeches and his active involvement and relative success in politically oriented consultancies. Take your pick. He's still being pretty damn successful in political spaces. edit: ha - misspoke, it was actually almost $5M / year
      - scarmig 10y ago
        Hate to break it to you, but Gingrich is near the top of Trump's short list for Secretary of State: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/gingrich-giuliani-priebus-eyed-top-jobs-trump-white-house-sources-n678881 http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/gingrich-...
        10y ago
- woofyman 10y ago
  The Larry Craig story had legs because he's a member of an anti-gay political party.
  - JackFr 10y ago
    > The Larry Craig story had legs ...or at least feet.
  - scarmig 10y ago
    My point is that, his hypocrisy notwithstanding, it has maybe one millionth the importance of the fact that a foreign strategic competitor has significantly influenced American democratic processes in order to extract more favorable policies from the USA.
hackuser 10y ago
Republicans use state powers, law enforcement and the judiciary, to criminalize and oppress their opposition and to promote their own interests. I don't see Democrats doing the equivalent of any of the following. I'm not saying that to be partisan, but to point out a very serious situation that has become normalized - I would say the same if the Democrats were doing it. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say it is semi-authoritarian. * Bill Clinton was impeached. As you point out, he did commit perjury. However, the legal standard for impeachment is high crimes and misdemeanors; it was one of only two impeachments in 240 years (EDIT: Plus a third, Nixon, who IIRC would have been impeached if he hadn't resigned). Those are very high standards; obviously if Bill Clinton's wrongdoing was the standard far more would have been impeached. In fact, perjury is very rarely prosecuted for anyone. For example, GW Bush ran an illegal surveillance program - a far more serious crime - and there were no consequences. * The 2000 Presidential election was decided by Republicans on the Supreme Court. Arguably it may also be a legally legitimate decision, but it was apparently a political one, as the vote was party-line. * Democratic voters are accused of criminal fraud, with no evidence, and the GOP uses the government to suppress their voting. * Organizations that register Democrats to vote are criminalized and shut down. Acorn is one prominent example of many. * Organizations that promote Democrat-favored causes are criminalized. Planned Parenthood is one. * The GOP used state powers to investigate Hillary Clinton endlessly, on Benghazi and her email server (note that nothing was found for either). Trump is still leaving open the possibility of continuing to investigate her. It cost her the election. Compare that to Trump, for whom there are no known investigations despite brazen sexual harassment, sexual harassment of minors, tax fraud, and much more. * The FBI openly took actions, contrary to its rules and traditions, that undermined Clinton and probably cost her the election. The list goes on and I think the pattern is clear.
- euyyn 10y ago
  Didn't the Democrats use the IRS to target Republican politicians?
  - hackuser 10y ago
    A good point and I'd forgotten about that allegation; thanks. My thoughts: My memory is that the IRS was legitimately investigating illegal campaign finance, which happened to be among some Republican groups. GOP members of Congress used their power to shut down a legitimate law-enforcement investigation. (Note that the GOP has a history of this: They also have effectively disabled the Federal Election Commission by appointing members who veto almost every enforcement action against Republicans.) If my memory is accurate, it's further abuse of state power for the party's interests. As a result, the U.S. has no campaign finance enforcement AFAIK. The IRS won't get near it, fearing Congressional Republicans, and the FEC has been hobbled. Finally, even if my memory is false, it doesn't match up to the GOP pattern of behavior.
jmde 10y ago
... but later the whole line of inquiry and interview of him was ruled in court to be immaterial to the case. So there's some disagreement with the perspective you're outlining.

scarmig 10y ago

That's all well and good, but the scandal part of it that captured the public's interest was certainly because of the blowjob/where'd the cigar go aspect of it. And I wasn't even referencing Clinton in particular--I'd put things like Anthony Weiner's sexts and Larry Craig's foot tapping in the same category. In the sense, they're on the trivial side of things and mostly get the public attention because of prurience, not salience for good governance.

tptacek 10y ago
The public was so interested in the "blowjob/cigar" aspect of the story that the Republican party suffered a historic defeat in the midterms that were seen as a rebuke to the GOP's attempt to make hay out of the story, and ended Newt Gingrich's career.
- zevyoura 10y ago
  > ended Newt Gingrich's career Apparently not.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    He resigned in disgrace.
    - TallGuyShort 10y ago
      That ended his job, not his career. He's been relatively politically active since then, being one of the top contenders for the presidential nomination from the exact same party despite other scandals of a sexual and moral nature. Definitely not a career-ender, apparently.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        At no point has Gingrich ever been a contender in any Presidential race. Getting on TV doesn't make you a contender. Even Herman Cain managed to do that.
        scott_s 10y ago
        There is a non-zero chance Gingrich gets a substantial appointment.
        mason240 10y ago
        There is a non-zero chance you get a substantial appointment.
        TallGuyShort 10y ago
        Okay, then, the almost $500k/yr he was making a year in speeches and his active involvement and relative success in politically oriented consultancies. Take your pick. He's still being pretty damn successful in political spaces. edit: ha - misspoke, it was actually almost $5M / year
    - scarmig 10y ago
      Hate to break it to you, but Gingrich is near the top of Trump's short list for Secretary of State: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/gingrich-giuliani-priebus-eyed-top-jobs-trump-white-house-sources-n678881 http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/gingrich-...
      - 10y ago
woofyman 10y ago
The Larry Craig story had legs because he's a member of an anti-gay political party.
- JackFr 10y ago
  > The Larry Craig story had legs ...or at least feet.
- scarmig 10y ago
  My point is that, his hypocrisy notwithstanding, it has maybe one millionth the importance of the fact that a foreign strategic competitor has significantly influenced American democratic processes in order to extract more favorable policies from the USA.

hackuser 10y ago

Republicans use state powers, law enforcement and the judiciary, to criminalize and oppress their opposition and to promote their own interests. I don't see Democrats doing the equivalent of any of the following. I'm not saying that to be partisan, but to point out a very serious situation that has become normalized - I would say the same if the Democrats were doing it. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say it is semi-authoritarian. * Bill Clinton was impeached. As you point out, he did commit perjury. However, the legal standard for impeachment is high crimes and misdemeanors; it was one of only two impeachments in 240 years (EDIT: Plus a third, Nixon, who IIRC would have been impeached if he hadn't resigned). Those are very high standards; obviously if Bill Clinton's wrongdoing was the standard far more would have been impeached. In fact, perjury is very rarely prosecuted for anyone. For example, GW Bush ran an illegal surveillance program - a far more serious crime - and there were no consequences. * The 2000 Presidential election was decided by Republicans on the Supreme Court. Arguably it may also be a legally legitimate decision, but it was apparently a political one, as the vote was party-line. * Democratic voters are accused of criminal fraud, with no evidence, and the GOP uses the government to suppress their voting. * Organizations that register Democrats to vote are criminalized and shut down. Acorn is one prominent example of many. * Organizations that promote Democrat-favored causes are criminalized. Planned Parenthood is one. * The GOP used state powers to investigate Hillary Clinton endlessly, on Benghazi and her email server (note that nothing was found for either). Trump is still leaving open the possibility of continuing to investigate her. It cost her the election. Compare that to Trump, for whom there are no known investigations despite brazen sexual harassment, sexual harassment of minors, tax fraud, and much more. * The FBI openly took actions, contrary to its rules and traditions, that undermined Clinton and probably cost her the election. The list goes on and I think the pattern is clear.

euyyn 10y ago
Didn't the Democrats use the IRS to target Republican politicians?
- hackuser 10y ago
  A good point and I'd forgotten about that allegation; thanks. My thoughts: My memory is that the IRS was legitimately investigating illegal campaign finance, which happened to be among some Republican groups. GOP members of Congress used their power to shut down a legitimate law-enforcement investigation. (Note that the GOP has a history of this: They also have effectively disabled the Federal Election Commission by appointing members who veto almost every enforcement action against Republicans.) If my memory is accurate, it's further abuse of state power for the party's interests. As a result, the U.S. has no campaign finance enforcement AFAIK. The IRS won't get near it, fearing Congressional Republicans, and the FEC has been hobbled. Finally, even if my memory is false, it doesn't match up to the GOP pattern of behavior.

jmde 10y ago

... but later the whole line of inquiry and interview of him was ruled in court to be immaterial to the case. So there's some disagreement with the perspective you're outlining.