Tuesday, November 21, 2017



What if Ken Starr Was Right?

No Russ.  It's "What if I Was Wrong?")
So now a new [narrative]  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.

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.

Yes, the Republicans were too partisan, the Starr Report was too prurient and Clinton’s haters generated various absurd conspiracy theories.

But the Clinton operation was also extraordinarily sordid, in ways that should be thrown into particular relief by the absence of similar scandals in the Obama administration, which had perfervid enemies and circling investigators as well.

The sexual misconduct was the heart of things, [No it wasn't.  'At the heart of things' were the drugs, murders, treason, and utter corruption of the Clinton crime family] but everything connected to Clinton’s priapism was bad: the use of the perks of office to procure women, willing and unwilling; the frequent use of that same power to buy silence and bully victims; and yes, the brazen public lies and perjury.

Something like Troopergate, for instance, in which Arkansas state troopers claimed to have served as Clinton’s panderers and been offered jobs to buy their silence, is often recalled as just a right-wing hit job. But if you read The Los Angeles Times’s reporting on the allegations (which included phone records confirming the troopers’ account of a mistress Clinton was seeing during his presidential transition) and Stephanopoulos’s portrayal of Clinton’s behavior in the White House when the story broke, the story seems like it was probably mostly true.

I have less confidence about what was real in the miasma of Whitewater. But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.

The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?

There is a common liberal argument that our present polarization is the result of constant partisan escalations on the right — the rise of Newt Gingrich, the steady Hannitization of right-wing media.

Some of this is true. But returning to the impeachment imbroglio made me think that in that case the most important escalators were the Democrats. They had an opportunity, with Al Gore waiting in the wings, to show a predator the door and establish some moral common ground for a polarizing country.

And what they did instead — turning their party into an accessory to Clinton’s appetites, shamelessly abandoning feminist principle, smearing victims and blithely ignoring his most credible accuser, all because Republicans funded the investigations and they’re prudes and it’s all just Sexual McCarthyism— feels in the cold clarity of hindsight like a great act of partisan deformation [BLAH BLAH BLAH]

After 25 years Russ (writing for the NYT) concludes: Bill Clinton may have been a sexual predator.  Here's the real Clinton epitaph.  Bill Clinton was John the Baptist to a satanic Obama savior.


drew458 said...

What a hoser. Clintons were total scuzzballs then, and are today. 90% of this article is Upper East Side Leftist skew. 20 years later and NOW you can see things? But at the time it was "it's just sex" and "everybody lies about sex". And the people who were outraged by Obama were "perfervid" about all his denied-and-buried-by-the-media scandals. I guess in 2040 the Left will have their Obama epiphany and it'll be "gosh, he really did tell a lot of fibs and played mighty loose with the rules". But always blame the Repubs no matter what.

I can't take it any more. Let's just have the civil war, and drag these willfully blind duplicitous commie bastards to the wall and shoot them. By the thousands.

0007 said...

Russ should go back to his day of fluffer for obumhole. That's about all he's good for.
Nobody with half a brain should be buying this mea culpa crap from these assholes.

Anonymous said...

Party at Drew's house.

Sir H the Comet

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.