« Well, actually, Andrew... | Main | American History 101 »

It's time for him to Let It Go

Andrew Sullivan's meta-keywords for his site (the words he wants search engines to look for so to direct people to his site, or, in other words the words he thinks best describe what his site is about) are "andrew sullivan, book club, war, terrorism, culture, politics, faith, homosexuality, people, abortion, presidential, scandal, campaign, american, constitutional, clinton, offenses, attitude, dubya, george bush," so this should come as no surprize.

In his most recent missive, he writes that "Bill Clinton's public character, his lying, untrustworthiness and abuse of his office were important things to notice and criticize. But some of the rhetoric went further than that, and Bennett clearly egged it on. I'm thinking not about genuine public issues of abuse of power, sexual harassment and perjury, but private adultery and womanizing, which were linked in Clinton's case but not inseparable."

But, of course, President Clinton did not sexually harass anyone (does any rational person really believe that he did?). He didn't abuse his power (what's the only evidence that he abused his power? That he lied about the affair to members of his cabinet? Please!) . And, a great argument could be made (and I'd make it), that he didn't perjure himself (lying is not perjury). All he did was what Sullivan calls "private adultery" and lie about it.

Sullivan should let it go. However, when your site is still about Clinton, offenses, and scandals, I suppose it's difficult.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (4)


This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

But, of course, President Clinton did not sexually harass anyone (does any rational person really believe that he did?

Paula Corbin Jones, plaintiff
William Jefferson Clinton
Danny Ferguson, defendants
Whereas it is the desire of all the parties to end the above-captioned litigation for all purposes, it is HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Plaintiff, Paula Corbin Jones, will receive and accept a total payment of $850,000 (Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars) in full satisfaction of all claims for damages, including but not limited to any physical and personal injury, civil rights violations, emotional distress, and any fees and expenses incurred in connection with this litigation or the facts and circumstances underlying it;
2. William Jefferson Clinton will cause said sum to be paid to the Plaintiff within 60 (Sixty) days of execution of this agreement

And, a great argument could be made (and I'd make it), that he didn't perjure himself.

A federal judge in Arkansas ordered Clinton — the first president ever to have been found in contempt of court — to pay more than $90,000 for giving false testimony under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright imposed the penalty on President Clinton for giving what she called false testimony under oath. (Danny Johnston/AP Photo)
It’s another black mark on Clinton’s legacy and comes on top of the $850,000 he has agreed to pay Jones to convince her to drop the case.
"The court takes no pleasure in imposing contempt sanctions against this nation’s president and, no doubt like many others, grows weary of this matter," U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright wrote in her ruling today.
Wright found Clinton in contempt back in April, when she ruled that he lied under oath in the Jones case about his affair with Lewinsky, a former White House intern.

(lying is not perjury).

I guess we just got our second entry in the Partha Mazumdar dictionary. (See first entry under gamble)

Dave S:

That he committed perjury is not really disputed by anyone but you, Partha. You're right, none of us really knows whether Bill Clinton sexually harrassed anyone. Perhaps we'd have a better idea if we could trust the things that Clinton said during his testimony, or anything that people testifying in his defense said. His relationship with Lewinsky became related to the sexual harrassment allegations when he chose to lie about his relationship during the case.

And I say that as a Democrat who campaigned for Clinton in 1996 and voted for Gore in 2000.

Partha Mazumdar:

He paid the settlement in the Jones case to get rid of a nuisance suit. It happens all the time.

Do YOU really think he harassed her, Richard?


I guess you idea of a nuisance suit differs from mine. A person may be willing to settle for $5,000 or $10,000 rather than go through the ordeal of a trial, but $850,000 is real money to me. Moreover, given the nature of the charge, you would think that a person would want to protect his reputation and not settle such a suit. On the other hand, with regards to Bill Clinton there is no reputation to protect.

I am at a loss to understand your defense of Clinton at this late date with regards to his sexual escapades. Why are you rehashing this again? I though it was a settled matter. The Left's defense of Clinton was not that he didn't do it, but that it was a private matter, and therefore it was nobody's business except for his family.

To answer your question, I think Bill Clinton sexually harassed many women. As the law is currently interpreted, any sexual relations that occurs in the workplace where one person has power over the other person is considered sexual harassment.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on May 5, 2003 12:39 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Well, actually, Andrew....

The next post in this blog is American History 101.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.31