This argument, here from Salon.com drives me batty:

It's ironic that this is the very same populace that a few years ago was glued to its TV sets as Congress impeached then-President Bill Clinton for fibbing about his sexual dalliances with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

The President was not impeached for having an affair. He was not impeached for lying about it. He was impeached for lying about his affair under oath, in a civil deposition:

Q. Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?
A. No.
Q. If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie?
A. It's certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth.
Q. I think I used the term "sexual affair." And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court.
MR. BENNETT: I object because I don't know that he can remember.
JUDGE WRIGHT: Well, it's real short. He can – I will permit the question and you may show the witness definition number one.
A. I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her.

He was also impeached for lying to a federal grand jury, for lying in answers submitted, under oath, to Congress, and for encouraging others to lie under oath. Lying in those contexts, and encouraging others to lie in those contexts, is illegal.

Now, that doesn't end the debate about whether these are impeachable offenses, or whether Clinton should have been impeached, but it is a bit more than "fibbing about his sexual dalliances."



- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 10:05 AM