Mount Sutro: An Electronic Periodical

103102022
1743Hours EDT

On This Day: Clinton Denies Affair

by Archived Article (2001–2014) Help
It was 26 January 1998 when then US President William J. Clinton made his now-famous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" address to the nation, coming under fire from appointed special investigator Kenneth Starr who uncovered the affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

While many people felt that this initial denial, which was then somewhat retracted by the President, constituted perjury and obstruction of justice, I always disagreed with that assessment. When it comes to the job of being President of the United States of America, one's personal affairs are really non-relevant. Had it not been for publicly anti-Clinton Starr, the affair would likely had never surfaced to the point it did, debunking many Republicans' statements that his actions were a disgrace and a bad image to be sending to the children of America. Clinton was not advertising it, it was a private act brought out into the public eye by Starr. The only indictment for impeachment that should have come down upon Clinton was a personal one issued by wife Hillary, who showed significant restraint and support during this entire ordeal. Who would not have loved to have been a fly on the wall at their dinner table?

Addressing specifically the matter of lying under oath, I feel that Clinton should have never been asked those questions to begin with. Under law, I am protected from having to answer questions like those posed to him from my employer. It could be considered sexual harassment. Why is the President exempt from a policy against making private business public?

If anyone here is a disgrace it is Starr for looking for any excuse to get Clinton removed from office. I had no problems with the investigations into the other matters (real estate debauchery, payment for Presidential pardons and more), but this affair was truly non-relevant. I would expect any public official, Republican or Democrat, to come under scrutiny for alleged misuse of power or other illegal activities. Should President George W. Bush be removed from office because of his DUI? Of course not. Every major player, political or otherwise, was so quick to point out Clinton's faults, whilst having their very own skeletons that would be later uncovered (see Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Schlessinger, Dick Armey, Randy Cunningham, Ed Rollins and countless others).

Just because I agree with a majority of the policy brought forth by the Clinton administration does not mean I automatically will come to his defence. In this case, I really feel strongly against the very accusations coming to fruition. A man was impeached because he got a blow job from a willing, non-coerced and non-paid adult. And we the people spent millions of dollars to investigate it.

Two Comment Bubbles eleven Comments

  • bastard

    Now, if I could only give a blow job to a willing, non-coerced adult... the world would indeed be a better place!

    OK... my personal horniness aside, I would agree with most of what you said about Clinton. I do not nec' agree with all of his politics, but the man had 10 times the Domestic policy than the current waste of Human genetic material that occupies that office, and his (Clinton's) Foreign policy, while not 'strong' really worked in several good directions.

    Was he a personal sleeze? Yeah... probably, but any worse than just about any other Country's leader... much less many of our own former Presidents? NO. Besides... anybody who can play the sax has something going for him in my eyes (I've played since I was 10 y.o.).

  • Tyler_Durden

    oh sweet mother of christ.....i am beyond being upset about the blinders people put up in their pursuit to love clinton. so this comes from a place of just amusement with you people. however, do you not realize the problem with the Lewinski fiasco was the fact he lied under oath? he swore to god that he would tell the truth and he lied. when you do this in court as a normal fallable citizen you go to jail. when you are supposed to be the finest example of an american citizen and you lie under oath you undermine the entire basis for our justice system. As much as you want it to be about sex it wasn't...sorry to all those with low iq's or an inability to form their own opinions.
    i know this falls on deaf ears, as much logic does in the democratic world. i predict responses to my question to go the cliche way of out and out non-response, non fact based reassurtion of past presidents extra marital affairs (having nothing to do with the issue at hand), or the usual CNN jew leftist media dribble of we shouldn't concern ourselves with his sexuality in the 1st place there by absolving him of any reason to have to lie. but i felt it my responsibility of someone who wasn't spoon feed their info on this issue from the boob tube, leftist publications, or moron liberal parents to say something. toodles

  • Matticus

    So where DID you get your information from, Ricky? I'm sure it must have been an unbiased source. *eyeroll*

    Matticus

  • Anonymous

    So what if he had admitted to it originally? Are you suggesting that you would then have no problem having let him continue on as President without futher adieu?

  • bastard

    I didn't, don't and never will 'love' Clinton. I do respect his political performance while he was President... whether I fully agree with his politics or not. His personal behaviour was his personal behaviour... do I think he should have been asked about his sex life? No. That's my opinion, I formed it all by myself with no help from the media.

  • FSUpaintball

    I really didn't see what the big deal during the time when the media was blowing up. I really didn't give a shit whether or not BC was getting a BJ from some ugly intern. If he runs the country well, why bother probing his private sex life? That's none of our business.

  • Tyler_Durden

    "I really didn't see what the big deal during the time when the media was blowing up. I really didn't give a shit whether or not BC was getting a BJ from some ugly intern. If he runs the country well, why bother probing his private sex life? That's none of our business."

    lol the perfect democratic...he'll never acknowledge the actual issue and he will be confused as to why others disagree with him. if he gives it any thought at all.

    "So what if he had admitted to it originally? Are you suggesting that you would then have no problem having let him continue on as President without futher adieu?"

    yeah that's the point. if he didn't swear on god and country to tell the truth (much like how he swore to uphold the amercian way of life when he was being sworn INTO OFFICE) then there would be no problem. the country would have been so shocked to learn big willy fucks around, but that's it.

    "So where DID you get your information from, Ricky? I'm sure it must have been an unbiased source. "

    unbiased news gathering organizations...if you look they are a plenty.

    but thank god for FSUpaintball that was soooo perfect. and remember clinton lovers that's who agrees with you. ;-)

  • bastard

    'scuse me while I go laugh my ass off

  • Thorin

    From Tyler_durden: unbiased news gathering organizations...if you look they are a plenty

    Names please.

    And I would rather have president that lies, even under oath, about his sex life than a president that with holds critical information about why he's going to send Americans to die in foreign countries.

    The truth is Clinton did violate the rules of the investigation and paid for it dearly. The question is do "I dislike" Clinton because it, No, and do "I feel" any worse about his policies because of it, No. If you feel otherwise that's your business.

    But I would invite to consider whether it is better to have leader with a worthwhile agenda and a bad attitude or one with a worthless agenda and a likeable demeanor.

    From David: Addressing specifically the matter of lying under oath, I feel that Clinton should have never been asked those questions to begin with. Under law, I am protected from having to answer questions like those posed to him from my employer

    Remember he was questioned in a congressional investigation where there are no protections from self-incrimination. It's not exactly a court of law.

  • FSUpaintball

    It shouldn't have been a public issue to begin with. I don't care whether a president is Republican or Democrat, but I do care about the job he's doing. And that affair that should have been settled quietly and privately was dragged out for months, delaying actually solving some of this country's real problems, and I don't blame Clinton for most of it.

    And the reason I don't give your opinion any thought at all is because every day you try to prove to me that you're a slanderous idiotic moron. You feel that the best way of proving your point is being overaggressive, insulting people, and providing undocumented proof from the most radical viewpoint possible. Maybe I should sink to your level and talk to you the way you like to talk to everyone else: fuck off, Rick.

  • Tyler_Durden

    lmao that was fun but Matt's getting his panties in a wad so I will respectively bow out of the conversation

Closed Comment Bubble Comments Closed

  • Article comments are disabled after ninety days. Alternatively, you can send feedback via email.