What would have happend if Monica Lewinski never made it public, or, Americans acted intelligently and didn't care about the presidents personal life?
No lewinski scandal
- Thread starter Mister Abbadon
- Start date
Clinton and Nixon had the same problem: it wasn't the act itself but rather the coverup that got them into trouble. If Clinton had admitted his culpability instead of "I did not have sex with that woman" with proper contrition (instead of giving us Ken Starr's witchhunt/ graphic descriptions of 'it'), it would've blown over rather quickly. Ironically this means that the GOP does better in the '98 midterms and Newt remains as Speaker. IOTL the public was tired of a witchhunt that a) was not an impeachable offence b) they did not have anywhere approaching the numbers for. Of course Gingrich had been in trouble within the House caucus since '97 but he would be able to firmly suppress them without a further weakening of his leadership.
Nothing good on telly for a couple of years.
Yeah. Also, Rush would have nothing to throw a kiloton temper tantrum over. What would the right wing radio jockeys talk about instead?
usertron2020
Donor
Gennifer Flowers to Mark Rich
RogueBeaver
I KNOW you know this, so don't bother denying it: How much of the $70,000,000 was spent by the time the dress was found? STARR'S investigations were running out of steam, but the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy was going strong as ever. It seems an eternity ago now, but the Clinton Wars produced "scandelettes" that went on for 9 years. The whole point of them wasn't Clinton's removal (Only the most gaga believed 13 Democratic Senators would cross the aisle), it was the questions. "I think there are some very serious questions about this." Asked over and over and over again. It was all about weakening Clinton (and Gore and Hillary) for each election cycle. Just keep saying "Clinton scandal" as many times as possible. I don't know where things might have gone if Fox News was an established network in 1992.
Speaking of which, RogueBeaver. Do you think the Fox News Network (if it existed in 1992 with it's current base) could change any of the election cycles in the 1990's? I would REALLY love to know your opinion on this.
RogueBeaver
I KNOW you know this, so don't bother denying it: How much of the $70,000,000 was spent by the time the dress was found? STARR'S investigations were running out of steam, but the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy was going strong as ever. It seems an eternity ago now, but the Clinton Wars produced "scandelettes" that went on for 9 years. The whole point of them wasn't Clinton's removal (Only the most gaga believed 13 Democratic Senators would cross the aisle), it was the questions. "I think there are some very serious questions about this." Asked over and over and over again. It was all about weakening Clinton (and Gore and Hillary) for each election cycle. Just keep saying "Clinton scandal" as many times as possible. I don't know where things might have gone if Fox News was an established network in 1992.
Speaking of which, RogueBeaver. Do you think the Fox News Network (if it existed in 1992 with it's current base) could change any of the election cycles in the 1990's?
I would REALLY love to know your opinion on this.I don't know the exact funds: Clinton doesn't mention it in his memoirs,my main (admittedly biased) source for his presidency. Many of those issues, like Obama's with the job offers, are longstanding SOPs with mishandled PR that turned them into 'scandalettes'. The only Clinton "scandal" that stands up to serious scrutiny (I'm cynical about presidential adultery) is the Chinese donations scandal of '96.
Fox: I doubt it. They would rally behind Bush because Clinton would be a "McGovernite beatnik", "philandering, pot-smoking, draft-dodger", who is "anti-family" (Hillary's law school article re child legal rights). In '94 Newt is leading the Revolution, '96 is a hopeless cause though the GOP strengthened their Congressional control. The only place I can see them making a difference is '98, which determines the fate of Newt's Speakership of the House.
Fox: I doubt it. They would rally behind Bush because Clinton would be a "McGovernite beatnik", "philandering, pot-smoking, draft-dodger", who is "anti-family" (Hillary's law school article re child legal rights). In '94 Newt is leading the Revolution, '96 is a hopeless cause though the GOP strengthened their Congressional control. The only place I can see them making a difference is '98, which determines the fate of Newt's Speakership of the House.
As I have said before in other contexts, the two major factors that shattered the Kevlar cocoon around the White House's privacy are the mass media era and Watergate. Watergate changed the media-politician dynamic forever from one of friend (quite literally), or at best friendly rival, to investigative enemy determined to root out all hint of scandal. To quote Nixon in another context: "too many journalists want the Pulitzer Prize."
Sam Clemmons
Banned
Actually, most Americans weren't all that upset by Bill Clinton having sex with an intern. It was most inside-the-beltway types in the media and both political parties that were pissed.
That said, what caused the impeachment wasn't the fact that he'd actually had sex with Lewinsky, or even that he lied about it, but that he lied about it under oath, specifically while being deposed regarding the Paula Jones case.
That's what Ken Starr used to go after him. The fact that he denied under oath having sex with Lewinsky despite the fact that he had.
That's why Clinton was eventually disbarred.
Basically, once Clinton lied under oath, and once Starr found out about it, there was no way that Starr wasn't going to pursue it and try and use it as a way to get Clinton charged with perjury and or obstruction of justice.
Sam Clemmons
Banned
I should add that I'm no lawyer, but I think that it's very debateable whether or not Clinton was guilty of perjury.
My understanding is that the legal definition of perjury is not simply lying under oath, but lying under oath about a question that's relevant or material(admittedly what is and isn't relevant or material can be quite broad).
Clinton lied during a Grand Jury questioning over whether or not he's sexually harassed Paula Jones. He was asked whether he'd had sexual relations with any underlings and also IIRC, Monica Lewinsky by name.
Personally, I'm not sure how it was relevant to a sexual harassment case regarding a different woman whether or not he'd kep his fly zipped around Lewinsky unless he was accused of harrassing her, exposing himself to her, or threatening her if she didn't have sex with him(none of which he was).
My understanding is that the legal definition of perjury is not simply lying under oath, but lying under oath about a question that's relevant or material(admittedly what is and isn't relevant or material can be quite broad).
Clinton lied during a Grand Jury questioning over whether or not he's sexually harassed Paula Jones. He was asked whether he'd had sexual relations with any underlings and also IIRC, Monica Lewinsky by name.
Personally, I'm not sure how it was relevant to a sexual harassment case regarding a different woman whether or not he'd kep his fly zipped around Lewinsky unless he was accused of harrassing her, exposing himself to her, or threatening her if she didn't have sex with him(none of which he was).
I forgot about that part o) but Sam's point fits in with what I said earlier, or how Nixon put it: "it's not the act, but the cover-up that kills you". It ended Nixon's presidency de jure and Clinton's de facto by speeding up his lame-duck status.
o) but Sam's point fits in with what I said earlier, or how Nixon put it: "it's not the act, but the cover-up that kills you". It ended Nixon's presidency de jure and Clinton's de facto by speeding up his lame-duck status.
pnyckqx
Banned
More media scrutiny would have been paid to the Whitewater scandal and the 'missing' FBI files.
That would have been very bad for the Clinton Administration.
The focus on the sex scandal completely over shadows the stuff that Clinton did that pnyckqx points out. Particularly over the FBI files there would have been a big thing as many of them are suppose to be dirt on various powerful people that they (the Clinton's) have used over the years.
Personally, I don't think the Clinton's were expecting Obama to come out of no where and win in '08 and thus weren't prepared for him
Personally, I don't think the Clinton's were expecting Obama to come out of no where and win in '08 and thus weren't prepared for him