The left should stop trying to rewrite the history of Bill Clinton’s impeachment
NY Post, Dec 27, 2019

The “striking” difference between the Bill Clinton and Donald Trump impeachments, argue MSNBC hosts and others in the media, was not only the willingness of Clinton to “show contrition,” but the willingness of his supporters to acknowledge that the president had done something wrong.

Let’s not let liberals rewrite history.

In the real world, Clinton, with help from the entire Democratic Party, kept earnestly lying to anyone who would listen until physical evidence compelled him to admit what he had done. His subsequent “contrition” was a matter of political survival. The notion that Trump engaged in “bribery” is debatable. The notion that Clinton perjured himself is not.

If it hadn’t been for the Drudge Report bypassing the institutional media, in fact, Newsweek — still an influential magazine in 1998 — would likely have sat on the Monica Lewinsky story until after the Clinton presidency ended.

[...]

It wasn’t until Tripp had handed Lewinsky’s blue dress to investigator Ken Starr, who then concluded that the president had lied during sworn testimony, that Clinton finally admitted to the affair.

What else was he going to do? Argue that it was acceptable to lie under oath and carry on sexual relationships with 23-year-old interns in the White House?

More significantly, what liberals ignore is that Clinton’s Starr-induced penitence was largely beside the point. Clinton wasn’t impeached for acting like a dog; he was impeached for perjuring himself and obstructing justice — on 11 very specific criminal actions — in a sexual harassment case.


More: https://nypost.com/2019/12/27/the-left-s...ns-impeachment/