Why Clinton got a pass and Weiner hasn’t
Michael Medved points out the inconsistency of those on the left who were vociferous in their defense of Clinton and yet are calling for the resignation of Weiner, who has arguably committed a less serious offense.
I suppose that Medved is technically correct. He ends his piece by saying that the discrepancy in reactions “makes no sense on any logical level.” Nevertheless, it’s completely understandable on an emotional level. As Medved points out, it shouldn’t matter that people liked Clinton and don’t like Weiner. But it does matter; we humans are far more inclined to excuse the transgressions of those we like.
But it even makes some sense on a logical level, as well. Clinton was president and Weiner a mere member of the House. That argument could go either way, of course—and Medved argues that the standard of behavior for a president should not be less than for a representative. However, I think the stronger argument is that the bar should be set especially high for the removal of a president (“high crimes and misdeamors”), and Clinton squeaked underneath. Nor was the possibility of his resignation ever all that realistic.
Medved mentions the “ick” factor, and it’s very important. Even though Clinton’s sexual behavior with Lewinsky wasn’t quite conventional (cigars??), having oral-genital sexual contact in the flesh with a person whom one actually knows is something most people can relate to. Weiner’s sending photos of his genitalia to strangers, not so much—especially for those of us over fifteen.
Plus, even though it was well-known that Clinton had a history of philandering, the Lewinsky interlude involved only one person. In contrast, Weiner was dealing with multiple women, and he had never met any of them.
You might argue that the latter point makes his behavior less serious. It was just online stuff, right? I would argue that it makes it more serious for him as an officeholder because the risks became that much higher that at least one of these people would either go public and embarrass him, or use his photos to blackmail him. Both men’s behavior was reckless and showed abominable judgement, but Weiner’s was worse in that regard. At least Clinton knew Monica well enough to feel he could trust her; what was Weiner’s excuse?
[NOTE: And speaking of trust and online escapades, I don’t quite know what to say about the revelation that two—count ’em, two—well-known lesbian bloggers are actually middle-aged men. But I do know that this is pretty funny (you have to read the article to understand):
In the guise of Paula Brooks, Graber corresponded online with Tom MacMaster, thinking he was writing to Amina Arraf. Amina often flirted with Brooks, neither of the men realizing the other was pretending to be a lesbian.]
The impeachment of Clinton, as I recall, hinged on lying to a federal grand jury, as well as his sexual escapades.
So, yes, his misbehavior was much more serious.
Shouting Thomas: yes, of course, but there are three questions. The first is whether, under the specific fact circumstances of Clinton’s deposition, he actually lied. That’s what his weasle-y “it depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is” was about, as well as his asking the court at the time for a definition of sexual intercourse. Technically, he could argue that he wasn’t lying under that particular definition of intercourse, and technically, it’s not a totally ridiculous argument, although I believe most people would reject it.
The second question is whether, even if he lied, did he actually commit perjury. Note the definition of perjury:
I don’t have the links right now and don’t have the time to look it up at the moment, but I recall reading articles at the time of the impeachment that made a very good argument that Clinton’s statements were neither material nor relevant to the proceeding.
That leaves us with the question of whether Clinton had the intent to deceive. I believe that of course he did. But legally, one could also make a case that, by asking for the legal definition of intercourse and then giving a very clever answer that made use of that definition, he felt he wasn’t exactly deceiving the court (I wouldn’t buy that particular argument, but it’s not an absurd one on the face of it).
The third question we are faced with in deciding whether Clinton should have been impeached is whether his crimes reached the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. That’s a separate issue, irrelevant to the Weiner case.
You are certainly correct that Clinton was accused of a crime, and that so far Weiner has not been accused of one. But the point I’m making in the post is that there are other factors in both cases that explain why a lot of people either think Clinton was not guilty of a crime, or think even if he was guilty he should nevertheless have stayed in office despite that crime, and why they don’t feel the same about Weiner’s so-far-non-criminal offenses.
My concern about either situation is how the lying can be manipulated by others (I include the LArry Craig affair in this as well).
It is actually to the nation’s advantage that Clinton’s and Weiner’s sexcapades were revealed. The lyin addresseses character. Both men only took responsibility for their actions when they were forced to by public evidence. I despise Clinton’s lack of integrity, but as neoneocon writes above, one must at least seriously consider Clinton’s obfuscations. In Weiner’s case, he went beyond a “no comment” defense and actually outright lied to the press. Had his actions not been made public, one can only speculate as to how vulnerable he might have been to blackmail especially by foreign powers.
First, there is the issue of the three high school girls whom Weiner was DMing: too young. He had no business communicating with them other than through the public side of Twitter. Even if Weiner was strictly speaking with them about government: he crossed a line which no decent adult man would cross. There is a reason child molesters are detested, even inside prisons. Messing with children; even flirting with children; even leading children along in any type of infatuation with you .. is a bright neon line of cultural misconduct which adult men do not cross. Worse: Weiner exhibited grooming behavior with one 11th grader. Not acceptable, to anyone, except for amoral left liberals and women’s liberation ideologues.
Conversely: Monica Lewinski turned 25 during the summer of 1998. And, at least in sexual matters, Monica Lewinski was a worldly young woman who was living in D.C. on her own. She was not living with her parents and in 11th grade.
Second, re the 21 year old coed:
Weiner either
A) was carrying on a sex DMing relationship with her, or
B) sent an unsolicited wiener photo to her.
Either way: not acceptable. I actually would have less problem with Weiner having had an affair with her if she had been in D.C. and working as an intern. At least her parents would have judged her mature enough to be trusted to live in D.C. and to make her own decisions. Instead, her parents send her to a seemingly safer locale: a college campus, only to have her preyed upon by a U.S. Congressperson while at that location. Again: the contrast with Lewinski is plain to see, except to left liberals and women’s liberation ideologues.
Third, the cover up
Lets begin with Bill Clinton: Clinton, during his cover-up, went to great lengths to avoid telling an identifiable lie.
In Weiner’s cover-up: additional lies poured forth, even during his mea culpa press conference.
Weiner thus crossed a line of principled behavior .. up with which our culture does not put. When you are caught: you get in touch with your better self, you fess up and ask forgiveness. You DO NOT double down on your lies, then triple down and quadruple down and quintuple down and sextuple down (I came all this way just to get to “sextuple”). You do not drag your unwitting friends and allies into your sextupling down on your lies. Weiner depended on our trust that Weiner shared our cultural principle about fessing up when you are caught. Then Weiner betrayed our trust via sextupling down on his lies. Weiner only conducted his mea culpa press conference when Weiner was forced into it: ABC News was about to run an interview w/a Texas girl who had sex DMed with Weiner.
Our culture recognizes that no one is perfect; is sometimes willing to allow some degree of missteps from our politicians, such as infidelity, lying, crookedness. But, our culture expects men to fess up when they are caught. By sextupling down, Weiner crossed a line; betrayed our trust that he shares our cultural principles. Weiner now makes his own rules; does not align himself with common cultural principles. Weiner is Woody Allen marrying his step daughter. Voters did not sign up for that. If Weiner will betray voters in this way: how else might Weiner betray voters? It is like a filthy restroom in a restaurant: what ELSE is filthy in this restaurant?
Imagine of a University President, or the CEO of a large business did the same things, he would be out in a heartbeat! The standards of some people, on both sides of the aisle, are very flexible.
It’s not about how likable they are or matters of principal, it is solely about political cost.
Wiener won’t survive because the cost to the party of keeping him is much to great compared to his political value and it doesn’t cost them much to dump him.
Clinton was president. His value to the party was immense and the cost to the party of dumping him was extremely high. It is probably not to much of an overstatement to say that had the Democrats abandoned Clinton to his fate, the party would have fractured. The 2000 election would have been a rout and there would not have been a contested Senate.
Having said the above: I do not exonerate Bill Clinton as a man, insofar as I fully suspect he raped Juanita Broaddrick, and fully suspect Bill Clinton used the powers of his various offices to sexually harass scores of women. However, in the narrow and specific instance of the Monica Lewinski case: Clinton was aware of the cultural principle which he could not violate (i.e. telling lies after the issue became public).
I want to say this on the record: the Senate ought have convicted Bill Clinton. Clinton used the power of his office to attempt to manipulate the system, and to intimidate potential witnesses, and to attempt to slander a private citizen. Without the blue dress, we would today refer to any insane stalker as a “Lewinski”. The standard of conviction is not “High crimes”. The standard is “High crimes and [high] misdemeanors”. IMO, Clinton’s use of the powers of his office, in order to abuse private citizens, crossed the line into “[high] misdemeanors” territory. He behaved as royalty. Off with his … um … well, off with him, at any rate.
1. Neo, your distinction between Clinton and Weiner moves me to post a comment that more properly belongs in a previous post. In that post stated that Weiner needs treatment and I chimed in to (grudgingly) agree.
Viewing Weiner purely as an individual, I think that’s the right answer for a first offense. Viewing him as a public figure, I’m starting to have second thoughts.
In particular, I’m viewing him as a public figure who is a Democrat. Is there a double standard whereby the media holds Republicans to higher expectations than Democrats? (Btw, Republican Nixon resigned; Democrat Clinton did not. The chest-baring Republican from NY-26 resigned; so far exhibitionist Democrat Weiner has not.)
2. Roman Says: Imagine of a University President, or the CEO of a large business did the same things, he would be out in a heartbeat! The standards of some people, on both sides of the aisle, are very flexible.
The overseers of peasants are still peasants. They may have a few more privileges than the ordinary rabble, but these are a matter of degree. The prerogatives of the Ruling Class differ in kind.
I think Weiner has a similar problem to that which ultimately took down Nixon: people didn’t like him. (What, you think Nixon was the first to spy on opponents?)
Weiner didn’t play nice. He didn’t pay his dues to the caucus. He never did anything, legislatively speaking, of note. (That’s not such a bad thing, considering Congressional overreach, but it also means he’s dispensible.) He never bothered to gain contacts and favours.
This meant that no one was particularly interested in standing up for him. It also meant that the leftists had no problem airing his “dirty trick” (in reality, a perfectly reasonable statement) of connecting his opponent to race riots in 1991 – a way of destroying any goodwill he had on the far left.
Combine this with high school girls, and pretty much every responsible politico wants him dead – 46 y/o men do NOT communicate privately with 17 y/o.
While I agree with Book’s take on why Weiner’s weirder behavior and lack of likability are the reason for the difference in public response, I have to also agree with gcotharn that Clinton’s scorched earth approach (and that of his wife and others) toward Monica was reprehensible. Not only were they very effectively at painting Lewinsky as a crazy stalker, but they did everything in their power to destroy Kenneth Starr, Linda Tripp, and Republicans. I will never forget Hillary’s Today show appearance (pre-blue dress discovery) where she stated that “..the allegations would not be *proved* true” and that it was instead a vast right-wing conspiracy. Clinton was not contrite and did not take responsibility for his actions. It was Linda Tripp’s and he nasty, prudish Republicans’ fault and we eventually had to elect Hillary as penance.
Tortured, legalistic thinking, Neo. I’m with Medved.
gcotharn,
The parallel you draw between Weiner’s actions and those of a child molester, both pandering to children, is spot on. As you point out, there is a neon line which adult men do not cross, and Weiner crossed it. It matters not that he might have done so without ever intending tp act on those impulses, the line was crossed none-the-less.
I think likeability is a key factor.
I’d have voted to convict Clinton, who pretty clearly perjured himself before a Federal grand jury.
Having said that, I’d have done so with a heavier heart than I would had Weiner been in the same circumstance. Weiner’s own mother probably can’t stand him; he’s a nasty piece of work by any standard, utterly devoid of any redeeming virtues that I can see.
gcotharn,
I wish your posts could make the front pages of our big papers. You’ve shown that principles and logic rather than prudery or partisanship are behind the revulsion we all feel. Great job!
Now that I think about it some more, it’s apparent that a key to my take is reciprocity.
Leave aside Clinton’s felonious and allegedly felonious (carefully checked spelling there) behavior; if all he’d done was mess with Monica, I’d have let that slide with a warning. Moreover, I suspect that Clinton would let a political opponent in the same position slide too. We’re all occasionally in need of grace. (Especially men, God knows. That’s why the best stories always include the line, “It seemed like a good idea at the time.”)
But I strongly suspect that had Weiner caught a political opponent in any sexual peccadillo he’d have gone for the guy’s throat (or worse). No grace for that poor bastard. I can’t imagine him connecting with someone else on that human level and extending clemency when there was political mileage (and personal aggrandizement) to be had.
“Here, hold my beer. Watch this!”
Can’t agree with you, Occam. If Bill Clinton learned that, say, Newt Gingrich had been getting serviced on his desk by an intern, Bill would have milked it for all it was worth — but only after first trying to privately blackmail Newt with it.
Bill has some old school democrat in him. I’d drink a beer with him but would have to poke fun at his philandering idocy.
Likability is a factor, we are humans after all. Weiner is not likable, while many find Clinton likable.
However, Clinton’s offense was not playing hide the cigar with an intern in the oval office, repugnant as that behavior may be. His offense, actually his crime, was committing perjury in a sexual harassment lawsuit. A lawsuit made possible by a law he signed with great fanfare while flanked by the likes of Eleanor Smeal and a gaggle of feminists. The senate’s refusal to convict him does not change the fact that he committed perjury. You do or I do it and we go to jail. No wiggle room or prevarication allowed. Perjury is perjury.
Weiner may be guilty of some federal or state law regarding his actions with minors, but so far I’m not aware that his actions violated any law. What is he guilty of? Lying to the public? 98% of congress would be on parole selling apples on a street corner if that as a crime. So until it is determined that Weiner violated a law, I think Weiner’s offense is nowhere near as serious as Clinton’s perjury.
You may be right. I try to think the best of people, but am often disappointed, I must admit.
This is pretty much where I shake out too.
Agreed. That’s why I excluded his felonious behavior. I was speaking to the hypothetical that he had just been chasing tail, without more.
(Is “gaggle” the collective noun for feminists? Not a “cackle?”)
Yep. Ask Barry Bonds how that works. I recently saw that someone got seven years in the Federal pen for perjury. That’s the real deal.
Agreed.
I think Weiner has a similar problem to that which ultimately took down Nixon: people didn’t like him. (What, you think Nixon was the first to spy on opponents?)
I think what took down Nixon was the NYT and WaPo beating the drum for a year, whether there were any new developments or not, as payback for Nixon taking out Alger Hiss.
Whitaker Chambers makes a point of crediting Nixon with nailing Hiss, who was about to wriggle off the hook when, at the eleventh hour, Nixon took an interest and ultimately nailed him.
The NYT and WaPo, who had been mercilessly flaying Chambers and beatifying Hiss, never forgave Nixon. Since we now know that Hiss was, in fact, a Communist and a Soviet agent, it’s not hard to guess why the paper of Walter Duranty was not best pleased.
I suspect that part of Nixon’s famed paranoia was he knew that he was in the crosshairs of the Red-infested media, who never missed an opportunity to make him look bad. For example, Nixon is now widely known for the dirty campaign against Helen Gahagan Douglas. Less known is that Douglas started the mudslinging by referring to the “backwash of Republican young men in dark shirts” and explicitly calling Nixon a fascist. Douglas, a Hollywood denizen with Red ties, had also voted against efforts to fight Communist expansion in Greece (IIRC), and maintained that Soviet Communism posed little threat.
So there was real reason to challenge her on policy grounds. But the present day take is that Nixon gratuitously smeared a garden-variety liberal Democrat. Thanks, NYT, for shaping the narrative.
Uncle Fred nailed it. Weiner is a mere Congress critter from a district that will send another reliable liberal vote to replace him when he is gone. Discarding Weiner costs nothing. It actually helps. The longer he remains, the more damage to the brand.
Letting the evil people on the other side of the aisle impeach and convict Clinton would have cost the Dems a lot. Hence, the flexible standard. Selective outrage is a benefit/cost calculation.
Occam,
I don’t know the correct collective noun for a group of Smeal type feminists. The first word that came to mind was murder as in a group of crows, but I thought that a bit dire so gaggle seemed a more PC alternative.
The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” is widely misunderstood. “high” has nothing to do with the severity of the offense. It referred the common practice at the time of “high” officials using their position to avoid prosecution for their crimes.
As to whether Clinton’s crime was perjury, two bar associations thought so. Both the Supreme Court and Arkansas disbarred him. They thought he had committed a crime.
This is the first time I disagree with you Neo. Obama lied under oath in a deposition in a sexual harassment suit in which he turned his Ark State Trooper guards into pimps, and sent them to procure Paula Jones. Bill Clinton did IN PERSON what Weiner did on tweet TO an Ark State employee. And she could identify an unusual anomaly in his anatomy. Then the Clinton hit machine tried to destroy her.
And as for Monica Lewinsky being “trustworth”? She was a 20 something besotted twit. And he had PHONE SEX with her on a non secure line. Blackmail? Anyone? Security risk anyone?
And Monica told about servicing the Him while he was in the Oval Office on the phone discussing troop deployments to
Bosnia.
The difference between Weiner and Bubba, is charisma. Bubba was a charming Narcissist / Sociopath who knew how to charm and con EVERYONE.
The first word that came to mind was murder as in a group of crows, but I thought that a bit dire so gaggle seemed a more PC alternative.
How about a “squawk” of feminists?
Jim Kearney: I fully expected many people here to disagree with me on Clinton. But see my comment above about the subject of Clinton’s lies, perjury, etc.
Nor do I think that Clinton was correct to trust Lewinsky. Nothing he did in the entire incident, from start to finish, was correct. My point was a different one—merely that, just playing the odds, it’s a better bet to trust one person whom you actually know and can evaluate in person, compared to six (or more people) you’ve never even met. The chances of exposure in the latter case is even greater, and therefore the action more stupid.
@roy lofquist
Thank you for the clarification re the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
Please focus here: There is “lying” and there is “misleading” and then there is “perjury.” The first two are behaviors, the last is a crime. “Perjury” is a very specific crime and is defined clearly in statute, and people can avoid committing it and avoid being found guilty of it by speaking in very specific ways. The result, if they do it well, is exoneration and a not guilty verdict.
In the Clinton case, the charge of perjury was weak and could not be proved. Hence the “perjury” charge failed not only to be carried with the 2/3rds vote but failed to garner even a simple majority (45-55) which included 10 Republicans. Probably because the Senators (many lawyers among them) had a much clearer idea of what the meaning of “perjury” is than laymen. Obstruction also failed at 50/50 votes. Hence, whether we like or not, Clinton was in a formal and irrevocable manner found not guilty of the high crimes and misdemeanors specifically charged.
Saying he “shoulda woulda couda” means exactly nothing after the fact of acquittal. Saying “I woulda” means zero, zip, squat, nada other than “I pulled out a plum and said what a good boy am I.” It’s blathering.
Did Clinton skate? Why yes he did by being found not guilty. Was he guilty? No he wasn’t since he was found “not guilty.”
Still a bitter pill after all these years and still met with the “yes, but…” sputter, but still the truth.
Okay, I did some checking this morning and discovered my memory was less than accurate. I jumped the gun and should have checked before typing.
Still it remains obvious, at least to me, that he knowingly committed perjury per the definition supplied by Neo. 1.) The statement was made under oath. 2.) The statement concerning the issue at hand, sexual relations with Lewinsky, was material and relevant to Jones’ accusation. 3.) Clinton certainly had an intent to deceive. However, instead of being judged guilty of perjury, Clinton was held to be in civil contempt of court by Judge Susan Wright (ironically one of his former law students) and his license to practice law in Arkansas was suspended for 5 years. The SCOTUS later upheld that suspension.
vanderleun said, “Did Clinton skate? Why yes he did by being found not guilty. Was he guilty? No he wasn’t since he was found ‘not guilty.'”
Which is one of the problems with the law as practiced today. It really is more about clever wordsmithing and not so much about justice.
As one lawyer told me, “The law is what we say it is. The Constitution and all those old ideas of weighing guilt and innocence no longer carry as much weight.”
Kinda explains why there is a TEA Party.
JJ: You might think the law is about clever wordsmithing, but I disagree strongly. The laws about perjury have evolved over time in order to protect the state from perjury, but at the same time to finely balance the definition of perjury so that it is not overbroad. Perjury is NOT the same as our common sense idea of lying, or evading the truth, or misleading, or not giving out full and complete information. I am preparing a post (maybe for tomorrow, or in a few days) on the subject of Clinton and whether he committed perjury, because clearly there’s much more to be said on this matter.
The law may seem like nitpicking and hairsplitting. Sometimes, of course, it is. But the reason for the careful attention to words and what they mean is that therein lie important safeguards to our liberty, and protection from the overreach of the law or of the mob.
Your informant lawyer is an example of that overreach. The Constitution, and guilt and innocence, can and do still matter. But it is another form of overreach to decide that perjury consists of a misleading statement under oath by a person you don’t like. It is not.
By the way, I never was a Clinton fan, even when I was a Democrat and voted for him.
I think part of the difference is because the Weiner situation was much more in our face. With Clinton, it was stories and rumors. We didn’t actually see anything. With Weiner, pics of his privates are all over the internet, and it’s gross.
And I think the fact that he was so extremely cocky (no pun intended) with reporters while knowing full well it was a lie, just made him that much more dispicable to us. He’s a jerk. At least Clinton was a little more personable, although I’ve personally never been a fan.
The Weiner story was “much more in our face” because the evidence is visual, unlike Clinton’s.
Weiner is gross, which may be fine with his constituents, and reflect upon them.
But neither W nor the Clintons were truthful about personal conduct.
neo said, “But it is another form of overreach to decide that perjury consists of a misleading statement under oath by a person you don’t like. It is not.”
Tell it to Scooter Libby.