That a President shouldn't be impeached for being caught having an affair with a subordinate?
That sure as hell bent social norms, to not fire a manager for sexually exploiting a person under them. Or am I mistaken for how people typically react to that?
I remember watching the unfolding events throughout the Clinton presidency from its beginning.
This all occurred at a time when I was uncertain about my own political affiliation. During the Reagan/Bush years, I first gravitated in the GOP direction, then slowly pulled away from it as I had then arrived at a position in the civil service in which I was interacting with GOP political appointees and with just enough frequency that I began to conclude that I didn't like them as people, I didn't like their attitudes about things like justice in general and non-partisan commitment to the civil service in specific.
I suppose this period corresponded to a slow, delayed choice I made to "embrace class struggle" in the context of the wider world in which I lived, the myths we're made to believe -- for instance, the "non-existence" of class-struggle" and a wider assortment of revelations and realizations.
But I couldn't bring myself to embrace the Democratic Party. In '92, I voted for the Perot ticket. But I was "coming around slowly".
I noticed patterns in the news, arising with Whitewater and the Ken Starr investigations. Everything in headlines was being pushed aside by these attentions to the Clinton administration. The news backwater -- items that had been pushed to small articles in the back pages of national news -- included the preview of the Stone "JFK" film to congress, the empanelment of the ARRB reviewing and declassifying records of the national security apparatus, the revelations of those documents and the sudden publications frenzy arising from it, even including Hersh's book "The Dark Side of Camelot". But I didn't really focus my attention on this news-backwater until the unraveling story of Monica and the oral-office blow-job arose. Oddly, Congress vote to impeach Clinton occurred almost on the same day the Final Report of the ARRB was published and released. And it was Clinton, controverting the obstructions of Bush 41, who got the 92 Records Act back on track.
Yet, all along, I thought the Clinton impeachment was a farce. He "perjured himself" about getting his knob polished in the Oral Office. Uh-huh. Who doesn't lie to his wife about those sorts of indiscretions? Unfortunately, keeping it away from Hillary was synonymous with his public pronouncements. But, by 2000, I'd concluded that the Republican-led impeachment was a circus featuring a parade of elephants and a waste of time.
Now, we have a Pres who has as much as publicly begged a geopolitical adversary to hack an opponent's e-mails. He benefited from what I suspect as a double-double terror hoax that readily raised my suspicions of psy-war operations, and I concluded an origin of Russia after the FBI announced the IP address that originated them -- a year before the Obama administration released the findings of CIA and FBI about the Russians. It appears that everything he does attempts to weaken important institutions -- FBI, DOJ, the national security apparatus of CIA and DOD.
So there is plenty of reason -- in my opinion -- to do everything to legally remove him from office. I'd prefer impeachment to an election defeat, as a demonstration that Rule of Law prevails. But maybe the 30% refuse to learn anything from unfolding events. He's their star. He's their football team. And apparently, they think of this as some NFL game: "You lose -- we win!"