If hypocrisy had monetary value we could easily pay off the national debt with the righteous indignation being expressed by Democrats over the so-called revelation that then candidate Donald Trump paid off a couple of women to not tell the world they allegedly had affairs with him 12 years ago. Unfortunately, hypocrisy has no value beyond exposing the people who engage in it, so we’re stuck with $21-plus trillion in debt and a political party desperately trying to lose an argument they’ve already won.
I was in college during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, but remember it like it was yesterday. He committed perjury in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case to hide his extra-marital affair with Monica Lewinsky, and he did so blatantly and willingly.
In addition to the perjury, Clinton got his girlfriend a plum government job. Being president of the United States made that pretty easy to do, though it was a complete abuse of power. Monica, a recent college graduate, had no special qualifications that would land her a job at the Pentagon, but when the president recommends someone, they get hired.
Once the pressure was rising and Clinton needed to get Monica out of Washington or risk exposure, he called on DC power-lawyer Vernon Jordan to help find her a job in New York City. Jordan did not run a job placement service, he was one of the most connected men in Washington. And when the president calls, even power-lawyers, you jump. Were these payoffs?
Bill Clinton even pressured Lewinsky to lie in a sworn affidavit that they were not engaged in any kind of relationship, which she did. Was this subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice?
The answer to all of these questions is yes.
Those obvious questions were coupled with the fact that these acts were committed while Clinton was president, and done with and because he had the power of the presidency, which led to his impeachment.
But a funny thing happened on the way to conviction in the Senate. Democrats began insisting this was not about the multiple laws the president broke, it was all about sex. And since it was about sex, it was a personal matter that was between him and his wife, who didn’t seem to care (or be surprised). “If Hillary can forgive him, why can’t Republicans?” was the gist of the argument.
Day in and day out, liberals beat the drum of this being a personal matter, ignoring felonies, the obstruction, and the inherent harassment of a president “fooling around” with someone who was an intern, then a low-ranking employee of the Executive Branch.
Republicans who had a problem with the lawbreaking were painted as the problem. It was nobody’s business, we were told.
In the Senate trial, Bill Clinton was acquitted and finished out his presidency. He spent the next 16 years earning hundreds of millions of dollars in appearance fees as liberals lined to sing his praises. Prime time speaking slots at Democratic conventions were his and he was greeted with standing ovations. Democrats have completely and thoroughly won the argument.
Then Donald Trump happened.
Suddenly, liberals wanting to attack Trump on his playboy past couldn’t do it with Bill Clinton hanging around. When the news broke that Democratic mega-donor and Clinton friend Harvey Weinstein, and scores of other liberals from Hollywood and journalism, had engaged in much worse behavior, something had to be done.
Democrats began trying to lose the argument they’d won. “Bill Clinton should have resigned,” they started to say. But it was too late. They’d successfully changed the rules, they can’t just change them back now that they stand in the way of what they want.
The idea that Donald Trump should be impeached for using his personal money to pay women to keep silent about alleged affairs is absurd on its face. It's even crazier when you realize the people making that argument insisted Clinton’s actual felonies were no big deal.
Nothing Trump is accused of happened while he was president; he didn’t use his office to cover up his actions. Yet Democrats are clutching their pearls over what they’d told the country was none of our business just a few years ago.
I don’t know if Donald Trump had these affairs in 2006; I do know I didn’t vote for him for pope, however. A billionaire running for president, especially with a playboy past, isn’t going to want to have to deal with the allegations a month before the election. When spending a hundred grand is pocket-change, why wouldn’t you cut a check to avoid the hassle and the possible strain on your marriage at a time when you have to be completely focused?
But Democrats want people to be morally outraged over the allegation and want to criminalize a private citizen spending their own money to make their life easier. Sorry, that’s not in keeping with the rules you guys set. You won the argument in the 90s, you don’t get to lose it retroactively now.
Please subscribe to Derek’s daily podcast (it’s free!) to keep up to date on everything in the news and pick up a copy of his book, Outrage, INC., to discover how modern liberalism came to power and how to protect yourself and your loved ones from it. It makes a great Christmas gift!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member