Political 'Witch Hunts" Are Nothing New
The tactic of targeting a President's personal relationships for political gain did not start with the Republicans and President Clinton. Throughout U.S. history, political opponents have sought to use personal attacks to discredit their opponents and gain an advantage. Furthermore, the tactic of using personal attacks against political opponents is not unique to any specific political party. It has been employed by politicians across the political spectrum and throughout U.S. history.
Throughout U.S. history, political opponents have often sought to use personal attacks and scandals to discredit sitting Presidents and gain political advantage. Here are a few notable examples:
-
Thomas Jefferson: During the election of 1800, Jefferson's opponents accused him of having an affair with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings. The allegations were not proven during Jefferson's lifetime, but in recent years, DNA evidence has supported the claim that Hemings was indeed the mother of several of Jefferson's children.
-
Grover Cleveland: During the presidential campaign of 1884, rumors circulated that Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock. Cleveland admitted to paying child support for the child, which did not have much impact on his political career. However, the incident did lead to the famous campaign chant, "Ma, Ma, Where's my Pa? Gone to the White House, ha ha ha!"
-
Franklin D. Roosevelt: In 1940, Republicans tried to discredit Roosevelt by publicizing the fact that his wife, Eleanor, had a close relationship with a woman named Lorena Hickok. The allegations did not have much impact on Roosevelt's popularity or re-election campaign.
- Bill Clinton: The scandal surrounding Clinton's affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky is one of the most well-known examples of a President's personal relationships being used for political gain. Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives for perjury and obstruction of justice, although he was acquitted by the Senate and remained in office until the end of his term.
It is important to point out that in current times, it was the Republicans who opened the door by going after their political foes with President Clinton. He endured a years long investigation into Whitewater, which yielded nothing, until his extramarital affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky became the subject of intense political and media scrutiny, and led to his impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice. leading to his impeachment by the House of Representatives in 1998.
Like President Clinton, Trump's business dealings and taxes, as well as allegations of misconduct by Trump prior to taking office. These investigations were conducted by various government agencies and congressional committees. To this date, they have yielded nothing.
But like President Clinton, President Trump, the allegations of extramarital affairs made by several women, including adult film actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal became their next focus. President Trump denied the allegations, but because he was not under oath, he was never been impeached for them. However, he did face legal challenges related to these allegations, including a lawsuit filed by Daniels and an investigation by federal prosecutors.
These previous investigations make President Trump's case more akin to Al Capone. His case is about bookkeeping about the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels and not the actual hush money, since payment of hush money is not illegal. What is, is hiding it. And if the evidence shows that this is true, then he will face the consequences.
The severity of the consequences for each President is a matter of debate and interpretation, and opinions may vary. Whether or not these investigations were conducted in a fair and impartial manner is a matter of debate, but it is important to acknowledge that they were part of the normal process of checks and balances in a democratic system.
Clinton was accused of sexual harassment and groping by several women.
He settled a case brought by Paula Jones for quite a hunk of change.
He was accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick.
He was listed on the flight manifest for the "Lolita Express" numerous times. All of this on the record.
None of these accusations harmed his career or popularity
That's why accusations against Trump were largely ignored by the public, especially the voters.
... especially maga voters. typically, I ignore whatever the rwnj mental/moral minority has to say about anything.
That's certainly an insightful observation. How is that different than Clinton voters ignoring Chinagate, Filegate, and Travelgate?
but, but, but, what about... tell us about the clinton instigated insurrection.
You mean the 2017 Women's March?
Nerm, Nerm, Nerm....
Accusations against liberals or other Democrats are called "unfounded innuendo". Accusations against conservatives are called "evidence".
Any accusations specifically against Glorious Leader Clinton and his family are always completely false, fabricated by evil people who want to destroy our country and hate literally everyone.
Glorious Leader Clinton himself is capable of innocent mistakes like "lying under oath" because he was assigned male at birth, but that's not his fault and he still went on to do wonderful things despite that handicap.
But we all know that his lovely, wonderful and amazing wife Saint Hillary could never, ever, ever, ever do anything wrong. Ever. It's so sad that her amazing political career was crucified by those same evil people who hate everyone.
We have an entire course about this in our lovely re-education center. See you soon!
Holy persecution complex.
Ummmm..... no.
Nice way to introduce a nontopic (assigned male at birth), and I am sorry that people just don't seem to hate him enough for you.
Jack, I am not going to flag this as off topic, but Hillary was never mentioned here and implying that Dems are communists, is really hyperbole.
Just what exactly is/are Bill/Hillary/the Clintons guilty of other than your obvious loathing of them?
You forgot the 'sarcasm' tag. Clinton did have to give up the title 'first Black President' so there is progress.
Of course none of this is about Clinton (except that it is). Democrats are justifying their political actions with 'Republicans did it first' (except they didn't). Nixon is hard to top for Democrats. And that's what Democrats are trying to do to Trump.
Eventually we'll turn the wayback machine all the way back to Republicans impeaching Andrew Johnson (the first unprecedented precedent). So, you see, Republicans really did start it.
That was a continuation of a joke Nerm and I had going in another seed.
Getting back on the topic of witch hunts....
There is absolutely a phenomenon where liberals and other Democrats display a blind, almost Pavlovian defense of anything Clinton.
Bill Clinton did commit perjury. There isn't any question about that. And the idea that "he did nothing more than lie about it" is an utterly ridiculous statement.
Matt Lauer had a consensual affair with a younger subordinate.... what's the problem? Bobby Petrino had a consensual affair with an adult female student... what's the problem? (Rhetorical questions.)
As a society, we understand immediately the problem with older men in positions of power and influence using that power and influence to sexually exploit young women.
Unless of course their name is Clinton. In which case everything is fine except perjury, and many people aren't even willing to admit he did that.
Awww...no gold plated toilet
They breathed
To be fair, the parallels are remarkable. We're basically re-living the 1970s, complete with generation gap, black swan economic event, blossoming inflation, Russian invading someone and getting mired in it, outrageously corrupt Republican president followed by a completely feeble, ancient Democratic president, all ending in a massive recession (on the horizon).
And the same can be said about the Republicans. Party affiliations can make anyone blind.
If we are talking about why he got impeached, then my statement is true, which is what I was referring to.
They are all wrong, but you are forgetting few things. One happened 1998, long before the "Me Too movement", and Matt Lauer has actually been accused of rape. Monica never said she was raped.
I don't know a Dem who would not say that Clinton didn't commit perjury, but I am sure there are a few, just like people who make the same excuses for Trump. You forget that they are birds of a feather in this respect.
Yes, the political priorities of the 1970s didn't align with the what the country needed. Democrats are trying to follow the same Nixon playbook to remove Trump from politics the same way Nixon was pushed aside. Democrats were butthurt over losing the South after Johnson's Great Society (and civil rights) push started the culture wars.
It's difficult to talk about Trump and avoid talking about Biden. Biden has been compared to Jimmy Carter but Biden may have more in common with Gerald Ford. Removing Nixon from politics didn't really improve things. And removing Trump from politics won't improve things, either.
Democrats' political success over Nixon set the country up for Reagan. And we know how that turned out. In the case of Trump, Democrats could 'win' again, like they did with Nixon. But that won't necessarily be a good thing for the country. Democrats' pursuit of Trump really does raise the question of why Democrats don't trust voters?
Comparing Trump's scandals with past scandals really distracts from far greater political dangers. As with Nixon, Democrats 'winning' over Trump may prove to be rather short-sighted. Who will be the next Reagan?
So did "Baby It's Cold Outside". That doesn't seem to save anybody or anything else.
Clinton was accused of rape. Just not by Monica.
That is a fair point.
Meh. I think they're using him. Seriously, the worst thing that could possibly happen for Democrats is for Trump to keel over dead of a heart attack tomorrow. Trump hatred is the best thing they have going right now. If they lose him, they don't have anything to run on.
There is a reason the Jan 6 congressional hearings were on television during peak campaign season. If they play this right, he could be on trial during the next cycle.
We've done far, far worse than Reagan over the years, and will probably do far worse for the foreseeable future.
Well... when you're convinced that anybody who lives in Kansas can't possibly know anything, it's difficult to trust them.
Oh, come on. You know what I mean. It was a man's world back then. I know. I worked in it.
But we are talking about in the political arena. And btw... I don't recall any rape charges being brought on him. And for the record Trump also had rape accusations against him. I saw nothing happen there either.
Hence the label 'witch hunt'. The Democratic Party doesn't have any leadership any longer. That's why its necessary to stir the cesspool and raise a stink.
Good or bad, Reagan fundamentally changed the political environment. Reagan changed the Republican Party and that forced the Democratic Party to change. Kennedy Democrats were out. Bill Clinton had to be more Reagan than Reagan. Haven't you noticed that Democrats are trying to keep the Reagan legacy alive? Wasn't that really why Hillary Clinton won the nomination? Hillary is a Reagan Democrat just like Bill. Democrats only put a neoliberal spin on their identity politics.
Trump has fundamentally changed the political environment, too. The Reagan era in politics is over. Trump has made Democrat politics obsolete the same way Reagan did. Democrats can't keep the Reagan legacy alive any longer.
Democrats are going to try to appropriate Trump's MAGA politics the same way Democrats appropriated Reagan's neoliberal politics. Democrats will try to put a MAGA spin on their identity politics.
Trump is a threat to Democrats' politics. Right now Trump owns MAGA and he's not letting Democrats appropriate MAGA. The next Republican primaries will be all MAGA; Reagan Republicans are out. Democrats are going to be required to complete in a MAGA arena. That's why Biden has been incorporating MAGA ideas into his policy agenda. Biden can't compete as a Reagan Democrat.
Trump has been a target for Democrats because Democrats can't allow Republicans to own MAGA. Democrats won't be competitive. Democrats have to convince their base that MAGA, by some other name, is a Democrat idea. It will be interesting to see how Democrats formulate a MAGA equity.
No charges were brought against him but he was accused by Juanita Broderick. Trmp had a panel of women during the 2016 campaign that were there to discuss Bill Clinton and how Hillary dismissed them and tried to ruin them or something. He did have to pay Paula Jones (?) for sexual harassment
I thought that Broderick recanted. I could swear I heard somewhere that she was paid for her testimony against Bill Clinton. I don't believe her, never did.
She recanted..then she claimed it again...that woman was all over the place
the real wackos are only really fun the first time...
Oh yeah, she claimed it again when someone from the former 'president's' camp paid her to do so.
I can understand how terrifying that might be to the GOP...
Greg,
Everything you just said about Clinton, is also true about Trump. He actually bragged about grabbing you know what.
And I don't think either were ignored by the public.
But if a party goes after a President for an affair, it might come back and bite you. In this case it did.
Clinton wasn't on trial for having an affair- he was charged with sexual harassment of Paula Jones.
Clinton knowingly lied under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky; and tried to coerce others to lie under oath on his behalf. Guess he thought that have an affair with an intern would lend credence to the allegations that he abused his power to gain sex from women working under him (pun fully intended).
Republicans impeached Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice. Democrats in the Senate balked on removing a president from office for real crimes. Crimes for which he was disbarred.
There is no comparison between what Clinton did and Trump did. Trump has been investigated by the FEC and multiple DA's on this allegation and none have pursued charges. Even this DA refused to press charges- but he has been proven repeatedly to succumb to political pressures. The statute of limitation has run out (seems that law doesn't apply when your name is Trump). He is prosecuting a Federal law at the state level (should be interesting to see if any judge will even consider the case). He is trying what under NY law is a misdemeanor as a felony. His star witness Cohen is a convicted perjurer and liar that is out to get Trump at all costs (His own lawyer told the Grand Jury so).
Bragg is a Soros funded human POS that lets real criminals go and charges victims. NY must be so proud to have him as DA.
I can't stand Trump; and want nothing more than for him to go away- but Democrats are making Trump look like a Saint.
Just remember this when Brandon loses power (or maybe before if the economy crashes and Dems want to dump him). Democrats have set new lows that Republicans will be eager to meet. Attorney/Client privilege is gone. Protections under the law is gone. Executive privilege is gone. Brandon and his family should have a great time as the Republicans turn the gavel into a sledgehammer against him. Everything is fair game- including getting the FBI to doctor evidence. Have fun when the pendulum swings the other way; and it will.
So just for the record, I don't respond to people who use the term Brandon.
No I prefer adult conversations that use people's real names, even when they don't like them.
Yes, the PD&D is strong with you also son.
I think you meant "stain".
This is not a witch hunt when it comes to the former 'president',
All things he is guilty of doing.
cal opponents have often sought to use personal attacks and scandals to discredit sitting Presidents and gain political advantage.
Of course, but that's not what's going on here. Is it?
was the Republicans who opened the door by going after their political foes with President Clinto
What the hell? Robert Bork.. Clarence Thomas
tion into Whitewater, which yielded nothing,
Lol. Except the convictions of the Governor of Arkansas and 14 other Clinton allies.
but it is important to acknowledge that they were part of the normal process of checks and balances in a democratic system.
No, indicting a former president and candidate for the Presidency for a six year old misdemeanor is not normal. Criticizing someone for their behavior (like Bill Clinton for raping Juanita Broderick) is akin to politics as usual.
This is a whole new level.
It is exactly what is going on here.
I didn't know they were Presidents. Sexual misconduct is an important part of character for a member of SCOTUS.
So you mean that after years of looking into Clinton they couldn't find something or someone to sing, given all those convicted? Maybe it was because there were so many people who were involved in White Water and not all were convicted of crimes, including Clinton.
He has other investigations going on. The only surprise here is that this one came up first.
You did not provide a single example of local district attorneys charging politicians with crimes. You provided examples of Presidents being criticized for their private lives.
Those are not the same thing.
I didn't know they were Presidents
right. right. Partisans attacking Supreme court justices for their behavior is completely different than attacking Presidents for theirs.
Besides Democrats publicizing and attacking the private lives of Thomas and Bork, Gary Hart's Presidential candidacy was destroyed for his private actions, and Robert Packwood was run out of Congress by Democrats in the early nineties for sexual harassment . Remember how 1992 was the Year of the Woman, and sexual harassment was bad? But then a couple years later Bill Clinton was accused of it, and it was okay again?
The idea that this started with Bill Clinton is simply preposterous and doesn't withstand the slightest bit of scrutiny.
sconduct is an important part of character for a member of SCOTUS
But not the chief law enforcement officer. He can be a criminal.
So you mean that after years of looking into Clinton they couldn't find something or someone to sing, given all those convicted
Some went to jail and awaited their pardon rather than testify. Evidence disappeared and then mysteriously reappeared in the White House Library etc.
Then you missed the entire point. Political payback in the way of endless investigations is a bitch.
Yes it is. Presidents should be clean, but we all know better. But people who's job is judging others should be squeezy clean.
When did I or this article say it was OK? But by that standard, if it was not OK for Clinton, it should be not OK about Trump, too.
I never said that either. And as far as I know, no one here was a convicted criminal.
olitical payback in the way of endless investigations is a bitch.
It is and I'm glad we are all clear that's what happening.
But again, you claimed the local District Attorney's criminal investigation into Trump was nothing new, yet you can't cite any examples of local partisan prosecutors going after politicians. Your comparisons are to Presidents being criticized in the press, not charged with misdemeanors by local prosecutors.
Democrats spending years bitching about Trump having consensual sex is political as usual. What the local DA in New York is doing is not.
But people who's job is judging others should be squeezy clean.
But not those in charge of prosecuting people? But deflections aside, the idea that Republicans "started it" by investigating Clinton is simply preposterous with all the examples I've cited.
ut by that standard, if it was not OK for Clinton, it should be not OK about Trump, too.
When did I ever say anything was okay for Trump.
never said that either.
Again, that's how you justified the personal attacks and investigations of Thomas as opposed to Clinton.
Sean, what you seem to not be aware of, is that Trump had a very bad history in NYC from all his business dealings. He has a long history of civil cases against him as well as criminal ones that date back to 2020. I see this local case as anger over a lot of his actions from the past.
I totally disagree. And if you are holding that as your standard, I hope you didn't vote for Trump.
Yes Sean, I believe that a member of SCOTUS should be squeaky clean, which is why we have hearings to confirm, which we don't with a President.
No. That's not what is going on here.
For both Clinton and Trump the cases were matters of civil litigation and not criminal prosecution. Clinton was impeached for perjury during the civil litigation with Paula Jones. And Trump can't be impeached at this point. Clinton was not threatened with criminal indictment and prosecution.
There's been so much smoke blown around, I'm not sure what Alvin Bragg's grand jury is investigating. As I understand it, Bragg is trying to make the case that Trump broke campaign finance laws by making a hush payment to Stormy Daniels for campaign purposes without reporting that payment. IMO that would allow a criminal indictment at either the state or Federal level.
Bill Clinton should have just said "yeah, Monica blew my johnson and it was the best BJ I ever had. But it ain't none of your goddamned business so stick that in your pipe and choke on it."
He was already a lame duck so what if he told the truth about getting a blow job?
He did nothing more than lie about it, like many cheating hubbies. His only problem was that the Republicans decided to make a case out of it, and so he got in trouble for lying under oath.
I think if he hadn't lied they wouldn't have had a case. Of course, he would have been sporting a black eye....
I have to agree with you there. It's not a crime to have an affair, but it is to lie about it under oath, which of course, they were hoping he would do. The perfect mouse trap.
He did not disappoint them.
But if he really did nothing wrong except lie, why is Matt Lauer supposedly a villain?
That's a good question
Not comparable. One was a political figure and the other a public figure The crime that was levied against Clinton was purgery and for that, he was impeached. There was no other investigation other than Monica.
As for Matt Lauer, maybe it was the button that he had under his desk that could lock the door of his office. That is a whole different level of creepy and I don't think that he got into any trouble with the law.
Sexually assaulting multiple women in the workplace including anally raping one victim while coving the Sochi Winter Olympics. There were also allegations that Harvey Weinstein threatened to out Lauer to pressure NBC into killing a story on his own sexual allegations.
Really?
Two men in positions of power having affairs with much younger subordinates sounds "comparable" to me.
Are we talking about Clinton or Lauer?
The "victim" who continued sleeping with him for several years, often at her instigation?
The fact is that the real difference between these two is that one is eternally revered by political tribalists and the other was just a talk show host.
Thank you for that explanation. I completely forgot about him and what happened
No, it's just your usual projection, deflection, and denial.
Don't be a troll. I answered your direct question.
The "victim" who said she was afraid because she didn't want to lose her job. Even if it was consensual it was an abuse of power.
There really isn't any difference between people in power who sexually assault others. It's wrong no matter if it's a President or a janitor.
And you apparently missed the point that both Lauer and Clinton were accused of all of those things. Yet only one is demonized.
If she's making the booty call to him, she's not being coerced.
Why yes. Yes it was. Excellent.
That is the sum total of my point.
Thank you.
But we don't criticize Bill Clinton for taking advantage of a 21-year-old. On the contrary. We continually hear shit like "it was consensual" and "the only thing he did wrong was lie about it".
Well... if that's true, it's true for all of us, not just darlings of the Democratic Party.
Again, Clinton was charged with sexual harassment by Paula Jones- not Republicans.
Republicans impeached Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice. Two very real crimes that Clinton was disbarred for. Please stop trying to conflate perjury and obstruction of justice with going after Clinton for sex!
If Clinton hadn't committed perjury; or tried to coerce others to commit perjury on his behalf- he wouldn't have gotten impeached.
Of course the ruling in the Paula Jones case might have changed- and the allegations by other women against Clinton would have gained more credence.
Clinton knew exactly what he was doing; and why he was doing it.
I didn't miss any point. They are both equally scummy for doing what they did.
I'm not sure who "we" are, but it doesn't include me.
I am talking about what got him impeached. It was not Paula. It was Monica. That was done by the Republicans. And had you read my article you would have seen that I acknowledged that the charge was purgery for lying about an affair. The Republicans went after him on an affair when Whitewater didn't pan out.
You do know that once I was a young woman and I was hit up on by my superiors and yet I chose not to engage.
Bill didn't force Monica to have sexual relations. She even said that.
Matt Lauer was accused of rape. That is the difference.
Matt Lauer's affair was also consensual.
So was Bill Clinton. How do you not remember this?
Not by Monica Lewinsky. How do you not know this?
Exactly!
Makes one wonder why he bothered to lie.
Because that is what most cheating hubbies do.
make one wonder why trump ever opens his mouth...
Yes, they do. And then it's when you realized how much of liar he really is and you just realize it
Whereas cheating wives are completely honest.......
Makes me wonder why you post.
Wouldn't know. I've never cheated on my spouse
Deflection . . .
Of course not... but everyone being discussed here are men.
I think you have forgotten what the Clinton investigation was originally about.
I have not.
political retribution by a fat goober hypocrite/failure in the house, that was humping some other bleach blonde bimbo, while his wife was dying of cancer?
because the only proven solution to deal with trumpster-like mentalities is still illegal...
You know you aren't supposed to remember things like that. According to hive think you are only permitted to remember what they tell you.
Well, get your little gun and threaten some 'thumpers' and I am sure you'll feel all better.
Don't worry. Their time is coming. A bit late; but with the new rules Democrats have put in place it is coming.
I really don't see the similarities between any of the 4 Presidents mentioned in the article. I can't comment on Grover Cleveland and the Sally Hemmings thing had to have been a bigger issue in postmodern America than it might have been in the time of Jefferson. I can guarantee everyone that the little, tiny thing with Eleanor Roosevelt was hardly a scandal. FDR was idolized by an entire generation and rewarded with 4 terms. His great claim to fame was giving people the impression that he knew how to get out of the Great Depression. As for Bill Clinton, does anybody even remember why he was investigated? It was because of Bill (AND HIS WIFE"S) financial dealings with the Whitewater Land Company. After the evidence could not be found, (btw: after the statute of limitations expired, the evidence was found) the investigation, like all independent counsel investigations, took on a life of its own and morphed into an investigation of Bill Clinton engaging in sex with Monica Lewinsky in the White House.
That brings us the person not specifically listed: Donald Trump. Donald Trump has been the subject of numerous & intensive investigations, two faux impeachments and now at this moment a very tenuous indictment for a misdemeanor. Right now, the prosecutor in the case, who is determined to get Trump at any cost is suddenly stumped yet again. He isn't sure if he can go into court with this case. The pursuit of Donald Trump has been the witch hunt of all with hunts. It is the epitome of a witch hunt.
If the point of this article was that all these things are somehow equal, I'm afraid it has come up short.
Vic,
I'm sorry that you miss the connection in the cases cited, but all of them were politically motivated.
And how can you not see that the years they spent trying to get President Clinton o Whitewater which then somehow morphs into a case about infidelity nothing like what is going on with Trump now? The only difference is that one is a Dem and the other is a Repub. If you want to call them both a witch hunt, I am fine with that, but please, don't tell me otherwise.
You can tell me that you think my case has come up short, but then again, you are partisan, so I will put that into the equation.
I guess you got me there!
Yes, I saw the common thread that ran through them, but I simply want to disagree with the idea that those things are equal. Commonality is one thing and saying that both sides do it is another. Two equally sized men in a fist fight could be equal, but if one has a knife it clearly isn't. I hope you understand what I'm saying.
And how can you not see that the years they spent trying to get President Clinton o Whitewater which then somehow morphs into a case about infidelity nothing like what is going on with Trump now?
You know Perrie, I'm afraid I didn't think much of the Clinton investigation at the time it was going on. I did know a woman who was a life long democrat and I recall how upset she was about it. I suppose that is how many democrats felt and with the way it turned out, I really can't blame them, but here is the difference between the Clinton investigation and the Trump witch hunt:
Understanding the Whitewater Scandal (investopedia.com)
Please note there was a predicate for the investigation. The Starr investigation went beyond the Whitewater scandal and clearly that was wrong, but it wasn't in any way like investigating someone who was running for President and then again investigating that person after he became President without a predicate. Donald Trump was essentially investigated repeatedly without a reason and in search of a crime.
So, Perrie, you did write an interesting article and I have no problem with your presentation of the nastiness of politics or of how both parties have been, in some way, victimized. My argument is with the idea of proportion or that somehow these things were in any way equal, which they were not.
You making things up does not make them so.
There was never a shred of evidence that he colluded with Russia.
I still recall, during the Mueller Investigation, when you wrote, right here, that he probably didn't collude with Russia, but you didn't care just as long as they got him for something. Remember John?