Most liberal media talking heads explain that Clinton is far too busy running the affairs of state to face sexual harassment charges by Paula Jones. Her civil suit accusing the then governor Clinton of using his State Police as pimps, and dropping his pants to request oral sex in a Little Rock hotel room can proceed thanks to a rare nine to nothing decision from the Supreme Court rejecting the liberal line of reasoning. In spite of this rare unanimous decision, liberals in the media stick to their spin that the president should be immune from litigation for past crimes, particularly since he is a Democrat.
Notice the difference as these same liberal media types object so loudly if a woman claims to have been sexually harassed by a (conservative) corporate CEO, Supreme Court nominee, military official, or a Republican politician? Could it possibly be MORE clear that the political ideology of the alleged harassor is the important issue to liberals, not the principle of sexual harassment? Was Senator Bob Packwood’s crime of allegedly hugging and kissing his female minions (for which he was dogged relentlessly by the N.O.W. and media) somehow more serious than that of Governor Clinton? Why weren’t the flimsy (when compared to Paula Jones’ highly corroborated charges) allegations against Clarence Thomas dismissed out of hand by the media? Are women "exposed to the president" less at risk now, from potential abuse by a suspected powerful sexual predator? Do liberals consider that it is it worth sacrificing a few "bimbos" to sexual crimes because of the liberal leanings of the inhabitant of the Oval Office? What if a future sex crime, or abuse of power by a truly terrible man (Clinton) could be avoided by bringing this case to justice now? Perhaps the liberals believe that to preserve the dignity of the office, we should only require the police notify the residents around 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. that a sexual offender lives in the neighborhood We could call it a kind of "Megan’s law" for important liberal politicians.
On the other hand, maybe the valuable time required by the president to answer these charges could be scheduled by his handlers out of time currently allotted for coffee at the White House with known drug dealers and illegal gun smugglers who come with cash for the DNC. Perhaps, he could cancel a political trip such as the one where he recently went to Utah to announce that he was permanently locking away our anthracite coal reserves in that area so that operatives from Asian countries (who deliver large amounts of illegal cash to the Democratic National Committee, and whose own countries have the only other known reserves of such resources) can have a monopoly on the world supply. Heck, it just may be that diverting his precious time from these sort of activities IS in the best interest of our country after all.