Re: Clinton, Privacy & Interns

Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin (
Tue, 17 Feb 1998 20:48:54 +0000

> From: Ian Goddard <>

> > Why are Bill and/or Hillary obligated to tell us the truth
> > about their private sexual lives?
> IAN: I agree that they are not so obliged. It seems
> to me that lies about private and consensual sexual
> activity do not fall into the category of unethical,
> since private means "off limits" by definition, and
> therefore this whole affair should be off limits to
> both the press and Starr. People going into public
> life have to sacrifice many areas of their private
> lives, but their sexual activity, so long as it is
> consensual, is and should not be one of those areas.

There is the question of whether all the sexual activity is
consensual, or whether some of it constitutes abuse of authority --
with the proviso that if one of these ladies *wanted* to have sex
with the President, that wasn't Clinton's fault; what I am concerned
about is the potential for suggestions (ranging from extremely vague
hints to blatant declarations), coming directly or indirectly from
Clinton, that sex would be rewarded or refusal punished.

I would point out that exactly the same concerns arise in regard to
lying about sex, though. And it is moderately well established that
Clinton himself *did* instruct, in an employer-to-subordinate mode,
one of his staffers to lie about certain meetings with one of his
alleged mistresses. That is enough in my mind to establish abuse of

And for that matter, "None of your business" would have won Clinton a
*lot* of sympathy *without* being a lie. Clinton chose an
unconvincing lie over a convincing truth. On his head be the

Unfortunately, in spite of all that, I find myself compelled to
support him and hope he survives the scandal -- for as long as Gore
is next in line.

US$500 fee for receipt of unsolicited commercial email. USC 47.5.II.227