306
Bill Clinton spokesperson says White House is using him as scapegoat after Epstein files release
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2025
306 points (99.4% liked)
politics
31119 readers
2133 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We always knew Clinton was dirty, though. The whole Monica Lewinsky thing ~30 years ago.
Ironic that the same party that impeached Clinton for [lying about] that defend a president from their party who did the same and worse with underage girls against their will. What Clinton did was wrong, though I care more that he took advantage of an intern, first and foremost, and second that he cheated on his wife... that he lied about it ranks far lower on my list. It's just wild to me that people only think it's wrong when it's a politician they don't like. I guess that's the difference between the left and the right. Left politician diddles kids, we want them out. Right politician diddles kids, their followers say it's fine because a politician on the left did it, too — but they absolutely support prosecuting the guy on the left. Not their guy, who they revere.
He lied about it under oath. While testifying before Congress. As the defendant in a sexual harassment suit. That's the only part that matters legally.
He didn't, actually. The lawyers very clearly defined in that court "sexual relations" as P in V. Clinton, being a lawyer, saw the ability to drop that line, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" as a legal win. And it was.
The prosecution wasn't trying to win in that court. They were trying to destroy his PR.
I remember a con just about having an aneurysm over Clinton "getting away" with...a BJ. Every time it came up. Well into the 2000s.
The cons all spent the better part of a decade trying to "get" Bill and/or Hillary on something and thought they had a slam dunk on the stain on a dress. And then the technical aspect of "lying under oath".
I ask these types what he really did that was truly illegal (aside from the supposed "lying under oath") since adultery is not illegal. One of these guys explodes with: "BUT IT SHOULD BE!"
Dude is already reddish-purple with rage, but I asked him what he thought about ol' Newt doing the same thing: Reaction: What are you even talking about? (I calmly explain Newt was cheating on his wife while sermonizing about Clinton) Practically popping a blood vessel: SO WHAT? WHO CARES?!!! I'M TALKING ABOUT CLINTON!
meanwhile trump can't even fart without it being a lie. violate court orders and face absolutely no consequences.
also, Clinton was president during that lie, and according to current laws (I know laws don't apply retroactively, but that specific law was), Clinton perjury would not be a crime, let alone an impeachable offense.
It's the only part that matters ethically