@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:Since you've learned that tidbit, you have proceeded to run with it
I'm a huge fan of facts.
neptuneblue wrote:on the grounds that what's good for the goose is also good for the gander.
That was already my position. I just accepted the facts that you provided into my narrative.
I still consider this to be letting Bill Clinton off the hook, by the way. The penalty was trivial.
neptuneblue wrote:equating the national security risk of colluding with a foreign entity versus not wanting to admit an affair are not in the same league. At all.
That's hardly a fair characterization.
If Trump had actually committed obstruction, it would have had nothing whatsoever to do with collusion, but would have been solely because he was annoyed at the suggestion that he didn't win the election fairly.
Bill Clinton's multiple counts of obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct were an attempt to avoid answering for his sexual predation.
Further, the idea that the severity of the crime depends on what is being covered up is morally untenable. If Bill Clinton had murdered someone in order to cover up an affair, would you say that the crime was no big deal because he was only covering up an affair?