But, especially with Congress complicit, how is that criminal? Ill- advised, perhaps, noxious, misdirected, okay, but how criminal?
I didn't and don't care much about the Monica thing. It was disappointing the President had so little self-control, was so awkward & indiscreet, and then compounded that by lying to us about it on TV ("I didn't have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky...").
So he lost a couple points with me for being a cad, but mostly I'd just hoped for a better example from any man in that office. However, what the President does privately with his privates is his affair, and any consequences should come from Hillary (!). That's between them.
The Paula Jones thing he was impeached for _was_ a big deal to me. I saw it as the President of the United States using the conveniences and resources of his office--his staff, mainly--for personal gain, namely, to crush a private citizen, and prevail in a civil matter between them.
In court he delayed, finagled, and maneuvered in ways the big boys always use to exhaust their opponents rather than face judgment, evaded discovery & deposition, then lied. Slippery, slimy, icky. The whole thing reeked.
A number of the things he did in the course of that action were illegal and contrary to the oath attorneys take[1][2], as well as in violation of their code of ethics, so yes, I thought him disreputable, undone, and unfit for office.
Best regards, James Arthur
[1] Dilatory tactics, for example, are generally expressly forbidden. [2] e.g., here's Maine's: