In New 'Documentary', Bill Clinton Blames His 'Anxieties' For Lewinski Affair

P. Gardner Goldsmith | March 6, 2020
Font Size

Remember the “#MeToo” movement?

Remember how it doesn’t seem to apply to everyone equally, especially political figures whose reputations the pop media don’t want tarnished?

Remember Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinski and his 1998 parade of egomaniacal lies and snide, self-righteous smears against those who drew attention to the truth?

Well, now, in a cozy Hulu documentary that seems to do in metaphorical terms what Ms. Lewinski did for him in the Oval Office, William Jefferson Clinton is given plenty of time to “set the record straight.”

And, as always, he explains that his actions weren’t his own fault.

Of course not.

In the torture-fest called “Hillary” (which, given the gullibility of many Hillary fans, we should tell them is NOT about the alleged inspiration for Mrs. Clinton’s first name, Sir Edmund Hillary, who didn’t become world-renowned for scaling Mt. Everest until AFTER she was born) that premiers Friday, the former Liar-in-Chief explained that he did the things he did with Ms. Lewinski because of his “anxieties”.

As Daniel Bates writes for The Daily Mail:

Bill reveals that at the time he met Lewinsky the pressure of the job made him feel like a boxer who had done 30 rounds and he looked at Lewinsky as 'something that will take your mind off it for a while'.


She was 22. He was 49.

She was an intern. He was the married Chief Executive of the US government.

Certainly, she had her own agency and made her own decisions, but the way pop media have given both Bill and Hillary Clinton passes about his behavior (especially given the “#MeToo” movement) and the way they persisted in attempting to not only cover-up the affair, but to smear those who told the truth -- and to then distract people from the truth -- should be given intense scrutiny by anyone interested in ethics and truth.

Of course, it seems that the producers of “Hillary” aren’t concerned with truth, so let’s offer some.

In the real world, Bill outright lied about the affair, under oath, in a legal deposition. As John Nolte notes for Breitbart:

Earlier that year, in January (1998), Clinton had been deposed under oath for a lawsuit filed by Paula Jones, who had credibly accused Clinton of sexually harassing her in 1991 when he was the governor of Arkansas… During his sworn deposition, Clinton didn’t know that Jones’ lawyers knew about his affair with a 22-year-old White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. In fact, Clinton didn’t know anyone knew.

So, of course, Clinton lied.

In their effort to prove Clinton’s pattern of sexual misconduct, Jones’ lawyers caught Clinton completely off guard with detailed questions about Lewinsky. Under the assumption she could never prove the affair, that it would forever be his word against hers, Clinton denied everything while under oath — a blatant act of perjury.

Many of us were well aware of Clinton’s dark background with women, so we weren’t surprised.

Over the long, bitter months that followed, Clinton angrily denied the affair to family, friends, the media, White House staffers, and the American people… But Lewinsky had the goods: a semen stain on a blue dress that contained the president’s DNA… And so, on August 17, after seven months of lies and his January perjury, Clinton went before a grand jury and admitted the affair, tried to worm his way out of his perjury with a ludicrous definition of sexual relations, and uttered his famous “That depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” rebuttal when asked why he allowed his lawyer, Bob Bennett, to unknowingly lie on his behalf.


He was impeached for it, but was not removed from office. He had his Arkansas law license revoked, because said lying is a felonious offense. He narcissistically pointed his finger at reporters, and, through their cameras, at the US residents, and attempted to turn the tables, insinuating that THEY were at fault for holding him back from the “business of the American people”.

And he soon attempted to distract people by employing the US military in unconstitutional attacks on innocent foreigners, bombing an aspirin plant in Sudan, and killing hundreds by bombing Serbia – an attack that Sen. John McCain incredibly and disgustingly called necessary to “uphold American values”. Evidently, killing people as part of a distraction campaign to cover-up an extra-marital affair with a young lady and one’s lies about it must’ve represented “American values” in the eyes of McCain. (By the way, I personally asked McCain about this in 1999, and he blatantly contradicted his own statement, saying, “Uh. Yes. We’re very concerned about that.”)

Bill’s comments on it all?

'Things I did to manage my anxieties for years. I'm a different, totally different person than I was, a lot of that stuff 20 years ago,' he said. 

And to cap it off, Mrs. Clinton is given a pass as to her own complicity in this disastrous cover-up and death-dealing distraction campaign:

Hillary tells the cameras: 'I was just devastated. I could not believe it. I was so personally just hurt and I can't believe this, I can't believe you lied.'


Given Mr. Clinton’s checkered past, in which numerous women have plausibly accused him of sexual misconduct and assault, a past which, we’ve been told, was covered-up by a so-called “Bimbo Eruption Team” under the guidance of Hillary herself, and given the way she trashed those women – including Lewinski, whom she called a “narcissistic loony-toon” -- this assertion is utterly and sadly laughable.

She even has the gall to “write” and promote a book about so-called “gutsy women”.


There’s a term that fits this new Hulu love-fest about Hillary, a love-fest that flips “#MeToo” on its posterior and lets Bill Clinton goose it. It’s called “hagiography”, and its etymology stems from the Greek, “hagio” for “holy”, and “graphy” for “writing”.

But, while this Hulu film about Hillary, and, by extension, Bill, might be yet another attempt to promote them and rewrite history, it certainly can’t turn them into saints. Hagiography it might be, but the subjects of the film can never change history  - or their corrupt part in it.

mrc merch