“Positive, my boss took benefit of me, however I’ll at all times stay agency on this level: it was a consensual relationship,” she wrote. “Any ‘abuse’ got here within the aftermath, after I was made a scapegoat as a way to shield his highly effective place.”
Reflecting on these phrases in a 2018 Vainness Truthful piece, “I now see how problematic it was that the 2 of us even bought to a spot the place there was a query of consent. As an alternative, the highway that led there was affected by inappropriate abuse of authority, station, and privilege. (Full cease.)
“Now, at 44, I am starting (simply starting) to think about the implications of the facility differentials that had been so huge between a president and a White Home intern. I am starting to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the concept of consent would possibly nicely be rendered moot.”
She didn’t, nonetheless, disavow her personal company, sustaining that in her decision-making moments, she needed what occurred sexually between her and Clinton to occur. It is simply that the truth that it occurred in any respect was additionally proof of the age-old discrepancy between what’s proper and what’s so sadly frequent.
So, take all of that—the abuse of energy, the betrayal, the scapegoating, the gaslighting, the humiliation and psychological abuse, the media hysteria and, sure, the 2 articles of impeachment filed in opposition to President William Jefferson Clinton—and you have an American crime story.