Have laptop, will post. Will eventually post something substantial, but I'm still getting set up.

In the meantime, a quick thought:

There are several salient differences between the questionable business dealings of the Clintons and those of, say, Bush or Cheney. First, the current White House occupants were certainly seeking advice from a better (or at least higher) class of advisor; Arthur Andersen may not trump Jim McDougal now, but things were different at the time, as Cheney attested personally on that Andersen promo video.

Which was reflected, in a way, in the outcomes: the Clintons lost money.

But one thing is the same: as we live in a government of laws, not men, these guys can't be allowed to use their occupancy of government offices to shield themselves from the consequences of their actions, as the Supreme Court ruled in the Paula Jones case. To cook up some invented, specious reason for treating this stuff any differently would call into doubt not only the correctness of that decision, but the value of precedent itself --- the basis of the Supreme Court's authority to bind other federal judges.

And they wouldn't want to call that into question for transient, partisan political advantage. Would they?