Seth Leibsohn of BennettMornings e-mails:

Immediate differences between preliminary judgements on Clinton and Rove.
1. In the Clinton case you had the combination of some very disturbing facts that were simply not refuted by the Clintons, they only attacked the reporters and accusers AND you had a pattern and practice completely consonant with the allegations at issue.
2. Then, the charges were of such a nature that one would shout from the rooftops one’s innocence, instead there was silence and ad hominem.
3. Not even Bill Clinton’s wife defended him on something she’d obviously be in a position to know, the best she could do was speak of a conspiracy.
4. All the facts alleged were borne out ultimately in the Starr report and subsequent reporting, weren’t they?
5. Then, you had a string, a line, of people making the same accusations from direct knowledge and victimhood–here you have the people involved, notably Cooper and Novak saying nothing nefarious was done.
6. Then, you had early and obvious charges of obstruction of justice based on public filings where even the President’s attorney had to apologize to the court; here you have the words of those involved saying no bad act by Rove was presumed or assumed.
7. Here, you have a President saying anyone who broke a law will be fired; then you had the chief law enforcement officer of the nation using underlings to cover up for him and nobody lost their jobs.
8. Here, you have a special prosecutor being pretty darned vigorous and the left is looking for him to come up with a head on the block, AS IS THE RIGHT supportive of a full legal investation–including the President. Then, you had everyone in the White House with the conjoining of the liberal press declaiming against the special prosecutor every day (or independent counsel).
9. Then, it was an open question then whether anyone would leave office over illegality including obstructions of justice; here there is no real question at all that people will be fired or leave office if illegalities are found is there? Does anyone really doubt the president’s word on that?
10. Then, you had a whistle blower who was lambasted and mocked in the main stream media and on comedy shows from Leno/Letterman to SNL (Tripp). Here, you have a whistle blower (Joe Wilson) who is already proven a liar on several fronts and feted by mainstream media (pictures, a-list parties, how many appearances on the Sunday shows?). Tripp was never proven to have lied about anything. Wilson became rich over his lies, or richer. Tripp became poor over her whistle blowing.