The Sun's editorial about moral authority was another Republican hit piece constructed on a foundation of misinformation (“Roy Moore, Donald Trump and the end of all Republican moral authority,” Dec. 5). The editorial suggests that there was some type of moral equivalence between the issues involved in Bill Clinton's impeachment and the allegations of sexual harassment against Roy Moore. It asserts that both the Clinton impeachment and Mr. Moore’s behavior involved lying about sex.
With respect to Mr. Moore, he has steadfastly denied the allegations and is entitled to a presumption of innocence, which The Sun has not given him. Even if he is lying about sex, there is clearly no equivalence to President Clinton's impeachment. The editorial trumpets the fact that Mr. Clinton was acquitted of all charges. While The Sun paints a compelling story that Mr. Clinton was totally absolved for lying about sex, this is not what actually happened. There were two Clinton impeachment charges, one of which was lying about sex. The Sun conveniently omits the fact that the lies occurred during a deposition for a lawsuit and would more appropriately be called perjury rather than lying. The second charge was obstruction of justice, which has nothing to do with lying. While acquittal is technically the correct word, what actually occurred was more of a political hung jury. In two votes where all Democrats voted for Mr. Clinton and a few Republicans voted for him, the impeachment failed with about half for and half against.
Far from being innocent of the charges, Mr. Clinton barely survived the impeachment vote. When the issues were adjudicated in the non-political judicial arena, President Clinton was found guilty and ultimately disbarred for five years by the state of Arkansas. Mr. Moore is alleged to have done things and he may be guilty of lying about sex but there is no equivalence with Bill Clinton who was actually found guilty of perjuring himself about a sexual assault under oath.
D. Anderson, Baltimore