Without belaboring the obvious, Wilson engaged in oral sex with a minor. Lewinsky was not a minor.

Come on Lat - this is a pretty obvious distinction, isn't it?

Yeah, but Wilson was practically a minor himself at the time.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, was old enough to be Lewinksy's dad. And the most powerful man in the world.

the decision has been appealed, and he's still in jail

I don't think Lat is taking a stand either way. I think he's just asking: "How much trouble is a BJ worth?"

i can't believe this got prosecuted in the first place. what a waste of taxpayer money.

Two years for a BJ is definitely not worth it; especially when it can be had on Tenth Avenue for $25 at non-peak times.

I don't doubt that Monica L. has "mad skillz" in that department.

But were "Monica's ministrations" worth a political and constitutional meltdown? I think not.

I can't believe they're wasting taxpayer money to appeal this, especially where the law has already changed.

Basically, he was part of a group of 17 and 18 year old seniors who gang-banged a 15 year old freshman. On Video. And kept it.

He got a 10 year mandatory minimum instead of pleading guilty to a lesser charge that would have gotten him 2 years. He took the chance of going to trial and lost. Now he wants a second bite. Sorry. You made a bad call.

He's lucky he didn't get hit with a child pornography charge. Of course, he still may if the saber-rattling from the US Attorney's office is to be believed.

There was an article about him in ESPN the Magazine a few months back. He was apparently a promising high school football player who was being recruited by some pretty good schools. As I remember the article, he said he wants to go into law if he gets out of jail/gets his name cleared.

He violated a law so hypocritical, the Georgia legislature has since repealed it.

He is still in jail not for "sex" but for a bj. Were he busted only for sex, the sentencing guidelines would have been far, far lighter.

He was black, she was white -- show that video to a jury in Rome, Georgia and see what you get.

He's not lucky about the kiddie porn, he is lucky this happened in 2005.

aggravating:
http://www.votejohnson.com/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=184

5:35pm, I've actually never heard anyone defend this sentence. Congratulations, you're the first.

Ten years in prison and having to register as a sex offender for getting a blow job from a girl two years younger than he is....

"we sure hope it was worth 2 years in prison". what a fucked up headline, Lat. obviously that's not what the case is about.

Wow 5:35, you are incredibly stupid. So lets see, being 17 and having sex with a 15 year old with several other guys and videotaping it equals 10 years in prison? But yet you defend the lengthy sentence based on his rejected plea bargain. Well, the plea bargain was for 5 years (NOT 2 as you erroneously state) and he would have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life, which in GA means he could not live hardly anywhere. He wouldn't have even been able to live in the same house as his younger sister when he got of jail. Unbelievable.

Couple points... I don't believe the victim is white. If that were the case, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would've been camped out in front of the courthouse from the beginning. I'm almost positive the victim is black.

Granted, 10 years is ridiculously excessive, but also this wasn't your run of the mill blowjob either like some make it out to be. He was charged with rape. He had sex with at least one other girl and then got head from another while his friends videotaped it. It was a sordid affair.

Finally, the DA or AG or whoever is required to appeal a ruling from a judge who has no authority t o make the ruling.

this on youtube?

Joe at 10:10pm:

he was charged with rape, and acquitted. Being charged doesn't mean squadoosh.

"I can't believe they're wasting taxpayer money to appeal this, especially where the law has already changed."

The law wasn't changed retroactively. If I were a prosecutor I wouldn't want some judge deciding when to selectively change the sentence that was originally imposed. The prosecutors wouldn't get a second bit at the apple if the minimum sentence had gone up.

The sentence is silly, but it doesn't call out for a repudiation of basic legal principles. If the judges can "fix" the law in this case, what stops them from "fixing" it in cases we don't agree with?

The Governor should have pardoned him.

12:56:

Being charged certainly means SOMETHING. It (usually) means someone accused the defendant of rape. That's a big deal, whether he was convicted of it or not.

Clinton said he never actually banged ML, but that is such a lie. He was all over that and as often as was feasible.

Considering his continued popularity and global esteem, I'm willing to bet he would have the affair all over again, but be more careful about producing any evidence.

I've actually been following this case from the beginning. First and foremost, the alleged victim is white. Second, nobody gang banged the 15 year old. They gang banged a 17 year old. She claimed she was raped but the jury saw the video and noted she was an active participant in the sexual encounter. The 15 year is seen on the tape approaching the defendant and doing her best Monica L. impersonation. The defendant was originally offered a deal that would have him out right now, but he refused it because he would have had to register as a sex offender and since he lived with his mother and little sister, he would have had to move out of his house, which he was not willing to do. Bottom line: it may be 2007 but he lives in Georgia. I'm not at all surprised that the prosecutor is still pursuing this. After all, there's a city in GA that just had its first interracial prom this year.

Why has there not be a similar outcry about Matthew Limon? http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/11940res20050908.html
Both cases are gross miscarriages of justice.