Impeachment’s studied agnosticism regarding the motives, trustworthiness, and guilt or innocence of its characters is its most fascinating trait. The anger Clinton feels when he’s questioned about his commitment to the advancement of women, for example, is (to my eyes anyway) painted as completely legit; certainly the makeup of his Cabinet is an argument in his favor here, as he’s quick to point out to his legal team. But of course, this doesn’t preclude him from being a cad, a creep, and/or a predator in his personal life; his behavior with Monica, an unpaid employee fresh out of college, is proof of that.
Then there are figures like his accusers Paula Jones and (appearing here for the first time) Juanita Broaddrick. There’s no reason to believe, in the show’s construction of these characters, that they’re being anything but truthful in their allegations against the president; Jones is too naive to dissemble and seems completely aghast at being asked explicit sexual questions during her meeting with Clinton’s lawyers, and Broaddrick tries like hell to get the right-wing private investigators who come sniffing after her story to leave, so averse is she to getting mixed up in all this. What reason would such women have to lie about what Clinton did to them?
I reviewed this week’s episode of ACS Impeachment for Decider.
Tags: american crime story, decider, impeachment: american crime story, reviews, TV, TV reviews