  Sully argues that the urlLink lib media picked on Jack Ryan's 'consensual adult sex' and decried it as another rape of privacy. But the point was that urlLink it wasn't consensual . Per Jeri 'Smokin' Cyborg/Too Hot Teacher' Ryan: On three trips, one to New Orleans, one to New York, and one to Paris, Respondent [Jack Ryan] insisted that I go to sex clubs with him. They were long weekends, supposed "romantic" getaways. ... The clubs in New York and Paris were explicit sex clubs.
Respondent had done research. Respondent took me to two clubs in New York during the day. One club I refused to go in. It had mattresses in cubicles. The other club he insisted I go to. ...
It was a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling. Respondent wanted me to have sex with him there, with another couple watching. I refused. Respondent asked me to perform a sexual activity upon him, and he specifically asked other people to watch. I was very upset. We left the club, and Respondent apologized, said that I was right and that he would never insist I go to a club again.
He promised it was out of his system. Then during a trip to Paris, he took me to a sex club in Paris, without telling me where we were going. I told him I thought it was out of his system. I told him he had promised me we would never go. People were having sex everywhere. I cried, I was physically ill. Respondent became very upset with me, and said it was not a "turn on" for me to cry.
I honestly don't know where Sully takes offence. He previously argued that urlLink one difference between Clinton and Arnold was that the former's transgressions were already in the public domain (via lawsuits). Jack and Jeri Ryan's divorce proceedings were a public artefact, although one that was under court seal. Ultimately, I'm not sure of where exactly the defining line is regarding public officials' privacy. I still believe that Clinton's offences were execrable, but Republican efforts to abuse the special prosecutor's office to partisan effect were equally, if not more, dangerous. urlLink Arnold's case is slightly muddier , since none of the allegations made it to court, though the women claimed, not implausibly, that bringing the then-highest paid action star in the planet to the docket was a futile task.
Now, Arnold did apologise where Clinton did not. Fine. And he didn't commit these acts as a public servant--and more specifically did not use public services for private gain. OK. But the allegations still sound serious enough that even after the fact should have been investigated. Ryan's case wasn't investigated as a crime, but as a civil procedure, which puts him somewhere between Clinton and Schwarzenegger.
Moreover, the events happened during a marriage, and the revelation at divorce proceedings, where emotions do run high. (See also Blair Hull's downfall, though that involved allegations of physical abuse. ) But this doesn't exculpate Ryan if they're true. Did they render him unfit for office? That's a big question. Should we plumb about people's personal histories to determine that?
That's a bigger question, and one I'll probably return to later. 
