# What if Hillary had left Bill? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 27, 2003, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-hillary-had-left-bill/151195 "2003-01-27T07:25:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-hillary-had-left-bill/151195/1 "2003-01-27T07:25:14Z")
I hate asking “what if” type questions because some of you don’t know how to have any fun and are quick to remind us all that “that will never happen”. this particular one goes heavily in you party poopers favor because it deals with the past so it _really_ can’t ever happen. But let’s try it anyway. This is spurred by the recent GD threads about former President Clinton. My debate question is: During the whole Monica Lewinsky/impeachment ordeal what if Hillary had left Bill? What if she had appeared on television crying saying **"I’m his wife. He should be exploring his sexual fantasies with me! How could he betray me! The mother of his baby! Bawl, sob!"** Do you think the country would have turned more against him than it did? My position is that had Hillary come out as this neglected woman, completely devestated by her husbands cheating, even the femanists would have wanted him booted out, and his popularity ratings would have droped to zilch. Or do you think even then he would have slithered through it like he did? I know the image of Hillary bawling like a heart broken school girl is hard to imagine, but in real life that’s what alot of women do when they find out their hubbys gone astray. Had she done this, or even just filed for divorce, do you think he could have survived? I say no! ---
**Author:** ![Texican](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ebca7d/32.png) [@Texican](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Texican)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-hillary-had-left-bill/151195/2 "2003-01-27T12:34:39Z")
This wasn’t new for her. Account that have been published have her more angry about what he had done to their image, and the damage to what everything they had worked for, more than the personal kind of betrayal. I actually believe what Bill told Monica, that he had been a real bad boy in the past, and that he had been trying very hard to be good, but just couldn’t do it anymore (words to that effect). Has anyone else noticed that since the end of the Presidency neither of them wears a wedding ring anymore? ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-hillary-had-left-bill/151195/3 "2003-01-27T17:02:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Texican \* > \*\*This wasn’t new for her. Account that have been published have her more angry about what he had done to their image, and the damage to what everything they had worked for, more than the personal kind of betrayal. I actually believe what Bill told Monica, that he had been a real bad boy in the past, and that he had been trying very hard to be good, but just couldn’t do it anymore (words to that effect). > Has anyone else noticed that since the end of the Presidency neither of them wears a wedding ring anymore? \*\* Uh, huh. And this answers the question how? My point is, impeachment not withstanding, the majority of the country did not turn against Clinton. I feel that this is mainly because of Hillary. Had she left, I think the entire situation would changed. Convince me it wouldn’t have. ---
**Author:** ![Texican](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ebca7d/32.png) [@Texican](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Texican)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-hillary-had-left-bill/151195/4 "2003-01-27T17:33:07Z")
I think you are right. If she hadn’t stood by him and made nice then he would have been finished. As it were it gave his apologists the out by claiming “if she forgives him, I can too”. I’d say it was worth it for her, she got her Senate seat. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-hillary-had-left-bill/151195/5 "2003-01-27T22:59:39Z")
What if Hillary had left Bill? If they were divorced, then she could have been “forced” to testify against him in court, and he could have been forced to testify against her in court. Whitewater, the options trading, the white house scandels, and all the other alleged crimes could have been persued. As it is, a husband or wife cannot be forced to testify against a spouse. If you want to know why they stayed together, that is the reason. The answer is: They would both be in prison for the rest of their lives. A good reason why they will not divorce until the statute of limitations is over for whatever they have done. ---
**Author:** ![light\_strand](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a6a055/32.png) [@light\_strand](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/light_strand)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-hillary-had-left-bill/151195/6 "2003-01-27T23:21:40Z")
Wrong Susanann. Spousal privilege is not broken by divorce. Besides the fact that your entire post is just stupid _and_ incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-hillary-had-left-bill/151195/7 "2003-01-27T23:32:20Z")
Hijack, but if Hillary divorced Bill now, would she still receive Secret Service protection and other perks of being a former First Lady? (She’ll always be a former First Lady, that can’t be changed.) If she left Bill and he married luminous teen star of the GILMORE GIRLS Alexis Bledel, had six more children (two of them with Bledel), then divorced again, would Bledel receive any form of Secret Service protection, or for that matter would their children? This is the bad part about young presidents. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-hillary-had-left-bill/151195/8 "2003-01-27T23:33:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Susanann \* > If they were divorced, then she could have been “forced” to testify against him in court, and he could have been forced to testify against her in court. Whitewater, the options trading, the white house scandels, and all the other alleged crimes could have been persued. As usual, **Susanann** is entirely wrong. Because I have it in front of me, I’ll cite the Texas Rules of Evidence, which are fairly well representative of the various federal and state spousal privilege rules (at least in those jurisdictions where the privilege is recognized at all): > [@](#): > > \*\*RULE 504. HUSBAND-WIFE PRIVILEGES > > (a) Confidential Communication Privilege. \*\* > > (1) Definition. A communication is confidential if it is made privately by any person to the person’s spouse and it is not intended for disclosure to any other person. > > (2) Rule of privilege. A person, whether or not a party, or the guardian or representative of an incompetent or deceased person, has a privilege during marriage and afterwards to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication made to the person’s spouse while they were married. > > (3) Who may claim the privilege. The confidential communication privilege may be claimed by the person or the person’s guardian or representative, or by the spouse on the person’s behalf. The authority of the spouse to do so is presumed. > > (4) Exceptions. There is no confidential communication privilege: > > (A) Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the communication was made, in whole or in part, to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or fraud. > > (B) Proceeding between spouses in civil cases. In (A) a proceeding brought by or on behalf of one spouse against the other spouse, or (B) a proceeding between a surviving spouse and a person who claims through the deceased spouse, regardless of whether the claim is by testate or intestate succession or by inter vivos transaction. > > © Crime against spouse or minor child. In a proceeding in which the party is accused of conduct which, if proved, is a crime against the person of the spouse, any minor child, or any member of the household of either spouse. > > (D) Commitment or similar proceeding. In a proceeding to commit either spouse or otherwise to place that person or that person’s property, or both, under the control of another because of an alleged mental or physical condition. > > (E) Proceeding to establish competence. In a proceeding brought by or on behalf of either spouse to establish competence. > \*\*(b) Privilege not to Testify in Criminal Case. \*\* > > (1) Rule of privilege. In a criminal case, the spouse of the accused has a privilege not to be called as a witness for the state. This rule does not prohibit the spouse from testifying voluntarily for the state, even over objection by the accused. A spouse who testifies on behalf of an accused is subject to cross-examination as provided in rule 611(b). > > (2) Failure to call as witness. Failure by an accused to call the accused’s spouse as a witness, where other evidence indicates that the spouse could testify to relevant matters, is a proper subject of comment by counsel. > > (3) Who may claim the privilege. The privilege not to testify may be claimed by the person or the person’s guardian or representative but not by that person’s spouse. > > (4) Exceptions. The privilege of a person’s spouse not to be called as a witness for the state does not apply: (A) _Certain criminal proceedings._ In any proceeding in which the person is charged with a crime against the person’s spouse, a member of the household of either spouse, or any minor. (B) _Matters occurring prior to marriage._ As to matters occurring prior to the marriage. _See also, e.g., Earthman’s, Inc. v. Earthman_, 526 S.W.2d 192, 206 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, no writ) (communications prior to and after marriage are not privileged, but communications during pendency of marriage are subject to husband-wife privilege). ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-hillary-had-left-bill/151195/9 "2003-01-27T23:58:45Z")
Let it never be said that I don’t admit it when I’m wrong. I may cuss a lot–goddammit–but I fucked that one up royally. The husband-wife privilege applies to communications made in confidence during the pendency of a marriage, regardless of the marital status of the spouses at the time of trial. _That_ privilege–504(a)–has no effect at all if the communication is made in furtherance of a crime. (“Honey, I had Vince Foster murdered” is privileged; “Honey, let’s steal a bunch of money from Whitewater” is not privileged.") The second privilege–504(b)–is that a spouse may not be forced to testify _at all_ (with some exceptions) against the other spouse. This testimonial privilege _only_ applies if the spouses are legally married. This privilege does not depend on whether the subject of the testimony involves a “marital communication,” as in 504(a). Fuck me, that’s what I get for practicing civil law. I also apologize to Susanann, who has the privilege of being partially correct about the husband-wife privilege as it applies to criminal cases. Goddammit. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2003, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-hillary-had-left-bill/151195/10 "2003-01-28T00:05:30Z")
Of course, what **Susanann** has demonstrated rather clearly, is that if Hillary had actually divorced Bill during his presidency (while the mob cried “she is just staying with him so she can be First Lady”), that same mob would have then screamed “How dare she desert her husband. What happened to her vows of ‘for better or worse’?” Some people simply have a visceral (and pathological) need to hate the Clintons. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2003, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-hillary-had-left-bill/151195/11 "2003-01-28T00:18:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Let it never be said that I don’t admit it when I’m wrong. > > I also apologize to Susanann, who has the privilege of being partially correct about the husband-wife privilege as it applies to criminal cases. . \*\* Glory be, thank you, and accepted. Maybe I misjudged you earlier, sorry. We will never agree on anything, but I commend you for making that post. And yes, it was the criminal allegations that I was referring to. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2003, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-hillary-had-left-bill/151195/12 "2003-01-28T00:38:13Z")
Which testimony may or may not be privileged in a criminal case if they divorced, depending on the testimony sought to be admitted. If it’s a confidential marital communication that was _not_ made “to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or fraud,” it’s still privileged. Note also that the Clintons testified repeatedly and ad nauseum regarding all manner of alleged actvity without ever once claiming either either the Fifth Amendment or spousal privilege. So your assertion that they _would_ be in jail if only they could be forced to testify against each other is clearly crap.