Apparently, Newt Gingrich had an extramarital affair - even as he led the impeachment of Clinton.
I don't think this should have disqualified him from playing a role; after all, Clinton was being impeached for perjury, not infidelity. But it's definitely something that should have been made public at the time. And if that would have kept him from leading the charge, so be it.
Actually, I'm reminded about how liberals viewed the crime of perjury when it was Bill Clinton in the dock. They were outraged that such piddling charges would be brought against him - especially when the main thrust of the investigation (Whitewater) turned up nothing. Sounds rather familiar, actually: Libby was prosecuted for perjury on an immaterial matter arising from an investigation (the Wilson/Plame non-story) that, likewise, turned up nothing. Do you see a difference in tone on the part of liberal commentators? I do.
In fairness, there's a disconnect on the conservative side as well. Conservatives who were indignant about Clinton's perjury (make no mistake, that's what it was) should also be indignant about Libby's perjury (that's what that was, too). Yes, Clinton was the president - but if the office matters, then shouldn't it matter that Libby was the right-hand man to the vice president?
I thought the effort to remove Clinton from office was wrong, for all the reasons I thought the prosecution of Libby was wrong. Mind you, I did at the time support Clinton's impeachment, not conviction; but pretty soon after the fact I changed my mind and decided that mere censure would have been better.
So, liberals: is it hypocritical to wax lyrical on the perfidious Libby, but to dismiss Clinton's lies as unimportant distractions? I think so. And only one of the two men is in jail for it.