>> However, the screening technology at the time of his infection - the 1970's - would not have necessarily protected him from HIV and HCV (the viruses he contracted)
This the point that puzzles me. (I'm not trying to argue with you, just to understand.)
No, the screening of the era would not have protected this guy (or anyone else). So what? Does it exonerate Clinton from KNOWINGLY distributing HIV-contaminated blood? Yes (at that early date, anyway). Does it mean Clinton is blameless? Heavens, no. It was still a swindle hidden away behind state prison walls. The doctor who ran the scam was a U.S. public health officer who knew he was flouting FDA rules against using prison blood.
Keep in mind also that the protestor did not receive a transfusion. He got factor 8, a blood clotting agent made from POOLED plasma. One bad unit, the whole batch is infected. With prison plasma, every batch was infected.
I agree with almost everything you said, especially that Clinton is certainly not blameless for allowing contaminated blood from Arkansas prisioners to be distributed to other countries. My point about this particular protester is simply that he would be a more credible and (to me) sympathetic witness for Clinton's complicity in the "blood scandal" had he been infected with HBV (which could have been effectively screened with the available technology) rather than HIV and HCV, neither of which were detectable at the time.
Regarding the medium for Clotting Factor 8, I recall (but could be wrong) that in the 1970's and 1980's, unless the recipient made special arrangements with friends or relatives to donate whole blood in advance, a fractional distillate from pooled plasma was transfused. Today, of course, factor 8 can be manufactured with recombinant technology that is unrelated to donated blood.