One last response to DTOM:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:hey, you're a lawyer. according to what i've read, when the prosecutors created the list of acts constituting sexual relations, they did NOT include oral sex.
according to their declared definitions, clinton DIDN'T have sexual relations with lewinsky. so he didn't lie according to the law.
In and of itself, lying is not a crime. To commit perjury, Clinton must have taken an oath to testify truthfully. So only his lies made under oath might qualify as purgery. The Supreme Court has set a relatively high standard for determining whether a statement is false for purposes of perjury law. Misleading testimony, coupled with an intent to mislead is not the legal standard in deciding whether someone made a false statement under federal perjury law. The issue is whether a witness may be convicted of perjury for an answer, under oath, that is literally true but not responsive to the question asked and misleading by negative implication. And nobody can be convicted of perjury based on only one other person's testimony.
When Clinton was asked, "At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone together in the Oval Office?", his response was, "
I don't recall ..." Do you find that factually accurate?
Clinton was careful not to make an outright denial, and instead he responded that he remembered one or two times when Lewinsky came to drop off some papers for him in the Oval Office. This was apparently true, because Monica did go to the Oval Office and brought some papers. But he failed to mention that she did more than just drop off some papers. Oh, and it develops that they were alone like 10 to 15 times.
How about this exchange:
Quote:Q. Certainly if it happened, nothing remarkable would have occurred?
A. No, nothing remarkable. I don't remember it.
You think that was a factually accurate statement?
We know Clinton lied because of his desire to mislead, knowing full well he was telling an untruth. That isn't the case with Bush. That's what you anti-Bush folks can't seem to understand .... you insist that he started the war on false pretenses, and "lied" to get us to war, but it's just not the case.
In his sworn deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit, Clinton swore under oath as follows:
Quote:Deposition in the Jones sexual harassment lawsuit
January 17, 1998
(The full text of the deposition is also online.)
Q. At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone together in the Oval Office?
A. I don't recall (BS), but as I said, when she worked at the legislative affairs office, they always had somebody there on the weekends. I typically worked some on the weekends. Sometimes they'd bring me things on the weekends. She - it seems to me she brought things to me once or twice on the weekends. In that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop it off, exchange a few words and go, she was there. I don't have any specific recollections of what the issues were, what was going on, but when the Congress is there, we're working all the time, and typically I would do some work on one of the days of the weekends in the afternoon.
Q. So I understand, your testimony is that it was possible, then, that you were alone with her, but you have no specific recollection of that ever happening?
A. Yes, that's correct. (BS) It's possible that she, in, while she was working there, brought something to me and that at the time she brought it to me, she was the only person there. That's possible.
. . .
Q. Have you ever met with Monica Lewinsky in the White House between the hours of midnight and six a.m.?
A. I certainly don't think so.
Q. Have you ever met -
A. Now, let me just say, when she was working there, during, there may have been a time when we were all - we were up working late. There are lots of, on any given night, when the Congress is in session, there are always several people around until late in the night, but I don't have any memory of that. I just can't say that there could have been a time when that occurred, I just - but I don't remember it. (BS)
Q. Certainly if it happened, nothing remarkable would have occurred?
A. No, nothing remarkable. I don't remember it.(BS)
. . .
Q. Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?
A. No.(BS)
Q. If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie?
A. It's certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth.(BS)
Q. I think I used the term "sexual affair." And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court.
. . .
A. I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her.
Clinton relied upon the definition of "sexual relations" drawn up by Paula Jones' attorneys during his deposition testimony ... but only in a part of his testimony. For when they asked him questions about Lewinsky's affidavit, and asked him when she said she never had "a sexual relationship" with Clinton, whether that was accurate, and he said "absolutely," he later clarified that what he assumed was meant by the phrase, "sexual relationship" was the usual and ordinary meaning of the terms, which in his mind meant intercourse, which he said he did not have, and thus he believed she was being accurate when she swore out the affidavit. Clinton's sole purpose was to mislead.
The definition was as follows:
Quote:For the purposes of this definition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes
(1) contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to gratify or arouse the sexual desire of any person
"Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.
Because Lewinsky engaged in oral sex on him, rather than vice versa, Clinton argued that Lewinsky had engaged in contact with one his relevant body parts, and therefore under the definition she had had sexual relations with
him. He argued that he had never engaged in contact with one of her listed body parts for the purpose of sexually gratifying either him or her, so that under the definition
he had not engaged in "sexual relations" with
her.
As Clinton understood the definition, if a man kissed a woman's breasts for the purpose of sexual gratification, that constituted "sexual relations," while allowing a woman to stimulate his private parts would not, because in that situation the
woman would be engaging in sexual relations, while the man would not be. It's an absurd distinction, and is one reason he's referred to as "Slick Willie."
Clinton also lied about the affair in an interview with Jim Lehrer, in a telephone interview with
Roll Call, and an interview with
NPR, all on January 21, 1998.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/whatclintonsaid.htm
Clinton also denied the affair with Lewinsky in a sworn affidavit he filed in the Paula Jones lawsuit.
---
Six months later, when it was clear his lies were catching up to him, he came clean. On August 17, 1998, after Lewinsky testified about their sexual encounters, Clinton testified before a grand jury and admitted to the affair. He also said the following on national TV:
Quote:As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information. Indeed, I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible.
But I told the grand jury today and I say to you now that at no time did I ask anyone to lie, to hide or destroy evidence or to take any other unlawful action.
I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that.
http://www.historychannel.com/speeches/archive/speech_441.html
As I said, Clinton is a self-admitted liar, and he lied under oath.
DTOM wrote:so next time bin laden or one of his toadies blows the hell out of one of our cities, you can be comforted by the thought that that is morally preferable to monica lewinsky blowing the hell outta "bubba".
As I've said any number of times, I could give a rat's ass whether Clinton got a "Monica" in the Oval Office. But I don't condone lying, especially lying under oath, which is what Clinton did. And that has nothing to do with bin Laden.
