Reply
Fri 5 May, 2006 08:05 am
In the following passage, there is a sentence "just two days before he was to testify under oath about the affair". My question is: why Clinton is needed to testify; the jury or court asked him to? Thanks.
June 4, 2003 ?- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's new book, Living History
gives the former first lady's account of her years in the White House. The
New York senator spoke to ABCNEWS' Barbara Walters exclusively about the
memoir ?- and how she came to learn all the details surrounding her
husband's involvement with Monica Lewinsky.
Sen. Clinton has never before spoken publicly about her feelings ?- or
about any conversation she had with her husband during the dark days of the
1998 Lewinsky scandal.
In her new book, due out Monday ?- and in the 20/20 interview, Hillary
Clinton reveals that from the moment the story broke, President Clinton
lied not only to the country about his relationship, but to his wife as
well.
The full interview will air Sunday, June 8, on ABC. Following are some
excerpts.
SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, D-N.Y.: He told me it wasn't true.
BARBARA WALTERS, ABCNEWS: Did you believe him?
CLINTON: I did.
WALTERS: One more false rumor.
CLINTON: That is what I believed, yes.
As the late-night phone calls [between the president and the White House
intern] were discovered, and the logs of gifts and visits became public,
Sen. Clinton says she cross-examined her husband again and again ?- and
still the president claimed nothing happened ?- just two days before he was
to testify under oath about the affair.
WALTERS: On Saturday, Aug. 15, your husband woke you up.
CLINTON: That was probably the worst moment that I can even imagine anyone
going through because what he told me that morning was that he had not
leveled with me or anyone else. He had not told me the whole truth about
what the relationship was. And I was furious. I was dumbfounded. I was, you
know, just beside myself with anger and disappointment.
Sen. Clinton goes on to tell the very painful days that followed and the
many months she continued her duties as first lady, while sill uncertain
about her marriage.
CLINTON: The jury was really out about whether the marriage would survive,
whether I wanted it to survive.
When a grand jury is empanelled to investigate an allegation of criminal activity, anyone, absolutely anyone can be subpoenaed. A subpoena is a legal writ requiring the recipient to appear and testify. That Clinton was the President did not make him immune from that responsibility.
Thanks a lot for your reply.
Setanta wrote:When a grand jury is empanelled to investigate an allegation of criminal activity, anyone, absolutely anyone can be subpoenaed. A subpoena is a legal writ requiring the recipient to appear and testify. That Clinton was the President did not make him immune from that responsibility.
whether the marriage would survive or not
There is a sentence, " the jury was really out about whether the marriage would survive," I think whether the marriage would survive or not should be decided by Clinton and his wife, not by the jury, unless either of them asked the court to decide. So I am confused.
The expression "the jury is out" means that it has not yet been decided whether something is true or not--it is a metaphor. I understand that this would confuse you. However, the use of the term "jury" in the expression "the jury is out" is metaphorical, and not literal. However, it is also true in regard to this incident that Mr. Clinton had been served a subpoena to appear before a Grand Jury investigating an allegation of criminal activity. So, the use of the term "jury" in that expression did not refer to the Grand Jury. If i have not explained this to your satisfaction, please let me know, and i'll try to explain it again in a manner which will make it clear to you.
divorce or not
It seems that the passage does not mean that either of the couple wanted to divorce, he or she did not ask the court to decide it. There is no need for the jury to decide it. Is that right?
Re: divorce or not
ddlddlee wrote:It seems that the passage does not mean that either of the couple wanted to divorce, he or she did not ask the court to decide it. There is no need for the jury to decide it. Is that right?
The passage does not contain a conclusion about whether or not the couple wanted to divorce, which is why the idiomatic expression "the jury is out" was used--because it was not yet determined. The Grand Jury before which Mr. Clinton was subpoenaed to testify was not concerned with the issue of whether or not the Clintons should divorce. What i am trying to get across to you is that there was a Grand Jury before which Mr. Clinton was obliged to testify; the expression "the jury is out" is only a metaphor, and does not refer to an actual jury, does not refer to any court action, and does not refer to the Grand Jury which had subpoenaed Mr. Clinton to testify.
I got it. Thank you very much for your reply. You are so kind, helpful.
Well, i hope it did help. It was very confusing for someone who is not familiar with that expression, and i would not have seen that myself if you had not asked your question.
ddlddlee wrote:I got it. Thank you very much for your reply. You are so kind, helpful.
You're new around here, aren't you?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace