It was not irrelevant.
Because of the "Violence against Women Act of 1994",
passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by Clinton,
Paula Jones was entitled to ask about Clinton's
sexual activity (even if it was consensual)
in order to establish a pattern of behavior.
This law specifically empowers the accuser in a sexual
harassment case to ask such questions,
but it shields the accuser from having to answer such
questions. Unfair? Perhaps. But is was Clinton's own
law! It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress!
This law was used to intimidate others in the
private sector who were accused of sexual harassment
in order to get them to settle out of court instead of
going to trial. This was back in the good old days when
Democrats were "out to get" sexual harassers in the wake
of the Thomas-Hill battle of 1991. Doesn't it bother you
liberals at all that Clinton feels free to inflict a
law on everyone else, yet claims to be exempt from it
himself? This was the essence of the impeachment argument,
not the sexual activity itself.
As far as the perjury aspect, in his January 1998
deposition, Clinton was given a very precise definition
of "sexual relations":
cnn.com
You liberals like to make a joke about all of this,
but it was a serious legal document, and it was a
serious courtroom proceeding. In his August 1998
testimony, Clinton later laughed this off and said
that he "misunderstood" the definition, and he thought
that a "hands-off B.J." did not qualify. Well, a
"hands-off B.J." does indeed qualify! The definition
says "knowingly engages" (i.e., passive) in addition
to "causes" (i.e., active). The definition also says
contact with "any person" (i.e., including Clinton himself).
One can only conclude that Clinton:
1) lied in January 1998 and lied again in August 1998
to claim that he "misunderstood".
2) is actually illiterate. |
