<<but since the list of body parts doesn't include the mouth, it doesn't count oral sex as sexual relations>>
Clinton argument according to press- Playing with ''mouth''
Today's Papers - Slate Briefing - From Slate Magazine(http://www.slate.com)
Erecting a DefenseBy Scott Shuger
After Today's Papers: Jim Surowiecki's weekend stock market talking points.
The NYT leads with a report, sourced to senior White House advisors,
that President Clinton has discussed, but not finally committed to,
a strategy of acknowledging to the grand jury on Monday that he'd
had intimate sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky. USAT leads with
a new poll, taken by the paper together with CNN, indicating that
Americans want Clinton to tell the truth to the grand jury, even if
it means making just such an admission. The WP lead is that the
Clinton administration has for months been secretly dissuading
United Nations weapons teams from making surprise inspections in
Iraq in order to avoid prompting a new crisis with Baghdad.
The NYT calls Clinton's grand jury appearance "the most politically
and legally perilous moment of his presidency," and says he has been
conducting practice sessions in which his lawyers are questioning
him and designing answers that allow him to acknowledge a
relationship with Lewinsky without going into graphic detail. Both
the Times and the WSJ "Washington Wire" say that some advisors are
suggesting Clinton afterwards make a public statement about his testimony.
According to the Times, the theory under which Clinton may now admit
to sexual contact with Lewinsky is this: when he said in his Jones
case deposition that he had never had sexual relations with
Lewinsky, he was following the definition of sexual relations
approved by the Jones trial judge--contact with any of a list of
body parts (the paper quotes one Clinton advisor's assessment of the
definition: "cockamamie")--but since the list of body parts doesn't
include the mouth, it doesn't count oral sex as sexual relations.
According to the NYT, the Clinton inner circle realizes the major
political drawback of this line: reinforcing the notion of Clinton
(in the NYT's choice phrase) as "a lawyerly manipulator of language
use to evade responsibility...technically truthful but not
fundamentally honest." Another bad reaction will come from women's
groups if they ever notice that according to the judge's definition,
Clinton is saying that he didn't have sex with Monica, but she had
sex with him. Today's Papers - Slate Briefing - From Slate Magazine(http://www.slate.com)
Erecting a DefenseBy Scott Shuger
After Today's Papers: Jim Surowiecki's weekend stock market talking points.
The NYT leads with a report, sourced to senior White House advisors,
that President Clinton has discussed, but not finally committed to,
a strategy of acknowledging to the grand jury on Monday that he'd
had intimate sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky. USAT leads with
a new poll, taken by the paper together with CNN, indicating that
Americans want Clinton to tell the truth to the grand jury, even if
it means making just such an admission. The WP lead is that the
Clinton administration has for months been secretly dissuading
United Nations weapons teams from making surprise inspections in
Iraq in order to avoid prompting a new crisis with Baghdad.
The NYT calls Clinton's grand jury appearance "the most politically
and legally perilous moment of his presidency," and says he has been
conducting practice sessions in which his lawyers are questioning
him and designing answers that allow him to acknowledge a
relationship with Lewinsky without going into graphic detail. Both
the Times and the WSJ "Washington Wire" say that some advisors are
suggesting Clinton afterwards make a public statement about his testimony.
According to the Times, the theory under which Clinton may now admit
to sexual contact with Lewinsky is this: when he said in his Jones
case deposition that he had never had sexual relations with
Lewinsky, he was following the definition of sexual relations
approved by the Jones trial judge--contact with any of a list of
body parts (the paper quotes one Clinton advisor's assessment of the
definition: "cockamamie")--but since the list of body parts doesn't
include the mouth, it doesn't count oral sex as sexual relations.
According to the NYT, the Clinton inner circle realizes the major
political drawback of this line: reinforcing the notion of Clinton
(in the NYT's choice phrase) as "a lawyerly manipulator of language
use to evade responsibility...technically truthful but not
fundamentally honest." Another bad reaction will come from women's
groups if they ever notice that according to the judge's definition,
Clinton is saying that he didn't have sex with Monica, but she had
sex with him.
My opinion-- The President has a very strong case-- Starr will not. In context of market volatility - Clinton defense on 'blow job' basis makes a good technical argument although morally zilch but from investors perspectives that puts impeachment way beyond and any way everyone was moved to see the President shedding tears for American fallen to the vendetta of callous terrorists. One who should thro the first stone should be the one who had committed no similar offense.. Leave him alone the best course for US.. |
