SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Bilow who wrote (5626)9/14/1998 3:42:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen  Read Replies (1) of 13994
 
I should add that I second Scrapps' comment -- very well done post. I also wanted to add regarding:

>>Clinton is acting like an escaped prisoner who thinks that by hiding in the sewer he can escape from justice. It is the repugnant duty of Starr to go down into that sewer after Clinton. But it is a duty, and an honorable one, and he
is performing his duty.<<

I think the whole "legally accurate" argument was a very coldly calculated one. The Clinton lawyers looked at the possible outcomes, and the result good/bad for the President:

1) Maybe they didn't believe that Starr would prove in the report (with explicitly worded descriptions provided by not only Monica, but her many confidants both personal and professional) that Clinton's assertions that he was "legally accurate" were false.

2) If Starr did provide those explicit details of the encounters, the WH spin machine would go into high gear, alleging "smear campaign" by the law officer Starr.

Either way, Clinton attorneys saw the end result as a win for Clinton:

If Starr didn't provide detail, then the lawyers would pounce, and say that Starr definitely didn't provide contrary evidence to the President's assertions. They would get very aggressive, and demand that Congress throw the whole report away.

So now option 2) is in gear. One thing that the public may not have grasped yet is that Clinton and his attorneys are directly implying (again) that Monica is lying when she said that in most if not all the encounters, Clinton did engage in sexual contact with Lewinsky's private parts. Because that would mean that he did perjure himself by saying he didn't have "sex" in the court's definition.

So I wonder how Monica feels about that denial. We have the ironic situation where the President is on one hand apologizing and asking "forgiveness" from Monica, while at the same time directly implying that she lied in her deposition.

Really weird.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News