Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (24888)	12/29/1998 2:26:00 PM
From: Peter O'Brien	Read Replies (1) of 67261

The definition Clinton was given by the court is perfectly clear. He was not free to make up his own definition, or to use your (or anyone else's) definition. According to the court's definition, even "hands-off" oral sex qualifies. This definition includes the phrase "causes or KNOWINGLY ENGAGES" and the phrase "ANY PERSON". Clinton conveniently forgets the "KNOWINGLY ENGAGES" part of the definition and conveniently interprets "ANY PERSON" to mean "any OTHER person". Clinton's interpretation is not credible. If he honestly believed his interpretation, then he must be functionally illiterate. He could have plead the fifth. He could have even admitted it and pointed out that it was indeed consensual (unlike what Paula Jones alleged). But instead, he chose to lie to the court.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next