You'd be surprised what normally cautious and respectable people can get up to under the influence of shock and stress.
Without getting too specific, I will say that an aunt of mine remarried quite quickly after the tragic death of her first husband in a rather violent road accident. Her new husband was someone she had never met prior, because she was on vacation after the accident when she met him. Anyway, the rest of the family have always attributed her hasty action to shock, stress, and denial. That's more than I really wanted to say, but my point is still that even if Willey was unhinged, what was Bill's excuse for his behavior? Willey can do what she wants. She is not the President, and her credibility isn't under question. It could be under question regarding this incidence only, sure, but there's no string of questionable happenings prior to that like there is with Bill. I think that's what makes this Lewinsky incident such a sticking point -- it's the latest in a series:
1) Bill never remembered getting a draft card, and he certainly never tried to evade -- next comes a letter thanking a VIP for helping him avoid the draft.
2) Bill tried marijuana, but he didn't inhale. Well sure it's possible, but it stretches the believable. Why not just admit that he inhaled, coughed, choked, and never smoked it again? Even if he didn't inhale, it would certainly be more believable.
3) Bill never had an affair with Jennifer Flowers. Well, according to Ms. Flowers, there's 11 years worth of supporting evidence that suggest he did -- if anyone would care to look. And then much later Bill did admit to something to the effect of "past actions on his part that have put undue strain on his marriage". And I don't know if it's public, but supposedly Bill did admit to the affair in an affidavit under oath relatively recently.
I'm sure I've missed plenty, but the point is that Bill has in the past given the impression that his first response to anything is outright denial -- like the "Not Me" ghost in the "Family Circus" comic - A table lamp is broke, there's three kids in the room, and each one says "Not Me", in response to the question of who broke the lamp.
I take it you are suggesting that Willey "smeared her own lipstick, undid her blouse", as the talking points suggest that Tripp should say. Or perhaps invented the whole Oval Office visit? While Willey may have had some motivation, I would think that if she wanted to harm the President out of anger, that she would have done the job much differently -- I would think she would have visited the Oval Office, and upon exit discretely "rearranged" her make-up, blouse, etc, and rushed out of the Oval Office looking tragic and distraught, instead of "flushed and joyful". And next she would have immediately sought an attorney to file some charges, rather than finally giving her version of the incident when called to testify under oath to the Paula Jones' legal team.
Whether Lewinsky is a compulsive liar or not, who knows. Her character so far doesn't appear to be of the truth and honor type. If she did have the affair, I'm quite sure she was prepared to deny it whenever that became necessary -- that seems very obvious to me. During the affair, she would not, upon direct question from a potential trouble-source, just break down blubbering, telling all. But again, is Lewinsky smart enough to make it all up convincingly? I don't know Jack Clarke's perspective, but in my experience, the compulsive liars that I have known (and still know) may think themselves very believable, but when I KNOW they are outright lying, then it doesn't matter how convincing or impressive they may think their lies are. When someone tells me something in no uncertain terms multiple times, and then I find out from two other people that this person told them something very different, and told them independently at different times, then I am convinced that they are lying, no matter how smooth they may lie again to me. On top of that, if I know there is a motivation for them to lie, then in my mind it's "beyond a reasonable doubt", at least at that point. In my experience, people who are compulsive liars "become known" among those close to them for this character flaw.
So what it would come down to is: During a comprehensive background check by govt agents, will the person's friends and relatives "spill the beans" about the flaw when asked about the person's reliability? So it comes down to how honest the person's friends are! No real conclusion -- But I would bet that all it would take is one person to suggest a history of compulsive lying, and the investigation would then begin focusing in on that part -- and I would hope that the person would at that point be excluded from possibility of working near the President of the United States.
DK |
