Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (4516)	9/22/1998 12:24:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

"It is obvious to any sane human being that it [definition of 'sex' in PJ case] was intended to cover the whole gamut of sex. Indeed, the President's lawyer, Robert Bennett, conceded as much when he stated - with the approval of his client - that there "is no sex of any kind, in any manner, shape or form" with Monica Lewinsky. Was this not an "utterly false statement"? asked the prosecution. No, sir, not at all, answered Mr Clinton before the grand jury, it depends on the meaning of the word "is". The relationship was not going on at that moment, as the President sat in the room with the lawyers. It had ended before. Therefore, using the "present tense", it was an "accurate statement". Not even Bill Clinton, brilliant actor though he is, was able to prevent the hint of grin enveloping his face as he served up this ridiculous contortion. This was followed by his inventive assertion that oral sex performed by Monica Lewinsky while he was on the telephone to congressmen, or leaning against the door off the Oval Office - a confession forced on him after the discovery of his semen DNA on her blue cocktail dress - did not amount to sexual relations because she was the donor, and he was just the lucky recipient." telegraph.co.uk ------------- Questions to the thread: a) Does anyone think for a minute that there is one sitting judge who would tolerate this sort of childish impudence for more than two minutes? b) Does anyone think for a minute that an ordinary citizen would get away with this sort of word-play answer as any kind of reasonable defense in a perjury trial? c) Is it true that if you have enough supporters in the press that it is this easy to defeat the U.S. Dept of Justice? d) If Congress and the Senate allows this defense as reasonable, is this a good precedent? I'm already thinking of the things that could be said in courts across the land: 1) "Your honor, when I said I understood the definition of "theft", and asserted that there is no theft in any way, shape, or form, I meant that I wasn't committing theft as I sat there on the bench facing you, and that's why I said 'is no theft'". 2) "Your honor, when I said I wasn't guilty of theft, I understood that the definition of theft was to take something which didn't belong to me. But the salesperson handed me the diamond ring, therefore it was given to me, and I didn't take it. Therefore I stand by my statement that I was the truth when I said I wasn't guilty of theft, because the definition of theft as I understood it required the deponent, me, to 'take', which I didn't do." At this point, the defendent could follow the example of his hero, and allow the hint of grin to envelope his face. "In an effort to preserve the dignity of the office which I hold"..[I will limit my comments to this statement in regards to my relationship with Monica Lewinsky]....Bill Clinton, in his opening statement during videotaped testimony to the Grand Jury. to President Clinton: Were you thinking of the dignity of the office which you hold when you unzipped your pants and exposed yourself to Monica, motioning to her to service you, while you talked on the phone in the Oval Office to a Congressman on one occassion, and a sugar grower in Florida on another occassion? Me thinks not. I wonder what event caused President Clinton to now think of the dignity of the office of the Presidency? Michelle, re >Seemed like he was truthful to me, in the parts Ive seen here.< Michelle, don't jump into the swamp just because people stuck in quicksand are calling out that the water is warm. Look in the mirror and tell yourself out loud that Clinton's contorted legal language is "truthful". On second thought, don't. I don't want you to make yourself sick.