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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bill who wrote (4651)9/22/1998 12:21:00 PM
From: Les H  Respond to of 67261
 
NEWS FLASH --- SMUDGE REPORT
BILL CLINTON DECLARES ORAL LYING IS NOT PURJURY

CLINTON WILL HANG BY A NOOSE MADE OF LIES

By RAY KERRISON

PRESIDENT CLINTON'S four-hour grand-jury testimony was a
devastating display of his total contempt for truth, honor,
integrity and respect for the high office he holds.

There was no knockout punch, no explosive encounter, no
memorable exchange - just a long, slow self-destruction of the
man before your eyes, piece by piece, as he spat out one lie
after another, one memory lapse after another, one evasion
after another.

It was so pathetic, it inspired pity - pity that the president of the
United States should be reduced to such an estate, pity that a
man could be such a weasel.

The prosecutors gave him an easy pass. They did not attempt
to impale him. They allowed him to answer questions with long,
rambling speeches. At other times, he flat out refused to
answer questions and got away with it. The grand jury asked
him questions and he brushed them aside without demur from
the prosecutors.

Yet, for all that, Clinton destroyed himself because for four
hours straight, he looked into the eyes of the nation and told so
many lies, quibbled over so many words, forgot so many crucial
events, and misled so many of his closest friends and staffers
that he cannot survive.

His crisis was telescoped into two exchanges that insulted the
intelligence of every viewer and grand juror.

A juror asked the president for a direct yes or no answer to this
simple question: Did Monica Lewinsky perform oral sex on
you?

Clinton replied, It's not the first time that question has been
asked, but since I believe, and any reasonable person would
believe, that that is not covered in the definition of sexual
relations I was given, I'm not going to answer it, except to refer
to my statement - I had intimate contact with her that was
inappropriate.

I do not believe any of the contacts I had with her violated the
definition I was given.

He couldn't give a straight answer if his presidency depended
on it.

The whole basis of Clinton's defense is the preposterous
proposition that oral sex does not constitute sexual relations.

The second exchange was a series of questions, just as direct
and simple as the one above.

Prosecutor: If Monica Lewinsky said that while you were in the
Oval Office area you touched her breast, would she be lying?

Clinton: That is not my recollection. My recollection is that I did
not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. My statement is
that I did not have sexual relations as defined.

The prosecutor asked whether Lewinsky would be lying if she
said the president had kissed her breasts, touched her
genitalia, used a cigar as a sexual object and had phone sex
with her.

Clinton replied to all: I would revert to my former statement ... It's
covered in my statement.

And so it went for four tedious hours, with the president
repeatedly sipping water and a soda, smiling, wincing,
smirking, pouting and, just once, snarling in anger when
queried closely about his understanding of the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but.

Not once was Clinton pinned to the mat. He fudged and ducked
and dodged, treating his interrogators with something close to
condescension. He was permitted to palm off obvious lies.

Over and over, he said he couldnot recall events relating to
Lewinsky and his staffers, like secretary Betty Currie. He
couldn't even recall making a phone call to Lewinsky at 2 a.m.
He could not recall making two phone calls from a hotel in
Williamsburg, Va., to Kathleen Willey late at night. He could not
remember asking her to come up to his room.

He could not recall telling Lewinsky he might leave his wife,
Hillary, at the end of his presidential term. He could hardly
remember any details of conversations with his close friend
Vernon Jordan.

Most of Clinton's answers, taken one by one, may not seem to
add up to much. But put them all together and the relentless
hedging and skirting add up to a pathological prevaricator.

No wonder Democratic leaders want him out. Clinton's word is
not worth a grain of sand. Words have no meaning for him,
except as he interprets them. Thus, he sparred with
prosecutors over the meaning of words like is and alone.

Reality is what he says it is. Thus oral sex is not sex. Not once
in his testimony did he describe any of his lewd acts as sex.
They were always inappropriate intimate contacts.

Talk about lies! Clinton was reminded that in the Paula Jones
lawsuit, his attorney, Robert Bennett, testified that Clinton had
no sexual relations in any manner, shape or form with Monica
Lewinsky.

That, of course, was totally false. So Clinton was asked why he
did not correct his attorney's statement. He replied that he was
not aware of what Bennett had said, that he was too busy
concentrating on his own testimony.

When the president was not beating about the bush, he was
busy trying to paint himself as a victim, hounded by political
enemies out to destroy him, zapped by gold-diggers like
Gennifer Flowers and Kathleen Willey, who were spilling lies
everywhere in exchange for money.

They were trying to set me up, he wailed. It was, he said, a
gotcha game.

But he was so caring, so compassionate. It breaks my heart,
he said at one point, that Monica Lewinsky was ever involved in
this.

The most telling moment of the appearance was Clinton's last
act. When it was over, he stood up from his chair and left the
room - laughing.

He may be the consummate liar, the consummate con artist,
but yesterday, he hanged himself in plain view of the nation. Not
even he can fool all the people all the time.



To: Bill who wrote (4651)9/22/1998 5:14:00 PM
From: dougjn  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 67261
 
Bill, how would you argue that Clinton committed perjury in his GJ testimony? Or wouldn't you? Let's leave aside the Jones deposition testimony for a moment, which is what this forum and most have concentrated on.

In the GJ testimony Clinton himself REVEALS and admits the intentionally narrow testimony he gave in the Jones suit. He explains the admittedly hairsplitting interpretation he gave to the detailed definition of "sexual relations" that the judge said should be used in his Jones deposition. He explains that he didn't pay close attention to his lawyer's Bennett's statement to the effect that the President is not having sexual relations of any type or description whatsoever with Ms.Lewinsky. He also says he didn't say it. When challenged by the OIC lawyers that that statement was clearly false, that was when Clinton have he much ridiculed parsing of what "Is" means. It actually made some sense, if you keep in mind that there is no obligation for the Pres. or his lawyer to be helpful or to go beyond the narrow truth. Clinto explained it was strictly true, since he had permanently ended the inappropriate physical aspects of the rationship many, many months before. He had had such a relationship, but wasn't at the general time of the Deposition.

But the point here is, he explained all this in his GJ testimony. No perjury there.

He also explained another ridiculed distinction. His musings about what "alone" meant in the oval office. Firstly, all he had said in this deposition was he couldn't remember if he had ever been alone with Monica. What he said he meant in the GJ testimony, was that there was he thought always someone right outside the office, the door was always or usually open, and he was within earshot. ANyway, where is the GJ perjury.

His explanation of his discussions with Bettie Currie may or may not be fully convincing. He said he was seeking only to refresh his memory as he faced a furor of press inquiry. ANd that he wasn't even aware of the OIC involvement at the time he asked her if he had ever been really alone with Monica. It's very hard to make perjury out of that.

I think the case for GJ perjury is very, very weak.

Don't you?

Doug