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: Peter O'Brien who wrote (4755)	9/22/1998 5:43:00 PM
From: Peter O'Brien	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

By the way, here is a URL for the definition: cnn.com The circled item #1 is the definition used in the Jones case.

To: Peter O'Brien who wrote (4755)	9/22/1998 6:13:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

The definition requires that the deponent "knowingly engages in or causes contact with [certain sexual areas not including the mouth or lips] of any [other] person with the intent to arouse or gratify any [other] person". I have added the "other" which is how Clinton read it, and made clear that is how he read it. I think that's a reasonable reading OF THAT LANGUAGE. Not the only possible reading, but a reasonable one, even the natural reading, of that language. Clinton further said that since the language of 3 was excluded, and that clearly included the contact of the deponent's genital areas with any part of another person, that the fact that that part of the definition was excluded lends further weight to his understanding that that meaning was not included in para. 1. That's normal statutory construction, and a reasonable reading. cnn.com Clinton further stated that he thought "cause" meant forced or coerced, esp. in the context of the Jones lawsuit. Again, not an unreasonable reading. Certainly his description of all this in this GJ testimony was not perjury, leaving aside whether there was Jones deposition perjury. (As I think there was not, barely.) The bizare definition allowed some dancing. Bennett did indeed fight to strike paragraphs 2. and 3., and the judge agreed. Doug