Dipy, I'm sure you will enjoy this article. By the way, what do gay men and women do to one another? Using your definition I guess they never have sexual relationships. :-)
Heavy Weight of Evidence
Grave Charges
The criminal charges against President Clinton put forth in the Starr report are grave indeed, especially since the report contains strong corroborative evidence to back them up — which is precisely why we are witnessing the no-holds-barred campaign to trivialize and discredit them. The Starr report charges that President Clinton:
- "lied under oath at a civil deposition while he was a defendant in a sexual
harassment lawsuit";
- "lied under oath to a grand jury";
- "attempted to influence the testimony of a potential witness who had direct knowledge of facts that would reveal the falsity of his deposition testimony";
- "attempted to obstruct justice by facilitating a witness's plan to refuse to comply with a subpoena";
- "attempted to obstruct justice by encouraging a witness to file an affidavit that the President knew would be false, and then by making use of that false affidavit at his own deposition";
- "lied to potential grand jury witnesses, knowing that they would repeat those lies before the grand jury";
- "engaged in a pattern of conduct that was inconsistent with his
constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws."
Most of this was old "news," and at least the charges concerning the President's lying under oath were recognized as indisputable by virtually everyone. Everyone, that is, except those mesmerized Clintonphiles who had bought into his absurd linguistic contortions about being "legally accurate" and not "intentionally" perjuring himself. As in so many previous instances, the Clinton spin machine had succeeded to an incredible degree in obfuscating issues, misdirecting attention, and shifting debate along lines it had chosen. Now the Starr report's X-rated revelations, along with its documentary evidence, has refocused debate again on some ugly realities.
The unassailable fact is that the President trapped himself in a series of public lies so blatant that one would have to be either an intellectual cretin or a liar as flagrantly dishonest as Mr. Clinton himself not to acknowledge what is manifestly obvious. This is not just lies about private, consensual sex, as the presidential defenders are wont to claim. This is about concrete proof of lying under oath in judicial proceedings. It is about perjury — felonious, criminal conduct by the chief law enforcement officer in the land. It is about habitual, immoral behavior so reckless that it endangers national security by making the President susceptible to blackmail. It is about repeated, grave breeches of public trust, and about grossly degrading and defiling the office of the Presidency.
Did Ken Starr go over the line, seeking to politically damage the President through the publication of gratuitous, lurid details, as the Clinton counterattack brigade claims? Perhaps. Was it really necessary to include all of the graphic obscenity contained in the report? Perhaps not. No question, it contains sordid, disgusting stuff. But remember, this report concerns the sordid activities of a master prevaricator who swore under oath that he never had a "sexual affair," a "sexual relationship," or "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky; who told the same lie repeatedly to his closest advisers and political allies; who emphatically told the same lie to the American public and a world-wide television audience; and who, even now, after having publicly confessed to deceiving everyone on this matter, still insists he did not "lie" or "commit perjury."
Remember Paula Jones?
The Lewinsky revelations had their genesis in the sexual harassment lawsuit filed against President Clinton in May 1994 by Paula Corbin Jones. Mrs. Jones alleged that while he was the governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton sexually harassed her during an incident in a Little Rock hotel room. Besides denying her charge, President Clinton challenged her right to sue a sitting President. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Mr. Clinton, saying that Mrs. Jones, "like every other citizen … has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims."
In attempting to demonstrate a pattern of behavior by Mr. Clinton that would bolster the credibility of her claim, attorneys for Mrs. Jones sought to have Mr. Clinton disclose information about sexual relationships he may have had with "other women." Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright, who has presided over the case, ruled that the Jones' discovery requests were within bounds and ordered President Clinton to answer a written interrogatory naming every state and federal employee since 1986 with whom he had sexual relations or with whom he had proposed to have sexual relations. On December 23, 1997, the President — under oath — answered the interrogatory: "None."
At the outset of his January 17, 1998 deposition in the Paula Jones suit, the President took an oath administered by Judge Wright: "Do you swear or affirm … that the testimony you are about to give in the matter before the court is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" The President replied: "I do." At the beginning of their questioning, Mrs. Jones' attorneys asked the President: "… your testimony is subject to the penalty of perjury; do you understand that, sir?" The President responded, "I do."
The President was asked numerous questions about his relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Under oath and in the presence of Judge Wright, the President denied that he had engaged in a "sexual affair," a "sexual relationship," or "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky. In fact, the President stated that he had no specific memory of ever having been alone with Ms. Lewinsky. He recalled that she may have delivered pizza to him once and documents on one or two other occasions.
During the deposition, the President's attorney, Robert Bennett, sought to limit questioning about Ms. Lewinsky. He told Judge Wright that Ms. Lewinsky had executed an affidavit (which has since been proven false, and acknowledged as such by Ms. Lewinsky) "saying that there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton." President Clinton not only did not dispute this assertion, but when asked about the Lewinsky affidavit, testified (still under oath) that the false affidavit was "absolutely true."
Was There Sex?
Mr. Clinton willfully and repeatedly lied in his deposition by asserting that he did not engage in "sexual relations" as defined in that proceeding. The definition used in the deposition defined sexual relations as engaging in "contact with" various specific body parts and areas (which we won't go into) "with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person...." The President claims that he did not lie because the definition did not cover oral sex performed on the person being deposed (meaning himself) and that "any person, reasonable person" would agree with his interpretation. Which, of course, is patently ludicrous. In Mr. Clinton's twisted world, Monica Lewinsky engaged in sexual relations with him, but he did not engage in sexual relations with her.
"According to Ms. Lewinsky," says the Starr report, "she and the President had ten sexual encounters, eight while she worked at the White House and two thereafter. The sexual encounters generally occurred in or near the private study off the Oval Office — most often in the windowless hallway outside the study." And, says Lewinsky, the President did indeed engage in "contact" with her as specifically mentioned in the Jones deposition. Thus the alleged need for the report to deal in explicit details.
The Starr report explains the prosecutor's conundrum in dealing with Mr. Clinton's infamous habit of semantic subversion:
Many of the details reveal highly personal information; many are sexually explicit. This is unfortunate, but it is essential. The President's defense to many of the allegations is based on a close parsing of the definitions that were used to describe his conduct. We have, after careful review, identified no manner of providing the information that reveals the falsity of the President's statements other than to describe his conduct with precision.
The enormous problems inherent in dealing with an individual as determinedly devious as Mr. Clinton become more apparent when observing the manner in which he conveniently redefines words like "alone." Because he kept the door slightly ajar, or because other individuals were in adjoining or nearby rooms, or because he was carrying on telephone conversations with members of Congress while Monica performed on him, Clinton thinks he can get away with claiming that he and the intern were not "really alone" on those occasions.
Except for the discovery of incriminating physical evidence, Mr. Clinton, undoubtedly, even today, would not be admitting to any "improper relations" with Monica Lewinsky. "After reaching an immunity and cooperation agreement with the Office of the Independent Counsel on July 28, 1998," says the Starr report, "Ms. Lewinsky turned over a navy blue dress that she said she had worn during a sexual encounter with the President on February 28, 1997.... From their location, she surmised that the stains were the President's semen.... By conducting the two standard DNA comparison tests, the FBI Laboratory concluded that the President was the source of the DNA obtained from the dress."
Nearing the End
Testifying before the grand jury on August 17, 1998, seven months after his Jones deposition, the President acknowledged "inappropriate intimate contact" with Ms. Lewinsky, but still audaciously maintained that his January deposition testimony was accurate. This is the line that David Kendall, Charles Ruff, and other members of the President's legal team continue shamelessly to propound, even as the President pretends to be completely contrite and remorseful over his "past" deceit.
The Starr report also presents substantial and credible evidence that President Clinton violated the law by attempting to convince Monica Lewinsky and his secretary, Betty Currie, to lie under oath. These charges are difficult to prove in a court of law, but the impeachment process does not require the same "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required in a criminal trial.
Weighing the evidence in the context of Bill Clinton's known conduct and the overwhelming and incontestable proof of his pathological penchant for lying and duplicity, it is difficult to see how any impeachment tribunal would not feel duty-bound to remove him from office.
— William F. Jasper
|
