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.
Pastimes : Impeachment=" Insult to all Voters" -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: The Philosopher who wrote (1299)1/5/1999 5:47:00 PM
From: Peter O'Brien  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 2390
 
Here is the actual definition provided to Clinton by the court:

cnn.com

Only item #1 applies in Clinton's case.

It is a simple definition. Clinton's assertion that it is
complicated and difficult to understand is laughable (unless,
among his other problems, he is also illiterate).

Receiving "hands-off" oral sex is clearly covered by this definition.
Note the phrase "knowingly engages or causes". When asked about
this in the Grand Jury, Clinton conveniently forgets the
"knowingly engages" (i.e., passive) aspect of the definition.
Note also the phrase "any person" (i.e., which includes Clinton
himself). When asked about this in the Grand Jury, Clinton
conveniently misinterprets this to mean "any OTHER person".



To: The Philosopher who wrote (1299)1/5/1999 8:56:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 2390
 
But what does it matter what my definition is? Any more than it matters what your definition is, or what "the majority of the American people understand"?

I never issued any definition. I just quoted an article that said Newt had apparently attempted the same dodge. And I said the phrase, like most English, has some ambiguity. Want me to give definitions 1,2, and 3? That's the way it usually works in the dictionary.