Clinton Grand Jury redux

Great Debates
1

From here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=87427:

From the Clinton Grand Jury Testimony transcript:

-redaction-

I have redacted discussion about taking a break.

I am reading further, and started to copy a long exchange, but realised that if I copied every section where Clinton discussed specifics re: ML it would make a multipage posting, which would make the moderators unhappy (right- like any of us could be unhappier right now). Here’s the link:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/transcr.htm.

So far, it soumds like Clinton was being straightforward about what happened while trying to avoid the level of detail that would get Ken Starr’s undies all sticky. If you read a bit further, it puts the “definition of is is” soundbite in clear context.

As I said in a much earlier thread, the depo in the Paula Jones case, whatever we think of it on its own merits, cannot be considered perjury because it did not materially affect the outcome of the case. The judge threw out the case because Paula Jones did not show any damage stemming from the “incident.” The judge did not question whether the “incident” happened, which is the area that “pattern of behaviour testimony” is material.

For that matter, in her initial complaint, Paula Jones described events stemming from the “incident” which did not occur, and which she later withdrew.

I’ll finish reading it- you all read it (or review it- I don’t want to assume that you have not read or watched it), and then let’s discuss. JDM

2

What’s that smell?
Oh, it’s JDM walking around with pieces of well-decomposed equine flesh all over his feet.

:rolleyes:

3

Yeah true, I have been over in Republican territory thanks to the various people here who are trying to blame the present horrors on Clinton, and using as their rationale the “fact” that he “lied” to the grand jury. Of course this is old news, but I do think that if it continues to be referred to as “fact” we should check the reality on paper rather than the mythology that the conservatives repeat and repeat, believing that after enough repititons it will become “true” in the manner of the many rewritings of history in the Soviet Union. Here, however, we have a preserved document that will show just who it is that’s lying. Have you read it? I am about halfway through now, and it gets more interesting each page, although I do think it is really summed up right at the beginning, where Clinton in his statement says:

and the questioner immediately says:

Gee.

JDM