# Clinton Grand Jury redux **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 16, 2001, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-grand-jury-redux/82009 "2001-09-16T20:07:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![JDM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/90db22/32.png) [@JDM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JDM)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2001, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-grand-jury-redux/82009/1 "2001-09-16T20:07:58Z")
From here: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=87427:](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=87427:) > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beagle \* > \*\*I know a little about advising clients to “take the Fifth.” Clinton should have. As for the RNC, they don’t speak for me. I, personally, would not lie in front of a federal grand jury. If you think Ken Starr “stretched the definition of lie,” seek deprogramming. \*\* From the Clinton Grand Jury Testimony transcript: > [@](#): > > Mr. President, were you physically intimate with Monica Lewinsky? > > A Mr. Bittman, I think maybe I can save the – you and the grand jurors a lot of time if I read a statement, which I think will make it clear what the nature of my relationship with Ma. Lewinsky was and how it related to the testimony I gave, what I was trying to do in that testimony. And I think it will perhaps make it possible for you to ask even more relevant questions from your point of view. > > And, with your permission, I’d like to read that statement. > > Q Absolutely. Please, Mr. President. > > A When I was alone with Ma. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong. These encounters did not consist of sexual intercourse. They did not constitute sexual relations as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition. But they did involve inappropriate intimate contact. > > These inappropriate encounters ended, at my insistence, in early 1997. I also had occasional telephone conversations with Ms. Lewinsky that included inappropriate sexual banter. > > I regret that what began as a friendship came to include this conduct, and I take full responsibility for my actions. > > While I will provide the grand jury whatever other information I can, because of privacy considerations affecting my family, myself, and others, and in an effort to preserve the dignity of the office I hold, this is all I will say about the specifics of these particular matters. > > I will try to answer, to the best of my ability, other questions including questions about my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; questions about my understanding of the term “sexual relations”, as I understood it to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition; and questions concerning alleged subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and intimidation of witnesses. > > That, Mr. Bittman, is my statement. > > Q Thank you, Mr. President. And, with that, we would like to take a break. > > A Would you like to have this? > > Q Yes, please. As a matter of fact, why don’t we have that marked as Grand Jury Exhibit WJC-1. > > (Grand Jury Exhibit WJC-1 was marked for identification.) -redaction- > [@](#): > > BY MR. BITTMAN: > > Q Mr. President, your statement indicates that your contacts with Ms. Lewinsky did not involve any inappropriate, intimate contact. > > MR. KENDALL: Mr. Bittman, excuse me. The witness – > > THE WITNESS: No, sir. It indicates – > > MR. KENDALL: The witness does not have – > > THE WITNESS: – that it did involve inappropriate and intimate contact. > > BY MR. BITTMAN: > > Q Pardon me. That it did involve inappropriate, intimate contact. > > A Yes, sir, it did. > > MR. KENDALL: Mr. Bittman, the witness – the witness dose not have a copy of the statement. We just have the one copy. > > MR. BITTMAN: If he wishes – > > MR. KENDALL: Thank you. > > MR. BITTMAN: – his statement back? > > BY MR. BITTMAN: > > Q Was this contact with Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. President, did it involve any sexual contact in any way, shape, or form? > > A Mr. Bittman, I said in this statement I would like to stay to the terms of the statement. I think it’s clear what inappropriately intimate is. I have said what it did not include. I – it did not include sexual intercourse, and I do not believe it included conduct which falls within the definition I was given in the Jones deposition. And I would like to stay with that characterization. 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](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 ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2001, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-grand-jury-redux/82009/2 "2001-09-16T21:52:32Z")
What’s that smell? Oh, it’s **JDM** walking around with pieces of well-decomposed equine flesh all over his feet. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![JDM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/90db22/32.png) [@JDM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JDM)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2001, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-grand-jury-redux/82009/3 "2001-09-17T19:16:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by waterj2 \* > \*\*What’s that smell? > Oh, it’s **JDM** walking around with pieces of well-decomposed equine flesh all over his feet. > > :rolleyes: \*\* 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: > [@](#): > > they (the encounters with ML) did involve inappropriate intimate contact. and the questioner immediately says: > [@](#): > > Mr. President, your statement indicates that your contacts with Ms. Lewinsky did not involve any inappropriate, intimate contact. Gee. JDM