# Dear Partisan scandalmeisters of America: **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 8, 2003, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273 "2003-10-08T12:05:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/41 "2003-10-09T14:51:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBeer \* > **No, actually I wasn’t trying to go anywhere. Except to say that there is legitimate reason to doubt the man’s judgment skills. While others obviously disagree, I think his lack of judgment displayed in one area can be reasonably expected to demonstrate a “global” trait.** Then I owe you an apology. I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Spiff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiff/32/9852_2.png) [@Spiff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiff)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/42 "2003-10-09T15:24:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Psycho Pirate \* > **It appears that many merely _want_ to believe that he did cocaine. So in this case, these individuals aren’t going to let facts (or a distinct lack thereof) get in the way of their desire to believe something.** You are right in that there is not a “smoking gun” in regards to Bush’s cocaine use. But, to put it in lawyer’s terms, there is a very good case to be made with the abundant amount of circumstantial evidence available. Again, in legal terms, building a case based on circumstantial evidence is less desirable than having a dozen eyewitnesses, fingerprints on the coke spoon, etc. But plenty of circumstantial cases have led to convictions in courts of law. So, I think it’s disingenuous to say that there are people who merely _want_ to believe that Bush did cocaine. There are plenty of people who have looked at the circumstantial evidence and reached a defendable conclusion, not just a 'belief." ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/43 "2003-10-09T15:34:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiff \* > \*\*So, I think it’s disingenuous to say that there are people who merely _want_ to believe that Bush did cocaine. There are plenty of people who have looked at the circumstantial evidence and reached a defendable conclusion, not just a 'belief." \*\* Are you willing to provide some of this circumstantial evidence? ---
**Author:** ![Psycho\_Pirate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Psycho\_Pirate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Psycho_Pirate)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/44 "2003-10-09T15:39:39Z")
**ElvisL1ves** Blinkerboy? _Blinkerboy?_ Anyway, where does the burden of proof lie in this situation? Let’s look at the legal definition. Burden of proof: the duty of proving a particular position in a court of law, a failure in the performance of which duty calls for judgment against the party on whom the duty is imposed. Now, although the accusation did not take place in a court of law, the concept still applies. It is not George W. Bush’s responsiblity to provide proof that he is innocent, it is the responsibity of those bringing up the accusation to provide proof that he is guilty. To simplify it even further, this is the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”. If he said, “I want to address the accusations against me regarding my alleged use of cocaine. Let it be known that I did not use cocaine.” Would that ‘prove’ that he didn’t use cocaine. Of course not. Neither does his refusal to deny the accusation ‘prove’ that he did use cocaine. The facts are not known. Although I concede that his refusal to deny the accusation outright could be construed as suspicious, I view those who keep bringing up the accusation as though it were the truth as equally suspicious. And thanks for labeling me as a partisan hypocrite. As the boys on the playground say, “Takes one to know one”. **Spiff** It was not my intention to characterize any defendable conclusions as a ‘belief’ to be dismissed out of hand. However, could you point me towards the circumstantial evidence available regarding George W. Bush’s alleged cocaine use? ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/45 "2003-10-09T15:51:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > \*\*Jimmy cracked corn, and we didn’t care. \*\* No, Jimmy grew pignuts. [sub]But more people cared about his brother.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/46 "2003-10-09T17:26:27Z")
**PP** , if he could have said “No”, he certainly would have. Do the math, Blinkerboy. **Lib** , read the transcript and point out the lie. Or did you just swallow that particular meme whole, without examination? That’s not what we’re about here, d00d. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/47 "2003-10-09T19:14:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\*And it still amazes me how few people who so indignantly proclaim “He lied under oath!” can explain just what the lie was. That’s perhaps less amazing, though, than the same people’s explanations of how consensual sex is their damn business. \*\* I really don’t want to get into the whole Clinton thing again. That horse isn’t just dead, it’s been buried, eaten by maggots, further digested by bacteria, and released back to the soil, where it helps ferns grow. And, for the record, Lib is correct. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Weirddave_ > **I think why people don’t care that Clinton “lied under oath” is that most Americans see what he lied about as a completely personal matter that he shouldn’t even have been questioned under oath about, and wouldn’t have been, if not for muckrakers putting partisan politics before anything else. Speaking for myself, I could care less if Clinton ( or Bush ) fucked sheep daily in the Oval Office. I wouldn’t even care if there was a video of him doing so aired on CNN and then he denied it under oath. It’s none of our business, and has no bearing on how he does his job (being President ). It’s between him and his wife.** I’m not a partisan, nor a muckraker, and I continue to be upset when people say it was nobody’s business, when the court that was at issue said, rightly so I might add, that IT DID MATTER. It wasn’t about whether or not he cheated on his wife, it was about his penchant for sexual relations with his subordinates. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Avalonian_ > **Oh, and UncleBeer: _yawn_ Trot it out again, why don’t you? Care to take a look at just how many of our former leaders (and plenty of other admirable men and women besides) have been up to the same kind of business as Clinton was? Clinton’s sexual proclivities have nothing to do with his judgment as a President. Not do Bush’s, Schwarzenegger’s, or anyone else’s.** By “same kind of business” you mean lying under oath? I’m hard pressed to find any evidence that Bush or Schwarzenegger did that. Why must anybody who gives a shit that a standing president lied under oath, be seen as obsessed with his sexual proclivities? To me, it didn’t matter that he was cheating on his wife, but it certainly does matter when he lies under oath to cover it up. ---
**Author:** ![Spiff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiff/32/9852_2.png) [@Spiff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiff)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/48 "2003-10-09T20:52:28Z")
When Bush was running for President in August 1999, the press began questioning him about his past cocaine use. Why did they choose to do this? I don’t know, but I can imagine it was because it there were rumors surfacing about the coke snorting, and perhaps some of those rumors were propagated by one or more of the other candidates in the race, both Democrats and Republicans. Anyway, the press (being fair, and all …) asked every other major candidate the same questions about past drug use. Gore and some other candidates admitted to past pot smoking. Other candidates said that they had no past illegal drug use at all. Bush only said this (and he said it over and over again whenever the illegal drug question arose): > [@](#): > > “I’ve told the American people that years ago I made some mistakes. I’ve learned from my mistakes and should I be fortunate enough to become president I will bring dignity and honor to the office.” (Above quote is from this [CNN](http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/23/president.2000/candidates.bush/index.html) story.) Bush’s line was always that what he did or did not injest 25+ years ago is off limits and he would not respond to any reporter questions other than reciting his mantra (quoted above). However, I did find this, from an interview with a New Hampshire TV station: > [@](#): > > “I’m not going to talk about what I did as a child. What I am going to talk about – and I am going to say this consistently – [is that] it is irrelevant what I did 20 to 30 years ago. What’s relevant is that I have learned from any mistakes I made. I do not want to send signals to anybody that what Gov. Bush did 30 years ago is cool to try.” (Underlining mine. Found the above quote in a [Salon](http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/04/09/bush/index.html) article.) Hmmm … In an interview about illegal drug use, Bush admits that he did some uncool stuff. Wonder what that was? Anyway, your point is well taken, **Psycho Pirate** , and I don’t claim that I have enough proof to convict Bush in a court of law. But when he repeatedly states that whatever he did 25+ years ago re illegal drug use is not fair game and that he will not “dignify” such questions with a response, I can reach a very defendable conclusion. And I conclude that Bush used illegal drugs when he was a young Texas buck shipped off to college at an Ivy League school where cocaine was very popular. I mean, c’mon, why else would he be weaseling out of answering the question, especially at the time during the campaign when his dodging of the question was doing very serious damage to his efforts and he had everything to gain by issuing a very clear statement on the matter? ---
**Author:** ![Psycho\_Pirate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Psycho\_Pirate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Psycho_Pirate)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/49 "2003-10-09T21:17:53Z")
**ElvisL1ves** If he had said no, would you have believed him? How does his saying ‘no’ prove that he indeed didn’t use cocaine? How does his refusal to say no prove that he did use cocaine? See my point? Care to address that point, or would you rather stick to name-calling and blind allegiance to your point of view? If you choose the latter, then why frequent a board dedicated to fighting ignorance and go around spreading your own? **Spiff** Your point is also well taken. I certainly won’t deny that Bush’s refusal to answer the question directly is suspicious. It’s downright frustrating, in fact. And you can certainly draw the conclusion that he did indeed use illegal drugs. It just bugs me when people put out as fact “Bush used cocaine” when they don’t know for a fact that he did. Like I said earlier, there is plenty to nail the man to the wall against if that is your wont without turning to any unproven offenses. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/50 "2003-10-09T21:21:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hamlet \* > \*\*.I’m not a partisan, nor a muckraker, and I continue to be upset when people say it was nobody’s business, when the court that was at issue said, rightly so I might add, that IT DID MATTER. It wasn’t about whether or not he cheated on his wife, it was about his penchant for sexual relations with his subordinates. \*\* Fine, you care. All I said was I, and I _think_ a great many other people, don’t. We don’t care weather he fucked or fingered Monica, we don’t care that he lied to a partisan abuse of the judicial system. I never claimed to speak for anyone but myself. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/51 "2003-10-10T02:02:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\ ***PP** , if he could have said “No”, he certainly would have. Do the math, Blinkerboy. > \*\* You haven’t denied being a pedophile, a murderer, and embezzler, or any of a 100 other things. “You are guilty of what you fail to deny,” is an interesting standard. I see that **Libertarian** has not denied swallowing a Meme, nor has he denied goat rape and gerbilcide. ::Looks at **Libertarian**. :: I kind of like this standard. The fun part will be when they **do** deny it and we can claim they’re in denial. Did you get this standard from **Slander for Dummies** or what? ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/52 "2003-10-10T02:52:45Z")
If anything should be apparent it is that a fair number of people on these boards do care, and care very much, about how this country is governed. We would not be here if we didn’t. Admittedly some of the items in the litany that started this thread are inconsequential and some are irrelevant, but to the extent they have anything to do with the government of the country we care about it. The scandal mongering has gotten out of hand at times but partisan scandal mongering is an integral part of popular politics (as opposed to practical politics where the critical question is “how can I use you to active my goals”). Without a good slanderous rumor it is sometimes difficult to get the attention of the great mass of people who have little interest in the nuts and bolts of federal and state economic policy, foreign affairs or judicial administration. You need a good juicy sex scandal or a failed attempt to do the old state house two step to attract the attention of the congenitally disinterested and the perpetually jaded… Scandal is what the partisan rangers use to beat their opponents about the head and shoulders when there is no substantive issue like a flat economy or a foreign affairs debacle. Thus there is no need to exhume rumors about President Bush but plenty of reason to have gone in search of dirt on President Clinton. When your job assembling refrigerators packs up and moves to Mexico or China you do not need a Presidential sex scandal to focus your attention. When your kid’s high school football coach is off on an eighteen month active duty tour with his reserve unit you tend not to place the President"s recreational phamicuticals very high on your list of priorities. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/53 "2003-10-10T10:10:24Z")
Elvis > [@](#): > > Lib, read the transcript and point out the lie. Or did you just swallow that particular meme whole, without examination? That’s not what we’re about here, d00d. [IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION No. LR-C-94-290 PAULA CORBIN JONES, Plaintiff vs. WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON and DANNY FERGUSON, Defendants. ``` MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER](http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/clinton/wrightsorder13.html) ``` > [@](#): > > On two separate occasions, this Court ruled in clear and reasonably specific terms that plaintiff was entitled to information regarding any individuals with whom the President had sexual relations or proposed or sought to have sexual relations and who were during the relevant time frame state or federal employees. See December 11, 1997 Order, at 3; Pres. Depo. at 53-55, time frame stat 66, 78.(13) Notwithstanding these Orders, the record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the President responded to plaintiff s questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process. The President acknowledged as much in his public admission that he “misled people” because, among other things, the questions posed to him “were being asked in a politically inspired lawsuit, which has since been dismissed.” Although there are a number of aspects of the President’s conduct in this case that might be characterized as contemptuous, the Court addresses at this time only those matters which no reasonable person would seriously dispute were in violation of this Court’s discovery Orders and which do not require a hearing, namely the President’s sworn statements concerning whether he and Ms. Lewinsky had ever been alone together and whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky d00d! ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/54 "2003-10-10T13:35:21Z")
**Superscyllious** , I’ve never been asked those questions. Bush, along with all the candidates, _was_ asked. All the others said either “No” or “Yes, and here’s the circumstances …” Capisce, signore? Now, please explain who you’re trying to convince and of what, or if you’ve even thought about that beyond a purely visceral level. Your increasingly indignant denials of what almost everyone else can see has been comical, but is also becoming quite boring. Is it really that enraging to you that there are people here who see you for what you are? **Blinkerboy** , what I would have thought if he’d asnwered “No” is irrelevant because the situation isn’t factual. But, since this is apparently important to you, yes, I would have believed him. Not because he’s trustworthy; we know otherwise; but because he and Rove would have known that at least one of his party pals would be expected to emerge and say otherwise. The _fact_, though, is that he refused to give a straight answer, and so did his campaign. There is no reasonable way to infer any possible reason but one. That _is_ a sufficient argument to convict in court, since you bring that up. Capisce, signore? **Lib** , you’re quoting someone else’s opinion, even if she’s a judge. You’re not stating the facts. We have a higher standard here, even in the Pit. Now, what lie did he tell under oath? Chapter and verse, please. And the judge won’t help; she didn’t either. Note, too, that the statement you’re quoting came well _after_ the impeachment farce, when the meme you’ve swallowed had already made its rounds. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/55 "2003-10-10T16:56:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\ ***Lib** , you’re quoting someone else’s opinion, even if she’s a judge. You’re not stating the facts. We have a higher standard here, even in the Pit. Now, what lie did he tell under oath? Chapter and verse, please. And the judge won’t help; she didn’t either. Note, too, that the statement you’re quoting came well _after_ the impeachment farce, when the meme you’ve swallowed had already made its rounds. \*\* You’re kidding, right? I know it must be tough for someone of your obvious intellect to, oh, I don’t know, READ THE ENTIRE OPINION, that **Lib** so kindly presented you. Using that index finger to click your mouse on the link, then to scroll down were probably too much for you. Add to that the problem of actually reading the provided information and, even tougher for you, actually understanding those words, and it was probably too much for you. I understand, it’s tough wanting to wallow in your ignorance. Just to make it even easier on you, the Judge laid out the following: > [@](#): > > At his January 17th deposition, the President responded to a series of questions regarding whether he and Ms. Lewinsky had ever been alone together by maintaining that he could not recall being alone with her. The President testified as follows: > Q: Mr. President, before the break, we were talking about Monica Lewinsky. At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky together alone in the Oval Office? > A: I don’t recall, but as I said, when she worked at the legislative affairs office, they always had somebody there on the weekends. I typically worked some on the weekends. Sometimes they’d bring me things on the weekends. She – it seems to me she brought things to me once or twice on the weekends. In that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop it off, exchange a few words and go, she was there. I don’t have any specific recollections of what the issues were, what was going on, but when the Congress is there, we’re working all the time, and typically I would do some work on one of the days of the weekends in the afternoon. > Q: So I understand, your testimony is that it was possible, then, that you were alone with her, but you have no specific recollection of that ever happening? > A: Yes, that’s correct. It’s possible that she, in, while she was working there, brought something to me and that at the time she brought it to me, she was the only person there. That’s possible. > Q: Do you ever recall walking with Monica Lewinsky down the hallway from the Oval Office to your private kitchen there in the White House? > A: … [M]y recollection is that, that at some point during the government shutdown, when Ms. Lewinsky was still an intern but was working the chief staff’s office because all the employees had to go home, that she was back there with a pizza that she brought to me and to others. I do not believe she was there alone, however. I don’t think she was. And my recollection is that on a couple of occasions after that she was there but my secretary, Betty Currie, was there with her. She and Betty are friends. That’s my, that’s my recollection. And I have no other recollection of that. > Q: At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone in the hallway between the Oval Office and this kitchen area? > A: I don’t believe so, unless we were walking back to the back dining room with the pizza. I just, I don’t remember. I don’t believe we were alone in the hallway, no. > Q: At any time have you and Monica Lewinsky ever been alone together in any room in the White House? > A: I think I testified to that earlier. I think that there is a, it is – I have no specific recollection, but it seems to me that she was on duty on a couple of occasions working for the legislative affairs office and brought me some things to sign, something on the weekend. That’s – I have a general memory of that. > Pres. Depo. at 52-53, 56-59. > At his August 17th appearance before the grand jury, the President directly contradicted his deposition testimony by acknowledging that he had > indeed been alone with Ms. Lewinsky on a number of occasions during which they engaged in “inappropriate intimate contact.” > > Pres. GJ Test. at 9-10. > He stated he also was alone with her “from time to time” when there was no “improper contact” occurring. Id. at 134. The President began his testimony by reading a statement which reads in part as follows: > When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, 1 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. Id. at 9-10. > The President then testified as follows in response to questions regarding whether he and Ms. Lewinsky had ever been alone together: > Q: Let me ask you, Mr. President, you indicate in your statement that you were alone with Ms. Lewinsky. Is that right? > A: Yes, sir. > Q: How many times were you alone with Ms. Lewinsky > A: Let me begin with the correct answer. I don’t know for sure. But if you would like me to give an educated giless, I will do that, but I do not know for sure. And I will tell you what I think, based on what I remember. But I can’t be held to a specific time, because I don’t have records of all of it. > Q: How many times do you think? > A: Well, there are two different periods here. There’s the period when she worked in the White House until April of '96. And then there’s the period when she came back to visit me from February of '97 until late December '97. Based on our records - let’s start with the records, where we have the best records and the closest in time. Based on our records, between February and December, it appears to me that at least I could have seen her approximately nine times. Although I do not believe I saw her quite that many times, at least it could have happened. There were – we think there were nine or 10 times when she was in, in the White House when I was in the Oval Office when I could have seen her. I do not believe I saw her that many times, but I could have. … I remember specifically, I have a specific recollection of two times. I don’t remember when they were, but I remember twice when, on Sunday afternoon, she brought papers down to me, stayed, and we were alone. And I am frankly quite sure – although I have no specific memory, I am quite sure there were a couple of more times, probably two times more, three times more. That’s what I would say. That’s what I can remember. But I do not remember when they were, or at what time of day they were, or what the facts were. But I have a general memory that would say I certainly saw her more than twice during that period between January and April of 1996, when she worked there. > Id. at 30-32. > In addition, the President recalled a specific meeting on December 28, 1997, less than three weeks prior to his January 17th deposition, at which he and Ms. Lewinsky were alone together. Id. at 34. > > The President went on to acknowledge that he tried to conceal his “inappropriate intimate relationship” with Ms. Lewinsky by not telling anyone about the relationship and by “do[ing] it where nobody else was looking at it,” stating that he would have to be an “exhibitionist not to have tried to exclude everyone else.” > Id. at 38, 54. > The President testified as follows in response to a question regarding how many times that occurred: > Well, if you go back to my statement, I remember there were a few times in '96, I can’t say with any certainty. There was once in early '97. After she left the White House, I do not believe I ever had any inappropriate contact with her in the rest of '96. There was one occasion in '97 when, regrettably, that we were alone together for a few minutes, I think about 20 minutes, and there was inappropriate contact. And after that, to the best of my memory and belief, it did not occur again. > Id. at 38-3 9. > > ii. > With respect to whether he and Ms. Lewinsky had engaged in sexual relations, the President testified at his January 17th deposition as follows: > **Q: Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky? > A: No. > Q: If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie? > A: It’s certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth. > Q: I think I used the term “sexual affair.” And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court? > Mr. Bennett: I object because I don’t know that he can remember – > The Court: Well, it’s real short. He can – I will permit the question and you may show the witness definition number one. > A: I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I’ve never had an affair with her. Pres. Depo. at 78.** > The President confirmed these denials in response to questioning from his attorney regarding Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit and whether he and Ms. Lewinsky ever had a “sexual relationship”: > Q: In paragraph eight of her affidavit, she says this, “I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship.” Is that a true and accurate statement as far as you know it? > A: That is absolutely true. Id. at 204. > > Consistent with his denial at his deposition of a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the President had earlier answered “None” in response to plaintiff s Interrogatory No. 10, which stated as follows: > > Please state the name, address, and telephone number of each and every [federal employee] with whom you had sexual relations when you [were] President of the United States. > > See Pres. Clinton’s Resp. to P1’s Second Set of Int. at 5; Pres. Clinton’s Supp. Resp. to P1.'s Second Set of Int. at 2. As previously noted, this interrogatory was answered without regard to a formal definition of the term “sexual relations” after this Court had entered its December 11th Order ruling that plaintiff was entitled to such information. > > At his August 17th grand jury appearance, the President directly contradicted his deposition testimony by acknowledging “inappropriate intimate contact” with Ms. Lewinsky on numerous occasions. Pres. GJ Test. at 9-10, 38-39, 54. > > When asked by a grand juror what he meant by > “inappropriate contact,” the President stated, “What I meant was, and what they can infer that I meant was, that I did things that were – when I was alone with her, that were inappropriate and wrong.” > Id. at 92-93. > The President repeatedly refused to provide answers to questions regarding specific sexual activity between himself and Ms. Lewinsky, instead referring to his statement acknowledging “inappropriate intimate contact” and stating that “sexual relations” as defined by himself and “most ordinary Americans” means, for the most part, only intercourse. > Id. at 12, 22-24, 92-94, 102-03, 110-11, 139, 168. Nevertheless, the President, while claiming that he did not engage in intercourse with Ms. Lewinsky and did not engage in any other contact with her that would fall within the definition of “sexual relations” used at his deposition, acknowledged that the nature of his “inappropriate intimate contact” with Ms. Lewinsky was such that he would have been an “exhibitionist” had it been viewed by others. > Id. at 10, 12, 54, 96. > The President went on to state that he did not believe he violated the definition of sexual relations he was given “by directly touching those parts of her body with the intent to arouse or gratify.” > Id. at 139, 168. The Court went on to say: > [@](#): > > It is difficult to construe the President’s sworn statements in this civil > lawsuit concerning his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky as anything other than > a willful refusal to obey this Court’s discovery Orders. Given the President’s > admission that he was misleading with regard to the questions being posed to > him and the clarity with which his falsehoods are revealed by the record, > (15) there is no need to engage in an extended analysis of the President’s > sworn statements in this lawsuit. Simply put, the President’s deposition > testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky was > intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged > in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false, > notwithstanding tortured definitions and interpretations of the term “sexual > relations.” As **Lib** showed, you can lead Elvis to information, but you can’t make him comprehend. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/56 "2003-10-10T17:24:30Z")
But did you include the definition he was required to use (and not the “most ordinary Americans” standard presented here), as I already challenged? You did not. The “tortured definitions and interpretations” referred to here are the _plaintiff’s_. Go back and look, sonny. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/57 "2003-10-10T17:41:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\*But did you include the definition he was required to use (and not the “most ordinary Americans” standard presented here), as I already challenged? You did not. The “tortured definitions and interpretations” referred to here are the _plaintiff’s_. Go back and look, sonny. \*\* With the possible exception of **Aldebaran** and **Milum** , you could be the best example of a poster who not only remains ignorant, but wallows in it, who wears it as a batch of pride, takes it to dinner, and makes sweet love to it every night. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/58 "2003-10-10T19:48:53Z")
ELVIS, you are deeply confused. The “tortured definitions” in question were Clinton’s. Surely you can see that it would not be in a plaintiff’s interest to introduce alternate definitions for plain-English terms like “sex” and “sexual relations.” That would lead to a transcript that _appears_ to say one thing – “I did not have sex with her” – but really doesn’t, because “sex” is defined as involving, say, two cans of whipped cream and a miniature pony, and because it wasn’t _that_, it wasn’t “sex.” It is the defendant who will always want to say that words and phrases don’t _really_ mean what God, the universe, and everyone _thinks_ they mean, because then he (or she) can contend they didn’t say what they appear to have said. Clinton took this tactic to such an extreme that it led to the now-famous exchange in which he asked to have the term “is” defined for him, contending that, eh, “is” could mean “is,” or, apparently, it could mean something else. He denied having sexual relations with her under oath. He admitted having sexual relations with her on national TV. More to the point, he has never since ever _denied_ that he had sexual relations with her. His explanation is that, gee, he didn’t know at the time of the deposition that “sex” and “sexual relations” would include the “inappropriate intimate contact” (i.e., a blowjob) he admitted to the grand jury. The court correctly found that this explanation was not credible from a man of his stature (the president), intelligence (a Rhodes scholar, for God’s sake), and profession (a lawyer). I don’t give a shit about what he did to whom. He’s out of office now and largely irrelevant. But willfully sticking your head up your ass on the issue of whether he in fact lied does not make you look very smart. Did he lie under oath? Yes he did. I’m sorry, but there it is. He just did. You can certainly still consider him to be a good person and the greatest leader in the history of civilization if you choose, and you can even excuse the lie(s) as minor missteps (“mistakes were made”) but the uncontestable _fact_ of it is something you really need to choke down. Seriously, man; get over it. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/59 "2003-10-10T20:37:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > \*\*I think why people don’t care that Clinton “lied under oath” is that most Americans see what he lied about as a completely personal matter that he shouldn’t even have been questioned under oath about, and wouldn’t have been, if not for muckrakers putting partisan politics before anything else. Speaking for myself, I could care less if Clinton ( or Bush ) fucked sheep daily in the Oval Office. I wouldn’t even care if there was a video of him doing so aired on CNN and then he denied it under oath. It’s none of our business, and has no bearing on how he does his job (being President ). It’s between him and his wife. \*\* A-fucking-men, brother! ---
**Author:** ![Psycho\_Pirate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Psycho\_Pirate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Psycho_Pirate)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2003, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/60 "2003-10-11T02:16:13Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by ElvisDiedOnTheToilet_ > **The fact, though, is that he refused to give a straight answer, and so did his campaign. > There is no reasonable way to infer any possible reason but one. That is a sufficient argument to convict in court, since you bring that up. Capisce, signore?** I’d hate to be tried in such a courtroom. PROSECUTOR: Do you deny that you killed that man? PSYCHO PIRATE: I refuse to answer that question. PROSECUTOR: Aha! But you don’t deny that you killed that man? PSYCHO PIRATE: No, I neither confirm nor deny your accusation. Do you have any proof? PROSECUTOR: I need no proof in this court. Your refusal to answer is your confession. PSYCHO PIRATE: Wha? Ever heard of the 5th amendment? PROSECUTOR [foaming at the mouth]: GUILTY! TAKE HIM AWAY! [Patrons assembled in their powdered Elvis wigs and decayed sequined suits]: BULLY! BULLY! :rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273.md?page=4)