Nice Cite Lib. I didn’t see the word “lie” in it however. There’s a reason for that.
Nobody here has so far asserted that Clinton committed perjury. My take has been that the case for that has not been demonstrably shown, given the court’s pre-existing (and tortured) definition of sex.
Given that definition (in fact) I’d say that Clinton did not lie per se insofar as his statement was strictly speaking accurate according to the definition provided in court. He did, however, lie to the public when he stated on TV that he didn’t have sex with “that women”, the public not being privy to the bizarre defintion of sex set forth.
OTOH, the “contempt of court” bit is another matter entirely; it seems fair to me to characterize Clinton’s statements as, "… misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process. "
[sub]Weakness in my argument: the judge actually said “false, misleading and evasive”, emphasis added. Just so you know.[/sub]
I’ve been reading Al Franken’s new book, and just read his take on the Bush cocaine allegations. Allow me to quote briefly.
"At first during the campaign Bush refused principle to answer questions about cocaine. Then, because he was applying for a federal job (president) he had to fill out a form that asked if he had used illegal drugs in the past seven years. Bush voluntarily told the press he was able to answer no.
“A clever reporter asked whether he could have given the same answer when his father was president and federal forms asked about drug use for the prior fifteen years.”
“Uh, let’s see here… Yes, I could have,” Bush said after a pause. The, when asked again if he had ever used cocaine, Bush refused to give an answer."
Might not be enough for a court of law, but it’s enough to convince me. However, lest this be marked up to liberal bias, I hasten to add that the fact that Bush may have done a whole mess of coke at some point in his life is the only thing I like about the chimp.
I see your point, and ordinarily, I would agree with you.
However, in this particular case, the judge had ruled on two separate occasions that the plaintiff had a right to know whether the president had sex with a state or federal employee. The information was pertinent to the case at hand. The case was about sexual harassment.
Clinton was aware of the judge’s two rulings and, as the judge said, deliberately gave false and misleading testimony in order to obstruct justice. That’s why she held him in contempt of court.
Flowbark
American Heritage defines “lie” as “A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood” and “Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.”
Jodi, a lawyer (and you do claim to be one, right? On what basis?) should know better than to offer such ignorance not based on fact. But it must be fought wherever it appears. The first Google hit
Given the absolute need for exactness in a legal definition, which I hope you will not brush aside in your eagerness to see a man you hate get caught in something, note that none of the definitions include getting blown. Unfortunately for what you’d like to have had him say, while he was certainly and understandably evasive, he didn’t actually lie. If the Scaife attorneys wanted that to be included in their definition, they could have done so. But they didn’t, and it isn’t the defendants’ responsibility to help hang himself, ya know.
Gee, that took me a whole minute, from the search to the post. I hope you take a little more care with the facts with your real clients, Counselor.
I claim to be a lawyer based on the fact that I am by profession a lawyer, licensed to practice in three jurisdictions and actively practicing law. On what basis do you claim to have a brain in your head? It would be helpful, for purposes of this discussion if you would actually read the definition you post. Here, let me highlight the important part for you:
Perhaps you’d like to take a shot at explaining how one can be on the receiving end of a blowjob without having contact between oneself (“the person”) and “any part of another person’s body” – specifically, their mouth.
Incorrect, my dense friend. Read the definition again. And I don’t hate the man, for what it’s worth – though it may appear that way to someone whose lips are glued to the ex-president’s butt, as yours are – I just don’t respect lawyer who lie under oath.
Having pointed out that under the defintion used at the deposition and in the judgment of the federal judge, he did, as a matter of fact, lie, would you like to take another shot at explaining how he didn’t? Note that it would be helpful if your read and understand the things you find before you actually post them.
Nope, same degree of care, but then I don’t just find things, I also actually read them and understand them, or if I find I can’t understand them, I don’t use them. Now, I don’t know what you do for a living, but I certainly hope it doesn’t call for a high degree of reading comprehension.
For what it’s worth, the linked site indicates that the part of the definition that Jodi made use of was dropped by the Court.
Nevertheless, reading the Court’s opinion, it is certainly clear that Clinton’s conduct was sufficient to merit sanctions and/or professional discipline.
Lib: "American Heritage defines “lie” as [1]“A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood” and [2]“Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.”
Numbers added by flowbark.
I must say that these are rather to-the-point cites, Lib, which I like.
Anyway, by definition #1, I see no evidence that Clinton lied, since the Court defined “Sexual Relations” as ,"1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; " and receiving oral sex doesn’t fall within those parameters. *
I’m just trying to make myself clear.
–
There is also (however) the matter of, “Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.”
Oh yes, Clinton did that. I maintain that while calling such statements “lies” is accurate (as in “Statistics can lie”, to use the example from my Webster’s New World Dictionary) it is also misleading, as it can cause the listener to believe that you are saying that Clinton did #1 (false statements) when in fact he did #2 (misleading statements).
In short, it would be better to say** that “Clinton gave deliberately misleading testimony”.
(BTW, I’ll be offline for the next 24 hours or so.)
The question then becomes whether Clinton touched Lewinsky in certain areas though.
Admittedly, I’m old now, and not as agile with my imagination as I used to be, but I’m not sure how one receives oral sex without making “contact with the genitalia”. Are you positing that the head of his genitalia just sort of floated around the empty space inside Monica’s mouth without ever actually making contact?
Jodi, the definition provided by the Scaife/Klayman (left him out originally, sorry) lawyers includes giving a blowjob, but not getting one. Believe it or not. Clinton was not at any time accused of blowing Monica. This subject was, in fact, very thoroughly reported at the time, but perhaps not in the partisanly-filtered news sources you apparently use exclusively, even now.
The tortured definition, btw, was in fact provided by the plaintiff’s lawyers, as I said originally and which you hotly and dismissively denied, thereby ruining whatever credibility as a lawyer you might have brought to this conversation. Now tell me more about how you carefully read stuff. If you like getting laughs, that is.
I’ll leave out how you’re ignoring, for reasons that doubtless seem good to you but are still clear to the unblinkered, the propriety of filing a groundless suit in the first place, or of a judge letting it do maximum damage to a plaintiff’s reputation before even starting to consider if there is any merit to the actual basis of the charge. That, too, seems to have escaped your attention both then and now, “Counselor”.
Gang, I already provided a cite, and it was just the first of many Google hits. You can do your own reading and thinking, and not depend on the opinion of a Republican judge whose mishandling of the case lets one think her ruling as above was simple ass-covering. Now take all your ostensible “gotcha’s” and carefully insert them in the orifice of your choosing.
Hey Elvis, are you EVER gonna take your head out of your ass long enough to read this thread through and realize that you’re wrong? If so, it’ll be the first time I’ve ever seen you do so on these boards.
Xploder, are you ever gonna read a cite or an explanation you’re given? Try it sometime.
C of I, reread the definitions listed above. The common ones don’t matter; the ones the defendant is told to use in a deposition are the ones that matter for purposes of that deposition. Hell, yes, they were tortured, not to say perverted and prurient, but those were the rules, right?
Does it hurt to not know what you’re talking about? Does it cause you any sort of physical paint? I answered the question you posed using the very definition you posted. Are you truly so craven, so intellectually dishonest, as to pretend that you didn’t? Believe it or not, if you did not want to include “being blown by” within the definition under discussion, perhaps you shouldn’t have posted that part of the definition. And if you think I’m the one coming across as partisan here, you need to put down the crack pipe. As I have said (repeatedly), I do not give a rat’s ass about the political end of this. I don’t like Clinton’s actions for the following reasons: (1) I don’t like being lied to, and he lied to the entire public; (2) I don’t like a person misusing the office of the Presidency in a manner that brings dishonor upon the office; (3) I don’t like stories about powerful men having affairs with women who work for or with them; and (4) I really don’t like lawyers who lie under oath. None of these are politically motivated, by the way, though I don’t expect you to understand that. But then, I don’t expect you to understand much.
Sure. I carefully read and used the definition you posted, and pointed out – correctly – that you had (have) your head so far up your ass as to totally not understand that the sexual act under discussion is CLEARLY covered by THE VERY DEFINITION YOU POSTED. Now, it appears that you did not intend to post the entire definition – but refresh my memory: how is your idiocy my problem? The only thing worth any laughs is the very idea I or anyone would look to such a manifest idiot as yourself for judgment about my credibilty.
I left it out because the issue under discussion – the only issue, as far as I am concerned – is whether Clinton lied. Which – all together now – he did. How is the merits of the suit in question relevant to that? How is the “damage to the plaintiff’s reputation” relevant to that? So I left out lots of stuff that has nothing to do with the question under discussion – how partisan of me. :rolleyes: As I have already said, if you want to argue that the questions should not have been asked in the first place, hey, fine with me. Just don’t attempt to argue the man didn’t lie under oath, because he did.
ELVIS, you have lost this argument. You asked where Clinton lied. You have been pointed to transcripts and court orders setting forth where he lied. You have retreated back to contending that the judge is some dirty rotten Republican partisan and that his answers were only “misleading,” conveniently ignoring the fact that giving misleading and deceptive answers is lying. You have also had pointed out to you that Clinton under oath denied being alone with ML at any time – which, unless you think he performed oral sex on him with someone else in the room would be a . . . anyone? anyone? . . . A LIE.
Your continued contention that he did not lie is premised on such fine and outrageous hairsplitting as to contend – with a straight face, apparently – that ML could be having sexual relations with Clinton while at the same time he was somehow not having sexual relations with her; with presuming, against all logic, that he could use a cigar on her in an extremely intimate manner without actually touching her; that apparently all the sexual hijinks went on with others in the room (since he claimed to never be alone with her); that every time she contended they engaged in sexual relations she was lying; that an attorney would not understand the importance of giving direct and nondeceptive answers when placed under oath; and that when Clinton looked the United States of America in the eye on national TV and declared “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” he was still using the tortured definition he hid behind at his depositon, instead of the meaning of “sexual relations” employed by God and everyone, which obviously includes both giving and receiving oral sex.
And let me tell you something else: You should not have to work so hard. You should not have to follow your leader into the woods of half-truths and tortured parsing of common words and phrases in order to contend, against all evidence and all common sense, that he didn’t lie. Better by far to just say “Yep, he lied; bad dog. But they shouldn’t have asked him those questions in the first place; it was reasonable that he’d lie about something so personal; he was the best president in the history of the nation.” We might have an extensive debate about that – well, not us, since I think the whole subject has been beaten into subatomic particles and is by now beyond tiresome – but at least you could defend yourself without making it look like you are in total denial of what is manifest reality to the rest of us.
So you might invite me to insert my “gotcha” – by which I assume you mean the very citations you asked for – in my ass, but I in turn would invite you to pull your head out of yours, on this particular point at least.
And for purposes of the deposition only, leaving no explanation for his lies to the American public on TV (not at a deposition), or his lies in claiming he was never alone with her. And do you realize how sad it is that you are reduced to claiming the common definitions don’t matter? Is that rationale really worth your defense?
And let us all keep in mind that even if Clinton was right to adhere to the tortured definition in the deposition, his repeated lying was not limited to a deposition:
FROM THE DEPOSITION:
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.
(Note that here they are talking about an extramarital affair, not specifically “sexual relations” as defined.)
FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH JIM LEHRER
A: There is no improper relationship. And I intend to cooperate with this inquiry. But that is not true.
Q: “No improper relationship” – define what you mean by that.
A: Well, I think you know what it means. It means that there is not a sexual relationship, an improper sexual relationship, or any other kind of improper relationship.
(Note that he is obviously not using the tortured deposition definition, since he says to Jim Lehrer “I think you know what that [a sexual relationship] means.” Unless you think he thought Jim Lehrer wouldn’t consider a blowjob to be sexual?)
FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH ROLL CALL
Q: You said in a statement today that you had no improper relationship with this intern. What exactly was the nature of your relationship with her?
A: Well, let me say, the relationship was not improper, and I think that’s important enough to say. . . . But let me answer – it is not an improper relationship and I know what the word means. . . .
Q: Was it in any way sexual?
A: The relationship was not sexual. And I know what you mean, and the answer is no.
FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH ALL THINGS CONSIDERED
Q: Is there any truth to the allegation of an affair between you and the young woman?
A: No, that’s not true, either.
FROM HIS TELEVISED AUGUST 18, 1997 SPEECH
I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife.
The man lied. Repeatedly. Deal with it, and get over it.
The definition you provided makes Clinton a liar if he groped Monica’s breasts with an intent to gratify her.
Clinton: “I had no intent to gratify that woman…”
Clinton’s genitals (the person) went into part (the mouth) of another person’s body. What part of “(genitals) of the person” and “any part” do you not understand Elvis?
Regarding the cigar, whether he touched her genitalia depends, I reckon, on how much his grip was choked up on the stogie and how far he pushed it. I wager that at the very least, he brushed against the pubic hair.
SHE did the pushing, Lib. That old perv Starr made it clear in that porn novel we paid him $40M to write.
Jodi, the charge under discussion is “lying under oath”. the lack of definition of “affair”, too, in the other deposition you’ve brought in - kinda implies an emotional bond in normal use. But we don’t know, because the Scaife-Klayman lawyers never offered a definition for purposes of that deposition.
Nice try, too, dragging in things said not under oath, but that just ain’t gonna fly except in your own hate-filled mind. It just isn’t relevant to a discussion of what was said under oath. But, surprise, surprise - that’s all you’ve got left to stoke your hate. See the difference? Now, is there anything else you’ve stated as fact or as law, in the process of releasing your hatred, that you’d like to, um, “clarify” - other than the bullshit you’ve spewed that I’ve already pointed out to you?
You say I’ve lost an argument, but I wasn’t in the one you’d like it to be - the one where you decide that someone is immoral and a Democrat, and therefore he’s guilty of something under the law too. Now wipe the foam off your lips and try addressing the point.
Beagle, you put the “if” in your own premise, making your conclusion hypothetical. He was never asked that under oath, though, was he? But, hell, he would have lied if he had been, right? String him up.
Xploder, if you have a point you can support, you’ve had ample time to do so.
