# Is it bad to expose Democratic corruption? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 28, 2001, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123 "2001-10-28T17:41:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/121 "2001-10-29T18:59:18Z")
Consider… 1. Bill Clinton is rumored to have made millions of dollars from illegal land deals in Whitewater. - Republicans angrily demand an investigation to “find the truth.” 1. Bill Clinton is rumored to have killed Vincent Foster and make it look like a suicide. - Republicans angrily demand an investigation to “find the truth.” 1. Bill CLinton is rumored to be having consentual hanky-panky with an interin. - Republicans angrily demand an investigation to “find the truth.” Versus… 1. George W. Bush is rumored to have made millions of dollars from [illegal insider trading.](http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#insidertrading) - Republicans quietly ask each other when’s lunch. 1. George W. Bush is rumored to have [scammed Texas homeowners out of their land](http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#hypocrisy) for a new stadium for his Texas Rangers. - Republicans are too busy watching _Teletubbies_ to respond. 1. George W. Bush is rumored to have a [long history of cocaine use](http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#cocaine) and [went AWOL for over a year](http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#AWOL) from military service. - Republicans huddle for a new excuse to blame the tanking economy on Bill Clinton. Now, Bill Clinton is hardly a saint, but if a political party is going to push itself as the standards-bearer of decency and truth, then the least I ask for is that they shouldn’t take an unannounced hiatus once one of their own candidates gets into office… ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/122 "2001-10-29T19:19:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \*it’s a close-fought thing, but to my mind, it was a detention and, more importantly, the false assertion that an immunity deal would be off the table if Monica spoke to her civil lawyer, but would be on if she instead spoke to a public defender, was an ethical violation. More importantly, it was done for an improper purpose - as the Starr report itself acknowledges, Starr was aware of the Lewinsky affidavit. Starr was desperate to have that affidavit filed, because without it being filed, Lewinsky had not committed a crime. **Sua** , there’s a big difference between accusing Starr of doing something that deserves imprisonment vs. accusing him of coming close to an ethical violation. BTW isn’t there some mechanism by which the Bar Association reviews ethics violations? Didn’t Starr’s enemies get him charged with several violations and wasn’t he cleared in all cases? I would imagine that if he really had committed an ethical violation, charges would have been filed and he would have been sanctioned for it by the Bar Association. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \*…and of course we’re still waiting proof of this assertion. Or, gasp, could it be as **Sua** points out that the persons listed were in their very own way reprehensible themselves??? **wring** , you have nicely framed the issue. Perhaps, just by coincidence, each and every person who helped expose Democratic corruption was reprehensible for entirely separate reasons. OTOH maybe attacks were launched against all these people, and we were thereby led to believe that these people were reprehensible. To me, the unity of opinion is evidence of my POV. It would seem that based on the law of averages, some of those who helped expose Democratic corruption ought to have been nice. Certainly Kenneth Starr was previously considered “nice” – a person of competence and integrity – before he got into the Clinton thing. He was then accused of all sorts of wrong-doing. None of these accusations panned out; not a single one. Nevertheless, his reputation is now in tatters. Even someone as smart and knowledgable as Sua passed on an exaggerated or inaccurate version of one of these accusations. > [@](#): > > You are allowed to have an opinion. You can even post it. However, if you’re making (as you do here) the claim that it’s true, you’d best have data to support it. Otherwise, the claim of trolling seems to be quite apt. I’ve offered evidence to back up my POV. You may not agree with my evidence, but I will ask for an apology for that “trolling” insult. > [@](#): > > And I’d care a whole lot more about the perjury itself if the judge in the case the dep was taken for hadn’t ruled it inadmissable in the first place. Too bad they weren’t forced to submit the list of questions to the judge first, eh?) IIRC the judge’s ruling was that this was irrelevant. However, once the perjury was exposed, the judge planned to re-visit that ruling. It was assumed that she would then find the testimony relevent. That’s one reason why Clinton settled the Jones suit, rather than fight it. > [@](#): > > And of course, 3 pages later, we’re still waiting to evidence to support the OP. (other than gee, seems to me these people got vilified). Hint - **Sua** pointed out on page one what you’d have to do to support your contention, and, since you ‘filed’ the charge, it’s up to you to prove it. My evidence is not 100%, I grant you. Still, as I mentioned in another post, it’s like someone who disrespects each person he knows of some particular minority. Maybe, by coincidence, the members of this minority that he knows all happen to be truly reprehensible. However, there’s at least a likelihood that prejudice has played a role. Speaking actuarially, the more of these people who are alleged to be reprehensible, the more likely it is that we’re reacting to a campaign of demonization. ---
**Author:** ![tradesilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/439d5e/32.png) [@tradesilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tradesilicon)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/123 "2001-10-29T19:22:55Z")
As someone who agrees more with Republican policies than Democrat, I find the Republican Party a bit too High-and-Mighty for my taste. I never like arguements based on superior morality. (Morality is subjective). But since we all agree to live under a set of laws, that should be the basis for investigations - were laws broken? I think the nature of politics invites corruption, and no political party can claim the high ground. As IzzyR said, each incident should be looked at seperately, sweeping generalizations are always a bad idea (he,he). We heard a lot of crap about Clinton, and I never liked him personally. But I just don’t see any more demonization of the investigators/witnesses/etc. in that case than those in other cases - politicians will do their best to paint their opponents in a bad light, every time. What are we bickering about here? That Democracts would try to demonize those who help the Republican cause? Republicans would do no less. And you are what, surprised? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/124 "2001-10-29T19:32:23Z")
P.S. to previous post Just noticed that the last paragraph of Sua’s USA Today link says: > [@](#): > > But Starr said Thursday that the question already had been resolved. When Lewinsky’s next lawyer, William Ginsburg, filed a complaint about agents’ treatment of Lewinsky that fateful day, Judge Norma Holloway Johnson ruled in Starr’s favor, the independent counsel told the committee. The ruling has not been made public. IANAL, but if Judge Holloway (BTW a Democrat) had already ruled in Starr’s favor, why shouldn’t I take her word for 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 29, 2001, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/125 "2001-10-29T19:34:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by \* \*\* > My my, such harsh words. Unfortunately, I believe they are based on a misunderstanding of the OP. > > _\_ > > As such, it is proper for december to call for an example of Democrats supporting a corruption investigation into their own, and it is improper to demand that he focus on a particular example. > \*\* Very nice try, Izzy, and I mean that. But I don’t buy it for ten seconds, mostly cuz it makes no sense. He didn’t hesitate to trot out \* people \* as examples of Anti-Democratic Corruption Crusaders. But he couldn’t speak to\* what corruption they had exposed \*? He wants to pin medals on “heros” without identifying the heroic act. Sorry, doesn’t fly. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\* Stoid, I seem to recall you claiming in some Pit thread or other that you never attack people - only their positions. > > Of course, I also remember you saying in a Pit thread that you are the most misunderstood poster on the SDMB. Perhaps that is the case here as well. And when you said “You’re a liar” what you _really_ meant was “You’re a respectable person whose positions I vehemently disagree with”. If so you might want to clarify this. > \*\* Did you see the post leading to that one? I carefully and clearly stated that I was leveling a charge of lying which I would withdraw if he provided cites to go with the names he was using as examples. His response was to weasel again. I have seen december do this before. (by the way, it was others who said I was misunderstood. And I believe the word was modified by “deliberately”.) Which leaves me to believe he was comfortable with the charge. It was uncomfortable for me to call him a liar. But “liar” \*\* is \*\* “one who lies”. I was able to do so for two reasons: one, he had failed to prove he was not, or even try, but much more importantly (since I have not called others out on their lying) : I have always made an exception for trolls (although even then not a large one. My exceptions do not extend to opening up [or joining, as the case may be] Pit threads to shred someone). And I believe december to be trolling with this thread (and I have seen him troll before). If he weren’t, he would have answers. Or he’d try to have answers. Instead, he just wiggles around. (And I do not whip this outta my pocket as a last minute defense - I established at the very beginning of the thread that I thought december was trolling. I think that might have been the first time I’ve ever even accused someone of _that_) December may or may not be a respectable person, I have no way of knowing. I will assume he is. I do not respect the way he posts. However…in the end, you are right. Even with trolls I just don’t feel right making direct accusations of a personal nature in that way. I gave in to a moment of frustration and I am chagrined. \*\* . So, december, I apologize for calling you a liar, \*\* which is to paste you with a label as a person because of your behavior in this one thread. My apology is sincere, it was bad behavior on my part and I shouldn’t have said it that way. It was just wrong of me, I was weak. Having said that, Stoid’s List [sup]TM[/sup] isn’t only made up of people who have been rude and insulting to me, it also includes people who have demonstrated that they are unwilling to “fight fair”, so to speak. So if you continue to operate in this fashion, you can cross me off your list of opponents, because I will not engage you. And \*\* Izzy, \*\* thank you for making me live up to my own principles. I figured someone was gonna bust me on that. You did so fairly painlessly. Stoid ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/126 "2001-10-29T19:48:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Do not assume that I am starting a protracted argument with you. If I do, trust me, you will know.\*\* > > Hmmm, two posts already for the purpose of picking a fight, rather than responding to the issues at hand. Just when is it I’m supposed to realize that you’re not itching for a protracted argument?\*\* Yes, we all know you took issue with something **Gadarene** said, and we also all know that you are carrying spillover bile from other threads, namely on baseball and _also_ on media bias.\*\* [/quote] I care deeply about reforming media bias, even if causes I support lose out as a consequence. I believe in professionality in reporting, in maintaining public confidence in journalism and limiting spread of biased, unreliable right-wing alternative news sources that thrive on the climate of suspicion surrounding the major media. Call that “bile” if you choose. And you’re free to overlook clear cut evidence that apologists on the left cite “corporate media bias” as a equilibrating factor when compared to “social issue bias”. There’s plenty of it right here in this thread. But like the Wizard said, ignore that man behind the curtain. I have no idea why you are still so het up about Barry Bonds.\*\* > [@](#): > > But I might just take up your gauntlet. \*\* Anytime. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/127 "2001-10-29T20:00:27Z")
I have not quoted so-called left-wing apologists who argue that the media is balanced by right wing corporate reporting. I am drawing my own conclusion based upon observable evidence that I shall do my best to compile and relate in an organized, persuasive fashion. And I don’t give a damn about Barry Bonds. I noticed that you seem to have a hate-on for **Gadarene**. This is rather inappropriate under any circumstances. To the extent that you still have not gracefully backed down and admitted that you were arguing against _no one_ in your above posts about “counterbalance.” Methinks I am not the only one who “posted merely to attack.” ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/128 "2001-10-29T20:07:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*P.S. to previous post > > Just noticed that the last paragraph of Sua’s USA Today link says: > > > [@](#): > > > > But Starr said Thursday that the question already had been resolved. When Lewinsky’s next lawyer, William Ginsburg, filed a complaint about agents’ treatment of Lewinsky that fateful day, Judge Norma Holloway Johnson ruled in Starr’s favor, the independent counsel told the committee. The ruling has not been made public. > > IANAL, but if Judge Holloway (BTW a Democrat) had already ruled in Starr’s favor, why shouldn’t I take her word for it? \*\* Starr _claims_ Judge Johnson ruled in his favor. “The ruling has not been made public.” As for the rest, you still have your huge problem with proof. What we have here is the following (again, assuming the purported demonization has occurred): **general population** : “The people on **december’s** list acted, at best, poorly. We don’t like them.” **december** : “You are demonizing them!!” **general population** : “No, we are judging them. There is a difference.” **december** : “You have been led astray by a demonization campaign!” **general population** : “No, we weren’t. We read the facts, and have reached our own conclusions.” **december** : “Well, your conclusions were wrong!! These people are good!! Good, I tell you!” **general population** : “Hey, man, you’re hyperventilating. Here, breathe into this paper bag.” Any way you spin it, **december** , your conclusion is based on the premise that you know more than the general population. _You_ weren’t fooled by the demonizing conspiracy; _you_ culled the truth out of the slanted reports of the Left-Wing Media. The arrogance of that position is obvious. The error of that position, I submit, is obvious as well. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/129 "2001-10-29T20:17:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > **I have not quoted so-called left-wing apologists who argue that the media is balanced by right wing corporate reporting. I am drawing my own conclusion based upon observable evidence that I shall do my best to compile and relate in an organized, persuasive fashion.** Your hit counter for substance-less posts for the purpose of protracted argument has just hit **3**. I look forward to the time when you compile, relate and persuade relative to some topic of GD interest. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/130 "2001-10-29T20:31:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > Any way you spin it, **december** , your conclusion is based on the premise that you know more than the general population. _You_ weren’t fooled by the demonizing conspiracy; _you_ culled the truth out of the slanted reports of the Left-Wing Media. > The arrogance of that position is obvious. The error of that position, I submit, is obvious as well. I don’t understand this at all. You seem to be assuming that “the general population” has reached the same conclusion as you. I don’t think that is at all obvious - or true, for that matter. What is true is that the general population _of Democrats_ shares that opinion. Which is the exact point of the OP. **Stoid** , I continue to believe that my point (re the OP) stand, but you disagree, and we can leave our posts to speak for us. But I must commend you for your apology - principled and classy! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/131 "2001-10-29T20:40:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*Now, Bill Clinton is hardly a saint, but if a political party is going to push itself as the standards-bearer of decency and truth, then the least I ask for is that they shouldn’t take an unannounced hiatus once one of their own candidates gets into office… \*\* Noted, rjung. I’ll keep that in mind if Bush starts getting blowjobs from interns in office sections of the White House, during work hours. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/132 "2001-10-29T20:44:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \*Starr _claims_ Judge Johnson ruled in his favor. “The ruling has not been made public.” Sua, you don’t actually disbelieve Starr, do you? If Starr had told such a blatant lie, wouldn’t you think that he’d have been exposed by now? And, Starr isn’t a liar. AFAIK he hasn’t been shown to have lied (despite unproved and refuted allegations to the contrary.) > [@](#): > > As for the rest, you still have your huge problem with proof. Perhaps my case isn’t totally watertight for a court of law. Still, I can point to a big difference between the treatment of Republicans and Democrats. E.g., Barney Skolnik, Richard Ben Veniste, Sam Ervin, Archibald Cox, and the Washington Post all helped get the goods on Nixon and Agnew. They were not demonized. Their opposite numbers were demonized – i.e., those who helped to uncover the Clinton perjury scandal and Dan Rostenkowski and the House Post Office scandal. However, YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/133 "2001-10-29T20:49:38Z")
**Jackmanii** , you are to rhetoricians what the spork is to silverware. I’d like a retraction of the “counterbalancing” claim, if you please. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/134 "2001-10-29T20:57:08Z")
**december:** The people investigating Dan Rostenkowski were demonized? Sim **Cite** y? I certainly don’t remember anything like that. And when in the hell was there any demonization regarding the [Post Office scandal](http://www.heritage.org/library/categories/govern/em375.html), anyway? (Note the source of that link, mind you.) ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/135 "2001-10-29T21:00:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > > Any way you spin it, **december** , your conclusion is based on the premise that you know more than the general population. _You_ weren’t fooled by the demonizing conspiracy; _you_ culled the truth out of the slanted reports of the Left-Wing Media. > > The arrogance of that position is obvious. The error of that position, I submit, is obvious as well. > > I don’t understand this at all. You seem to be assuming that “the general population” has reached the same conclusion as you. I don’t think that is at all obvious - or true, for that matter. What is true is that the general population _of Democrats_ shares that opinion. Which is the exact point of the OP. No, **IzzyR**. **december** has assumed that the general population has reached the same conclusion as me. Read his response to my first post in this thread - I pointed out that _Clintonistas_ wouldn’t like these guys anyway, with or without Zippergate, and **december** stated that the demonization of these people was occurring in the “general population.” (I’ve already pointed out that he has no evidence that the general population has demonized these people, but am assuming for purposes of this debate that they are.) I’m only responding to the points made by the OPer. If they make no sense (;)), talk to him, not me. Sua ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/136 "2001-10-29T21:04:42Z")
appologize for being one of several to describe your OP as “trolling”? you as much admitted same on the first page. I pointed out (as did many others) that your OP was highly subjective and offensive to those who considered themselves liberal, and you even added to it, claiming that liberals have their heart in the right place but don’t have an accurate world view. You’ve not backed off from that at all, nor have you offered any evidence to that (that liberals lack an accurate world view - unless of course ‘accurate world view’ is specifically and only defined as 'that which agrees with **decembers** - doubt that M/W or any other dictionary has that as an alternate definition). I see no reason to change my opinion that your OP was a deliberate negative attack, designed to provoke responses. IOW trolling. As for your evidence, I’ve not seen any except your list. You’ve failed to demonstrate that: 1. they were popular (definition?) before they discovered Democratic corruption, 2. that they rooted out corruption (debatable in nearly every case) 3. that subsequent to #2, they experienced a measurable decline in popularity 4. that persons of the Democrat party caused said downward spiral in popularity. Many of those you listed were virtually unknown in the public eye prior to their involvement in whatever scandal. and, of course, as has been noted, much of what they currently get negative publicity for, frankly deserves it (ie Tripp). ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/137 "2001-10-29T21:05:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > \*\ ***december:** The people investigating Dan Rostenkowski were demonized? Sim **Cite** y? I certainly don’t remember anything like that. > > And when in the hell was there any demonization regarding the [Post Office scandal](http://www.heritage.org/library/categories/govern/em375.html), anyway? (Note the source of that link, mind you.) \*\* Two words: Newt Gingrich ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/138 "2001-10-29T21:06:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Their opposite numbers were demonized – i.e., those who helped to uncover the Clinton perjury scandal and Dan Rostenkowski and the House Post Office scandal. …And I’m not even going to touch the tangled rhetorical construction inherent in “helping to uncover” Clinton’s perjury. ---
**Author:** ![JDM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/90db22/32.png) [@JDM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JDM)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/139 "2001-10-29T21:09:47Z")
I figure that I will be accused of dead horse flogging yet again, but I just have to make a few points. 1. Re: Clinton’s Jones depo- the dictionary definition of sex doesn’t matter, nor does my definition, nor does yours- for the purposes of the depo, the definition of sex was spelled out and limited. It was essentially: If Clinton touched ML’s genitals or other erogenous parts, it was sex. It said nothing about _her_ touching _his_ naughty bits. Further, there had been a second paragragh discussing the use of “objects” for stimulation, but that paragraph was struck. Thus the question is not “is a blowjob sex,” but rather “did Clinton do anyting that the paragraph defining sex in this deposition mentions?” Absent proof that he did do one of the things in the the clause, it’s difficult (at least for us strict constructionists)to say he lied under oath. 2. Materiality. Plaintiff was trying to show that Clinton’s alleged action in the complaint would not have been out of character for him by showing a “pattern of behavior.” When the Judge threw the case out, however, her decision was based on the fact that the only damage that Paula Jones could show was that she did not get flowers one secretary’s day. All of her allegations of missed promotions and raises, etc., that she had sworn to, and which were therefore obviously very material to the case, were shown to be lies. The Judge did not question whether Clinton had made the alleged demand in the alleged fashion, but threw the case out because with no damage stemming from Jones’ alleged refusal, the demand was only “boorishness” and not harrassment. If the only relevance that testimony about ML had went to whether Clinton might have done the foul deed that Jones alleged, and the Judge said that whether Clinton did it was irrelevant to the case, then the testimony should not have been allowed in the first place, and certainly is immaterial. 3. The Grand Jury Testimony, which can be found here: [http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/transcr.htm](http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/transcr.htm). Remember, the House voted to impeach Clinton on this, and not the Jones deposition. The Starr report called this perjury. In this testimony, Clinton said this: “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.” Later in the testimony he discusses why he believes that oral sex performed on him by Monica is not included in the definition of sexual relations from the Jones definition. He also discusses why his use of “objects” on Monica is not covered, since the paragraph that mentioned them was struck. Anyone reading the Grand Jury Testimony will get a complete picture of what Clinton and Lewinsky did. I do not see how this could be called perjury, unless it is claimed that they did things beyond this (fucked, for instance), and to my knowledge the Starr report does not claim that. Where’s the perjury? Read the transcripts, ignore the sound bites, and a very different picture emerges. JDM ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/140 "2001-10-29T21:17:36Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by **december** :_ > Two words: > > Newt Gingrich _ **!!!** _ Potty mouth. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123.md?page=8)