**Bricker ** contended that it’s reasonable to assume that a man getting a blow job would have his hands on the woman, ie on her breasts, genetilia etc. and therefore found Monica’s testimony re: the incidents more credible.
I personally disagree - in the first place, while in an relationship, it’s likely that both parties would likely to be engaged in groping etc, there are other settings (where there is no ‘real relationship, as in this case) where it’s entirely possible and quite likely that the male would not be’doing stuff’ too.
For example, I recall in the case recently about the club where sports figures would be ‘given’ some woman, there was testimony where said sports figure would be getting a blow job while sitting having a discussion w/the owner of the club. It was clear that there was not corresponding groping of the woman.
I always saw the Monica/Bill thing as Bill getting a blow job etc. and not really all that interested in her except as a means to an orgasm for him. Monica seemed to be an absolute day dreaming fool - she seemed to believe that Bill ‘really cared’ and thought they’d be together eventually.
So, had I been on a jury, I’d have thought Monica was ‘embellishing’ her memories (not wanting to see it for the nearly uninvolved act it was for him), while Bill, I have no problem believing that he’d go for ‘you suck me off and see ya later toots’ (wasn’t that nearly what Paula claimed he asked for anyhow? I never got the impression that Bill really cared if the woman got off as well).
No, not in federal law, or under the laws of Virginia. I can’t speak for any other jurisdiction. You must prove to the fact-finder beyond a reasonable doubt that a person (1) under oath, (2) wilfully states or subscribes to (3) any material matter which (4) he does not believe to be true. The fact-finder may credit one person’s testimony and discredit another’s in making this determination. See 18 U.S.C. § 1621; Va. Code §18.2-434.
I have acknowledged here and elsewhere that in order to conclude Mr. Clinton lied to the grand jury, you must believe Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony. I have also listed the reasons I find her testimony more credible. It’s not merely wring’s acceptance of the “all-for-me” philosophy - it’s the complete lack of detail in his grand jury statement, returning again and again to his “statement”, as contrasted with Ms. Lewinsky’s detailed recollection of each and every sexual encounter, and the corroboration other details of her story had. In addition, the fact that Mr. Clinton’s story changed to match the evidence – at first insisting on no-affair-at-all, and pointing out it was her word against his, and then, after the DNA test on the dress put the lie to that, admitting to “conduct that was wrong” but not, incredibly, conduct that crossed the deposition definition line. It’s very unbelievable - but I grant that it’s possible.
And I’ll point out that Ms. Lewinsky lied in earlier sworn statements - she claimed this was at the President’s behest, and her later statements were the truth, but that’s without question a blow to her credibility.
No - but at least Ms. Lewinsky described events in clinical detail, and additional evidence matched her description. It’s not buyable to me - or, I believe, to any reasonable observer - that they were both telling the truth as they saw it. If both accounts were vague, I could accept that – but not with one account so detailed.
As I indicated above, the only thing I can do is show a conflict between two witnesses, and point out the reasons that I feel one witness is more credible than the other. But as I mentioned elsewhere, confronted with this evidence, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Mr. Clinton lied by crediting Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony… and a reasonable fact-finder could certainly conclude that Ms. Lewinsky lied and credit Mr. Clinton’s testimony. The record would support either verdict.
Bricker I failed to address the concept of lack of details about the encounter from Clinton, but to me, that’s part of the same issue.
I believe that to Mr. Clinton, this dalliance was no more significant than his last haircut. A year later, how much detail would you recall. To Ms. Lewinsky, this was probably the most significant thing in her life both during and afterwards, she re-hashed every minute detail with Ms. Tripp and probably others.
So, it makes absolute sense to me that Clinton would remember what to him was the significant things (she sucked me off) and forgot details that were insignificant to him. And, I believe that Lewinsky as a person was completely insignificant to him (this should take care of my ‘rep’ as a ‘Clinton Apologist’ )
But the bottom line of it all would have been up to a jury as to which person was more credible. As I said, I’d have firmly been in the camp of “this was much more significant to her than it was to him, both have reason to lie - he would have reason to diminish the contact, she would have reason to increase the contact” but what is more compelling to me is again, she seemed to have focused her whole life around him for this entire span of time. And she was simply an easy conquest to him (or seemed to be). YMMV
Ok, but Bricker- that is exactly what I was talking about- Clinton was testifying about his earlier testimony during the Jones trial, and explaining why he was not, in his opinion, lying when he said he did not engage in in “sexual intercourse as I understood that term to be defined during”. So, in order for that to be perjury- you would have to show that 1. Clinton did engage in “sexual intercourse” with Monica. 2. Clinton also (and this is the impossible one to prove) KNEW his dalliance fell under that definition of “sex”. 3. Clinton remembered the encounter just like Monica remebered it. See, what Clinton is saying here is that he “understood” the definition to not include his encounter with Monica. Can you show that he did understand differently? Clinto did not deny recieving oral sex from Monica (during the Grand Jury testimony)- that is the critical point. Even if his wording could possibly be a technical falsehood- it would have to be a MATERIAL & deliberate lie- and since he admitted the encounters with Monica during his GJ testimony, any quibbles over some few lines would never add up to “perjury”. Next, you would have to show that Clinton DID remember “fondling her breasts to cause arousal”. As wring said- that was years ago-maybe he only rememebered the BJ part. I can’t remember exactly what I did in most sexual encounters I had several years ago- can you? You state casually that Clinton’s “conduct did involve sexual relations as defined in the Jan 17th deposition- and Clinton knew it”. Both halves are clearly open to dispute.
Clinton never testified (during the Grand Jury hearing) that he did not fondle Monicas breasts. Can you show me where he said that? No- as he did admit to the Monica encounter- but denied his testimony in the other trial was a lie.
Note also when asked specifically about fondling her in a sexual way- he simply says he believes he has covered that before in a previous statement. How is that perjury?
Even if he did fondle Monicas breasts- it would have had to be “with an intent to arouse or gratify her sexual desire”- and that is not a given. I have had lap dances- I have “fondled” the breasts of the stripper- but not for her “arousal or sexual gratification”.
Finally, my most important point- if it WAS so very clearly perjury- then why, with all of the people that hated Clinton- were there no criminal perjury charges brought? You would think they would jump at the chance. The only credible reason is that they KNOW they could not get a conviction- that they could not prove- beyond a reasonable doubt- that Clinton knowingly lied about a material matter to the GJ. Thus, Clinton certainly prevaricated, he avoided the truth- but he did NOT commit perjury. If he had- he would have been at least indicted for it.
The deal reached with the former President was that he would admit deception in response to the contempt charge of Judge Wright, and surrender his law license, in return for avoiding a perjury indictment. This is a reasonable plea bargain, and the kind of thing that happens in less high-profile cases all the time. So the answer in short is that Clinton struck a deal avoid having to face perjury charges, and the prosecutors avoided having to prosecute a case that was, shall we say, less than airtight.
The deal struck with Judge Wright did not, AFAIK, cover Clintons Grand Jury testimony- in fact, the GJ could, in this State anyway, bring charges themself.
But, anyway, as you said- “the case was less that airtight”- very much so. As I have said before- there is a solid line between Contempt of Court for “deception”- and criminal perjury (which is rarely charged in cases like these). If Clinton had not been the Pres- they never would have charged him with criminal perjury, either. There is also case law that makes a “denial” by the part of the accused (As in “No, I did not rob that bank”) not Criminal Perjury. “Lying” is not “perjury”.
Thus- casually throwing the term of “Clinton the perjurer” around, as if it is a given fact- while it is highly debatable at best- is specious. Certainly I can accept “Clinton the big fat liar” if you like. But not “perjurer”- not until he is convicted in a Court of Law.