President Clinton -- Sexual Relations

Did President Clinton have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky as defined to him?

It’s been awhile but IIRC publically Clinton did not consider a blowjob to fall within sexual relations. It’s right up there with smoking pot but not inhaling. Semantics…

During questioning, he insisted that the person asking the questions (prosecutor? investigator?) define exactly what was meant by the question “did you have sexual relations with that woman?” The investigator let himself get talked into a definition of sex that was narrow enough to not include receiving a blowjob as “having sex.” So no, he did not have sexual relations with her “as defined to him.”

Sure, my personal opinion is that a blowjob is a sex act and he had sexual relations with Monica. I also feel that it was no one’s damn business but his, Monica’s and Hillary’s.

Richard Lacayo in Time magazine, “When Is Sex Not ‘Sexual Relations’?”:

So, you can have a consensual sex act where one party has sex and the other just stands around and doesn’t really have sex, or participate, or inhale?

The Paula Jones legal team submitted the following “Definition of Sexual Relations” to the court:

Judge Webber, at the request of Clinton’s attorney, disallowed definitions 2 and 3, but retained definition 1. From the testimony of President Clinton given on Jan. 17, 1998:

From the testimony of Monica Lewinsky before the grand jury, August 6, 1998:

Lewinsky’s testimony about these encounters is detailed and specific. She described with precision nine incidents of sexual activity in which the Clinton touched and kissed her breasts and four incidents involving contacts with her genitalia.

This seems like a good place to ask what exactly these references mean that I hear, about Clinton saying, “It depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.” I never heard the original circumstances, just the scoffing jokes later.

From President Clinton’s testimony to the grand jury, August 17, 1998:

How could he even think that this would fly? I’ve read it twice, and it seems clear that he was asked if there ever WAS relations. The definition of “is” doesn’t seem to be relevant.

I remember someone at the hearing making a comment to this effect. After Clinton’s famous statement, the guy got an incredulous look on his face and said something like, “Are you saying that, because you’re not having sex with Ms. Lewinski right this very moment, that you’re not having an affair with her? :dubious:”

It was a LOL moment for me. I don’t remember how Clinton responded.

Q: I just want to make sure I understand, Mr. President. Do you mean today that because you were not engaging in sexual activity with Ms. Lewinsky during the deposition that the statement of Mr. Bennett might be literally true?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: No, sir. I mean that at the time of the deposition, it had been — that was well beyond any point of improper contact between me and Ms. Lewinsky. So that anyone generally speaking in the present tense, saying there is not an improper relationship, would be telling the truth if that person said there was not, in the present tense; the present tense encompassing many months. That’s what I meant by that.

Hey, let’s face the central fact in this discussion:

All the parties concerned are LAWYERS, except for Ms Lewinsky.

They get paid to split hairs. It’s in their job description. It may be thought of as the very description of their job. It’s what they are taught to do in law school, and, in fact, they do it for fun.

The notion of one lawyer’s criticizing another for splitting hairs is too funny and hypocritical for words.

Well said.

As far as I’m concerned, Bill Clinton should have been IMPRISONED for PERJURY and shaming the HIGHEST OFFICE of this great COUNTRY.

I thank God every day that now we have a MORALLY UPRIGHT president who has returned FAITH, GOODNESS, and PATRIOTISM to the land, and I thank Him Above that President Bush was able to do it while cutting taxes for the rich, exploding our budget deficit, and conducting an apparently pointless war that has killed at least 120 of our servicemen and women, as well as thousands of civilians, but has propelled him to an almost certain victory over the smited DEMOCRATIC WHORE PAGANS in the 2004 election.

What, this forum isn’t called “General Questions and Sarcasm”? My bad.

The factual question has been answered. Debates and sarcasm belong elsewhere.

moderator GQ