President Clinton -- Sexual Relations

[Major_Kong]

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

[Whack-a-Mole]

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…

[Sublight]

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.”

[Evil_Captor]

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.

[Walloon]

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

At Clinton’s deposition, Jones’ legal team asked Judge Susan Webber Wright to approve a very precise, three-part definition of sexual relations. Clinton’s attorney Robert Bennett objected to the whole definition, but to the last two parts especially, as being too broad. Wright agreed to disallow parts 2 and 3, leaving only the first, narrowest definition of sex in place. . .

The truncated definition characterizes sex in terms of a checklist of body parts, including the genitals, breast and thigh. . .

There are problems with the legalistic defense. For one thing, if Clinton and Lewinsky did have oral sex, is it really likely that he did not touch any body parts mentioned in the Jones definition? (Lewinsky has testified that Clinton fondled her.) And because that definition says that a person engages in sex if he or she “causes” contact with the genitals of “any person,” it could be argued that Clinton caused Lewinsky’s contact with his, even if he did not otherwise touch her.

[Ringo]

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?

[Walloon]

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

For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in “sexual relations” when the person knowingly engages in or causes —
(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;
(2) contact between any part of the person’s body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or
(3) contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person’s body. “Contact” means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.

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:

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.
JUDGE WRIGHT: 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.

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

MS. IMMERGUT: Okay. And just for the grand jury purposes, I have marked as an exhibit ML-6 and I’ll just read it to the grand jury and place it before you.

(Grand Jury Exhibit No. ML-6 was marked for identification.)

MS. IMMERGUT: It states “Definition of Sexual Relations. For the purposes of the grand jury session, a person engages in ‘sexual relations’ when the person knowingly engages or causes 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. Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.”
BY MS. IMMERGUT:
Q: Ms. Lewinksy, do you understand that definition?
A: Yes, I do.
MS. IMMERGUT: And I do have copies to pass out to the grand jury.
BY MS. IMMERGUT: When you described that you had other physical intimacy during your contact with the President on November 15, 1995, did that include sexual relations within the definition of that I’ve just read to you?
A: Yes, it does.

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.

[Cardinal]

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.

[Walloon]

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

Q: Mr. President, I want to go into a new subject area, briefly go over something you were talking about with Mr. Bittman.

The statement of your attorney, Mr. Bennett, at the Paula Jones deposition – counsel is fully aware – it’s page 54, line 5. Counsel is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky is filing, has an affidavit, which they were in possession of, saying that there was absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form with President Clinton. That statement was made by your attorney in front of Judge Susan Webber Wright.
CLINTON: That’s correct.
Q: Your – that statement is a completely false statement. Whether or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the statement that there was no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form with President Clinton was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?
CLINTON: It depends upon what the meaning of the word “is” means. If “is” means is, and never has been, that’s one thing. If it means, there is none, that was a completely true statement.

[Cardinal]

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.

[Diceman]

*Originally posted by Cardinal *
**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.

[Walloon]

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.

[GoldenGael]

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.

[Evil_Captor]

*Originally posted by GoldenGael *
**The notion of one lawyer’s criticizing another for splitting hairs is too funny and hypocritical for words. **

Well said.

[Airblairxxx]

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.

[bibliophage]

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

bibliophage
moderator GQ