# So what was the criminal case against Bill Clinton? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 9, 2002, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132 "2002-06-09T20:34:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2002, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132/1 "2002-06-09T20:34:40Z")
This is inevitably going straight to GD, so it might as well start there. It’s also belated, stemming as it does from an anti-hijack request by **MEBuckner**. So, now that there’s been time to adequately study every detail of Bill Clinton’s private life, what exactly was the criminal case against him? It’s still popular among some circles to state simply that he committed perjury, and then go into the pious condemnations we’re all so familiar with - but is that a statement of fact or of some inchoate, self-rationalizing hope for redemption? So here’s a challenge for any of you legal eagles: What was the evidence that proves a charge of perjury? What lie did he tell under oath, and how does that relate to the legal definition of perjury? Rule 1: Entries mentioning “I did not have sex with that woman” must be accompanied with the definition of “sex” he was required to use in that deposition. Rule 2: Entries amounting to “He must be guilty because I hate him, and besides, everyone _knows_ he’s guilty” will be disqualified, and, if coming from a lawyer, will be subject to greatly-added derision. Rule 3: Entries from lawyers are required to have added commentary on what a judge would say if you, the prosecutor, were to present such a case in court. All entries remain the property of the Chicago Reader and cannot be returned. So whaddaya got, folks, be ye lawyers or no? ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2002, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132/2 "2002-06-09T21:37:17Z")
What he said under oath was ‘I did not have sexual relations with that woman.’ And he, like most people, would’ve stuck with it in the absence of undeniable physical evidence. Damn that blue dress. We all learned a valuable lesson there - watch where you point that thing. For the record, I liked Clinton, would’ve voted for him again if possible, and thought the impeachment was nothing but a transparent and juvenile attempt by republicans to discredit a two term democrat after the sting of a one term republican. But you have to admit that dress proved that Clinton DID have sexual relations with that woman, unless he had some condition causing him to ejaculate uncontrollably. ---
**Author:** ![WSLer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a6a055/32.png) [@WSLer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WSLer)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2002, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132/3 "2002-06-09T21:46:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zwaldd \* > \*\*What he said under oath was ‘I did not have sexual relations with that woman.’ \*\* When, **under oath, or during what deposition** did Clinton say this. The only time that I’ve ever heard of him saying this was in that infamous clip that has been shown innumerable times. Which was not, let me repeat that **NOT** under any sort of oath, but rather was in response to a question from a reporter, which is quite a different thing then being legally deposed. ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2002, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132/4 "2002-06-09T23:42:09Z")
Well never mind, then. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2002, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132/5 "2002-06-10T00:17:51Z")
Well, from the Starr Report: > [@](#): > > In late 1997, the issue was presented to United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright for resolution. Judge Wright’s decision was unambiguous. For purposes of pretrial discovery, President Clinton was required to provide certain information about his alleged relationships with other women. In an order dated December 11, 1997, for example, Judge Wright said: “The Court finds, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to information regarding any individuals with whom the President had sexual relations or proposed or sought to have sexual relations and who were during the relevant time frame state or federal employees.”(6) Judge Wright left for another day the issue whether any information of this type would be admissible were the case to go to trial. But for purposes of answering the written questions served on the President, and for purposes of answering questions at a deposition, the District Court ruled that the President must respond. > > In mid-December 1997, the President answered one of the written discovery questions posed by Ms. Jones on this issue. When asked to identify all women who were state or federal employees and with whom he had had “sexual relations” since 1986,(7) the President answered under oath: “None.”(8) For purposes of this interrogatory, the term “sexual relations” was not defined. > > On January 17, 1998, President Clinton was questioned under oath about his relationships with other women in the workplace, this time at a deposition. Judge Wright presided over the deposition. The President was asked numerous questions about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, by then a 24-year-old former White House intern, White House employee, and Pentagon employee. Under oath and in the presence of Judge Wright, the President denied that he had engaged in a “sexual affair,” a “sexual relationship,” or “sexual relations” with Ms. Lewinsky. The President also stated that he had no specific memory of having been alone with Ms. Lewinsky, that he remembered few details of any gifts they might have exchanged, and indicated that no one except his attorneys had kept him informed of Ms. Lewinsky’s status as a potential witness in the Jones case. Then, later on, on Jan. 18, 1998, the President testifies at a deposition in Little Rock: > [@](#): > > For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in “sexual relations” when the person knowingly engages in 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. . . > > The President emphatically denied having had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky So, those two statements, if it was found, as the Starr report appeared to, that Ms. Lewinsky performed oral sex on the President, there are grounds for a perjury charge. In his grand jury testimony, the President said, in his defense, that as he understood the definition of sexual relations as given above, he did not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, but she did with him. Also, in the depositions, the President seems to have misrepresented the amount of time he spent with Ms. Lewinsky, indicating that he only saw her two or three times. The Starr Report also alledges that the President may have suborned perjury, having conversations both with Ms. Lewinsky and Bettie Curry in which he rather forcibly reminds them of his version of the events. The way this is done seems to suggest the President is “coaching” them to support his statements. Here’s a copy of the Starr report. The juicy parts are in the narrative section (who had sexual contact with who, etc.), but check oujt the section called “grounds” to see what Mr. Starr felt it was possible to charge the President with, and why he felt that. [http://www.all-links.com/icreport/2toc.htm](http://www.all-links.com/icreport/2toc.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2002, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132/6 "2002-06-10T00:23:26Z")
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/explainone122098.htm](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/explainone122098.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2002, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132/7 "2002-06-10T00:39:43Z")
Oh, under the Arkansas Criminal Code > [@](#): > > A person commits perjury if in any official proceeding he makes a false material statement, knowing it to be false, under an oath required or authorized by law Of course, I’m not a lawyer, and this shouldn’t be considered official legal advice. ---
**Author:** ![Barking\_Spider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9dc877/32.png) [@Barking\_Spider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barking_Spider)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2002, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132/8 "2002-06-10T00:43:51Z")
WSLer said: > [@](#): > > When, under oath, or during what deposition did Clinton say this. The only time that I’ve ever heard of him saying this was in that infamous clip that has been shown innumerable times. > > Which was not, let me repeat that NOT under any sort of oath, but rather was in response to a question from a reporter, which is quite a different thing then being legally deposed. Yep, thats true. While Boy Clinton wagged his finger at America and said those words, he never did utter them during his interview with Starr. Janet Reno is the reason why Boy Clinton never was held accountable. She stonewalled damn near every investigation. Look at how he allowed Loral Corp. to sell top secret satellite information to the Red Chinese in exchange for for campaign contributions from CEO Bernie Schwartz. China had a hard time even getting a satellite into orbit prior to this, after Lorals help, China is now capable of dropping nukes on several different American cities from a single missile. Also, look at how that sumbitch Algore went to a buddhist temple and raised money at a fundraiser. This was highly illegal, yet Janet Reno allowed him to get away with it. And what about the fact that Boy Clinton was renting out the Lincoln bedroom in exchange for campaign money? ---
**Author:** ![LH75](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lh75/32/4438_2.png) [@LH75](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LH75)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2002, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132/9 "2002-06-10T01:00:36Z")
good evening friends, i come not to defend mr. clinton, but to answer the op. ianal, but i did read pretty extensivly of the analysis of the perjury charge. i do not claim accuracy, but this is how i understood the facts at the time mr. clinton denied having a sexual relationship with ms. lewinsky during a deposition given in preparation for the paula jones sexual harrassment trial. as i understand it, to be legal perjury, a statement must meet three tests: 1. the answer to the question must be an intentional falsehood. 2. the question and answer must be admissible evidence to the matter at hand (example = lying about what color car you were driving while witnessing a crime is false, but has nothing to do with the facts of the case.) 3. the answer must affect the outcome of the dispute. so, with knowledge of the linda tripp recordings, the prosecutor in the paula jones lawsuit asked mr. clinton if he had sex with ms. lewinsky and mr. clinton denied it. did he commit perjury, or merely lie. 1. from reading as much of the starr report as i could tolerate, the clinton/lewinsky affair did not progress to full intercourse. there was quite a bit of heavy petting and oral sex, but there was never an insertion of tab “a” into slot “b.” it is possible to semantically answer the question no. 2. i am not sure of the admissablilty of another sexual encounter with regards to the matter of a sexual harrassment claim from the past. i can hear a lawyer in trial stating: “i object, your honor! a present sexual relationship with another woman has no bearing on whether or not mr clinton sexually harrassed ms. jones five years ago!” 2a. the recording made by ms. tripp was made without ms. lewinsky’s knowledge, and constituted an illegal wire tap. i do not believe that it is possible to get information from an illegal wire tap admitted into evidence. 1. the admissablity of the questions regarding mr. clinton’s relationship with ms. lewinsky would possible render the whole line of questioning null, thereby having no affect on the outcome of the trial. did mr. clinton commit perjury? imho, no. did mr. clinton mislead the entire country, and lie about his relationship with ms. lewinsky? imho, yes. again, only my opinion, but this makes mr. clinton a liar, but not a perjuror. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2002, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132/10 "2002-06-10T01:11:19Z")
Well, no, under the definition of “sexual relationship” used in the deposition, actions other than sexual intercourse fit the definition. But, what you mentioned, Longhair, might serve as a defense against perjury, but might not stop a perjury charge from being brought. ---
**Author:** ![zen101](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c68b51/32.png) [@zen101](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zen101)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2002, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132/11 "2002-06-10T01:14:55Z")
He also killed Vince Foster, you there is that as well. ---
**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:** [June 10, 2002, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132/12 "2002-06-10T02:11:55Z")
Doesn’t the definition of perjury include something about the lie being material to the case at hand? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2002, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132/13 "2002-06-10T02:18:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by longhair75 \* > **2. i am not sure of the admissablilty of another sexual encounter with regards to the matter of a sexual harrassment claim from the past. i can hear a lawyer in trial stating: "i object, your honor! a present sexual relationship with another woman has no bearing on whether or not mr clinton sexually harrassed ms. jones five years ago!"** While the ultimate ruling in court may be that the question is improper, discovery rules of evidence are different. In a deposition, a question does not necessarily have to be relevant itself, but must merely be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. A person giving a deposition is not permitted to make an independent judgement of the ultimate admissibility of the issue, but must answer truthfully (or object) to all questions. > [@](#): > > 2a. the recording made by ms. tripp was made without ms. lewinsky’s knowledge, and constituted an illegal wire tap. i do not believe that it is possible to get information from an illegal wire tap admitted into evidence. Even if you were correct about the illegality of the wiretap, an accused cannot vicariously claim another’s constitutional rights. For example, if I give you a plastic bag full of cocaine and my distribution notebook, and it’s discovered during an illegal search of your home, it cannot be used as evidence against you. But it can be used as evidence against me, since I have no Fourth Amendment standing to object to illegal searches of your home. Regardless, the wiretap information most probably constiutes hearsay, and would be inadmissible against Clinton for that reason. It was not, however, necessary to convict him. If Ms. Lewinsky’s subsequent testimony to the grand jury is believed, then Clinton committed perjury. Her testimony was consistent with the physical evidence. The wiretap recording would not be required as evidence in the case-in-chief against Clinton for perjury. - Rick 1. the admissablity of the questions regarding mr. clinton’s relationship with ms. lewinsky would possible render the whole line of questioning null, thereby having no affect on the outcome of the trial. did mr. clinton commit perjury? imho, no. did mr. clinton mislead the entire country, and lie about his relationship with ms. lewinsky? imho, yes. again, only my opinion, but this makes mr. clinton a liar, but not a perjuror. \*\* [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![LH75](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lh75/32/4438_2.png) [@LH75](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LH75)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2002, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132/14 "2002-06-10T02:24:49Z")
friend captain, > [@](#): > > But, what you mentioned, Longhair, might serve as a defense against perjury, but might not stop a perjury charge from being brought you are right. ---
**Author:** ![WSLer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a6a055/32.png) [@WSLer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WSLer)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2002, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132/15 "2002-06-10T02:55:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zen101 \* > \*\*He also killed Vince Foster, you there is that as well. \*\* Uh huh. Tell me when the shuttle lands, will you please? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2002, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132/16 "2002-06-10T03:02:56Z")
Just reading **Captain Amazing** posts, it seems to me Clinton clearly committed perjury. He gives the definition of perjury, and then supports the facts underlying the charge with cites. Were I you **Elvis** , I’d dump the pretentious and condescending tone in the OP, and give the Captain the praise he deserves. ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2002, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132/17 "2002-06-10T03:03:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Barking Spider \* > \*\*Boy Clinton > > sumbitch Algore \*\* Heh heh. So much for objective credibility. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by longhair75 \* > \*\*2a. the recording made by ms. tripp was made without ms. lewinsky’s knowledge, and constituted an illegal wire tap. \*\* You may want to check the lawbooks on that. From what I’ve read, it’s perfectly legal to record a phone conversation (or any conversation for that matter) as long as one person in the conversation is aware of it, and it’s also admissable as evidence. ---
**Author:** ![LH75](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lh75/32/4438_2.png) [@LH75](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LH75)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2002, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132/18 "2002-06-10T03:35:33Z")
friend zwaldd, > [@](#): > > You may want to check the lawbooks on that. From what I’ve read, it’s perfectly legal to record a phone conversation (or any conversation for that matter) as long as one person in the conversation is aware of it, and it’s also admissable as evidence. you could be correct. i have no detailed legal knowledge, just recall that there was an investigation into the legality of that taped conversation with a possible prosecution of ms. tripp for violating the wire tap laws. friend bricker, > [@](#): > > Even if you were correct about the illegality of the wiretap, an accused cannot vicariously claim another’s constitutional rights. For example, if I give you a plastic bag full of cocaine and my distribution notebook, and it’s discovered during an illegal search of your home, it cannot be used as evidence against you. But it can be used as evidence against me, since I have no Fourth Amendment standing to object to illegal searches of your home. your point is well made. my imperfect understanding of the rules of evidence led me to believe that illegally obtained evidence is always inadmissable. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2002, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132/19 "2002-06-10T04:35:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Barking Spider \* > \*\*Look at how he allowed Loral Corp. to sell top secret satellite information to the Red Chinese in exchange for for campaign contributions from CEO Bernie Schwartz. China had a hard time even getting a satellite into orbit prior to this, after Lorals help, China is now capable of dropping nukes on several different American cities from a single missile. \*\* How about some facts to back this up? China has been doing international commercial satellite launches since the mid-1980’s if not earlier. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2002, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132/20 "2002-06-10T04:53:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Barking Spider \* > \*\*Look at how he allowed Loral Corp. to sell top secret satellite information to the Red Chinese in exchange for for campaign contributions from CEO Bernie Schwartz. China had a hard time even getting a satellite into orbit prior to this, after Lorals help, China is now capable of dropping nukes on several different American cities from a single missile. \*\* Where to start? Loral may or may not have sold top “secret” satellite information to China. However, do you really think that Bill Clinton authorized or knew that this was going to happen and sat back doing nothing with his hand out for bribe from Bernie Schwartz? The term “Red China” is quite outdated for reasons that should be obvious. China has had a successful international satellite launch program from the 1980’s. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-the-criminal-case-against-bill-clinton/113132.md?page=2)