So what was the criminal case against Bill Clinton?

Great Debates
21

You’re both right, to a degree. It’s not a Fourth Amendment violation if a conversation is recorded by one party to a conversation without a warrant, but it is a Fourth Amendment violation if the State does it warrantless without the consent of either party.

But the States can still criminalize one party recording a conversation without another’s consent, and Maryland does, under the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act (although some argued Tripp’s indictment was a bad reading of the statute). To my knowledge, most States don’t do this.

22

WSLer

Like hell it wasn’t

Do you have a cite for that?

Wow, it’s amazing how easily the courts can ignore the constitution. This wouldn’t be a case of asserting another person’s rights.

23

Boy, there must’ve been a group eye-rolling in response to that one. Hey, Ryan, point out in the presidential oath of office where it says anything about not getting blowjobs from interns.

You have an axe to grind against the guy because you disagree with his politics. So do I. But to claim he committed perjury of the oath of office is a really, really sad argument.

Actually, it wasn’t in response to a reporter, but it was on a televised monologue in which he held his Magic Pen Of Convincingness, stared at the camera, and said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinksy.” This article briefly mentions that televised address (in the fifth paragraph down).

24

Regarding Loral’s sale of satellite capabilities to China that it was determined damaged the U.S.'s national security, and the fact that the company doing the selling was the top contributor to the Dems, see this New York Times article and this Washington Post article on the bipartisan House committee’s unanimous findings.

To see the Cox report itself, go to http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house/hr105851-html/index.html

Captain Amazing:

**
Try that one with the missus. :smiley: :wink:

25

Hello all. I saw this in Reader’s Digest a few years ago. Thought it might be relevant here.

I Believe You, Mr. President
By: Michael Kelly

I believe the President. I have always believed him. I believed him when he said he had never been drafted in the Vietnam War, and I believed him when he said he had forgotten to mention that he had been drafted in the Vietnam War. I believed him when he said he hadn’t had sex with Gennifer Flowers, and I believe him when he reportedly says he did.

I believe the President did not rent out the Lincoln Bedroom and did not sell access to himself to hundreds of well-heeled special pleaders. I believe he did not supervise the largest, most systematic money-laundering operation in campaign-finance history, collecting more than $3 million in questionable and improper donations.

I believe in the Clinton standard of adherence to U.S. campaign-finance and bribery laws, enunciated by the President on March 7, 1997: “I don’t believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I had changed government policy solely because of a contribution.” I note with approval the use of the word “evidence” and also the use of the word “solely”. I believe that it is proper to change government policy to address the concerns of people who have given the President money, as long as nobody can find evidence of this being the sole reason.

I believe the President has lived up to his promise to preside over the most ethical Administration in American history. I believe that indicted former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy did not accept $35,000 in illegal favors from Tyson Foods, and other regulated businesses. I believe that indicted former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros did not lie to the FBI and tell others to cover up payments to his former mistress. I believe that convicted former Associated Attorney General Webster Hubbell was not involved in the obstructions of justice when the Presidents minions arranged for Hubbell to receive $400,000 in sweetheart consulting deals at a time when he refused to cooperate with Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr’s Whitewater investigation.

I believe Paula Jones was asking for it. I believe Kathleen Willey was asking for it. I believe that Gennifer Flowers was asking for it. I believe Monica Lewinsky was asking for it.

I also believe Lewinsky was fantasizing in the 20 hours of taped conversation in which she reportedly detailed her sexual relationship with the President and begged Linda Tripp to join her in concealing the relationship. I believe that any gifts, correspondence, telephone calls and the many post-employment White House visits that may have passed between Lewinsky and the President are evidence only of a platonic relationship. Such innocent intimate friendships are quite common between middle-aged married men and young single women, and also between Presidents of the United States and White House interns.

I see nothing suspicious in the report that the President’s intimate, Vernon Jordan, arranged a $40,000-per-year job for Lewinsky shortly after she signed, but before she filed, an affidavit saying she had not had sex with the President. Nor do I read anything into the fact that the ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, offered Lewinsky a job.

Finally, I believe that the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, and National Public Radio are all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

26

Assuming, The Ryan, that your words refer to my hypothetical bag of cocaine, and not the tape recording, it is a case of asserting another person’s rights. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches of their person and property. If your property is found in a place where you have no expectation of privacy, you have no standing to complain about its being used as evidence against you.

If you were staying as a guest in the home, and had placed your cocaine bag in a dresser that you were using, you might be safe. If you were a hotel guest, you might be all right. But if someone else takes your bag into their home, where you’re not a guest, then you cannot claim your Fourth Amendment right are violated by an illegal search of that home. Far from “ignoring the Constitution,” the courts have determined that this is exactly what the Constitution does, and does not, protect.

I apologize for the hijack.

If The Ryan was referring to the tape, as has already been discussed, resolving the admissibility of the tape recording is not germane to the resolution of the perjury question, and, in any event, the statements made on the tape, if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, are hearsay and inadmissible for this reason.

  • Rick
27

Lord Ashtar:

It’s unclear to me exactly how that essay could be relevant, except to demonstrate that Clinton may have lied to the public on numerous occasions. But that’s not the question, and it’s absolutely wrong to infer that someone who lies in the context the essay mentions would also lie under oath. The former has undoubtedly been practiced by both Republicans and Democrats, by Whigs and Federalists, back to the founding of the nation. The latter is a serious legal matter, and deserves a separate analysis.

There is no absolute proof that Clinton committed perjury. The best we can do is to say that if we believe Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony, then we must disbelieve portions of Mr. Clinton’s, and that would, in fact, be perjury. We can also say that Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony was consistent with the physical evidence. But I defy anyone to point out a statement made by Mr. Clinton under oath that is unambiguously contradicted by a piece of physical evidence.

That doesn’t mean he didn’t commit perjury, or even that he couldn’t be convicted. At a trial, it’s the province of the fact-finder to weigh testimony and other evidence and decide which to credit. There is sufficient evidence in the record, as a matter of law, for a reasonable jury to convict Mr. Clinton. A reasonable jury could also choose to disbelieve Ms. Lewinsky, and acquit Mr. Clinton.

I believe he committed perjury. But I’m not a member of that hypothetical jury, so it’s really only of academic interest what I believe.

  • Rick
28

In short then, No. Thank you, counselor.

captain, we are all extremely familiar with the dirty-old-man porn of the Starr Report. Note especially its “may have” and “seems to suggest” language, which you have quoted - would that hold up in court, do ya think? Or was it essential slander? Note also the legal need, which you also quoted, for a perjury case to be based on material testimony - please explain how a consensual sex act years afterward is “material” to a harassment case against another person.

All the rest of you are are in violation of the “We hate him, so he must be guilty” rule right in the OP. Thanks for playing, and try again soon.

I’ll toss in, as a preemptive measure, that Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that the incident in the hotel never occurred. If you say you believe her later, WSJ editorial page, version, then you are accusing your own star witness of perjury. So don’t bother, if that’s all you’ve got.

Just ftr for you haters, though, the “technology” that Loral helped China with amounted to teaching them how to solder electrical connections better. In return, they got the prints for the guidance system to the Long March booster. Also ftr, the greatest loss of defense technology to China appears to have been the prints of the W88 warhead - which happened in the '80’s. For extra credit, please identify the US President during that period.

29

IMHO, oral sex (as Ms. Lewinsky performing on Clinton) does/did include ‘placing tab A into slot B’, understanding that there’s different 'slot b’s available.

Also, IMHO, tho, all of the stuff about number of times, dates etc, is a totally 'nother issue.

I believe that to Ms. Lewinsky this affair was the defining point of her life to that point, that she re-lived every nuance, charted, noted, and recorded in some fashion each spoken word, each touch, each encounter. And that her memory of the events is most likely to be factually correct as to # of encounters.

I also believe that to Mr. Clinton, she was ‘chippy # 293943939’, and to recall any specifics as to number of times, dates, events was like asking for some one to recollect how many dozen eggs one purchased in the prior year, w/dates and quantities.

Question for the lawyer types had Bill used the phrase ‘to the best of my recollection’ - would that have been allowed. (I believe he remembered getting a BJ from her, but I doubt that much else was of significance to him).

30

This entire article is about what I’d expect from MK- you should check out the disposition of the cases that stemmed from the mud he is slinging- Espy, for instance.

I’m going to pick on the Kathleen Willey stuff because I think that she is a perfect demonstration of the depths to which Starr, Olson, and their Scaife funded cohort would sink, and of their complete lack of ethics, morality, and decency.

First, here is the conclusion re: Willey in the **Final Report ** of the OIC:

Kathleen Willey was, at the very least, an unreliable witness who lied under oath.

Here is what makes it very bad. She was friends with Julia Hiatt Steele and, even though we see that the OIC did not consider Willey a credible witness because she ** lied under oath **, they still indicted Steele and brought her to trial in a bullying attempt to get her to falsely corroborate Willeys lies (that is, to lie under oath). While Starr and his minions had a blank check from the US government, Steele had only her own resources, and was left destitute. Starr’s representatives even threatened to take her adopted son away. Starr felt no compunction in this because, as David Brock tells us, Willey was the first person that Starr, perjuror Ted Olson (lied under oath about his involvement with the Arkansas Project at his confirmation hearings), and the other members of the Scaife funded Arkansas Project intended to use to set the perjury trap against President Clinton. Starr just stuck with the plan, even knowing that Willey was, well, unreliable.

Where Starr showed his true character, though, was a month or so ago. Willey was briefly given a talk show on one of the hate radio networks- it died quickly, because she was not talented in that area, but before its demise, Ken Starr was a guest!

Now I didn’t hear the show, and haven’t read a transcript. So maybe he went on in order to give her a stern lecture about lying under oath. But you would think that someone who professes allegiance to truth the way Starr does (in between defending tobacco companies) would not want to lend any respectability to Kathleen Willey, the perjuror. I guess Starr was lying about his values all along. JDM

31

Elvis1Lives, it baffles me that you could distill ‘no’ from my posting.

Your OP asks, in relevant part:

I responded that the evidence was Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony, which was consistent with the physical evidence. I also said that her testimony, without more, was perfectly sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict Mr. Clinton of perjury.

In courtrooms across the country, every day, people are convicted of charges more serious than perjury on evidence weaker than that against Mr. Clinton. It is absolutely unfair of you to characterize my posting as a ‘no’.

What seems to be the key issue in your understanding, if I may speculate, is when I said that no piece of physical evidence contradicts Mr. Clinton’s testimony, and that there is therefore no “absolute proof” – that is, compelling physical evidence – of perjury. But that’s not what you asked. You asked what evidence proves a charge of perjury. The answer is that there is Ms. Lewinsky’s detailed testimonial evidence to prove the charge, testimony that is in all meaningful respects consistent with other physical evidence.

At best - at best - you may characterize my statement as, “We’ll never know.” But my post does NOT fairly distill to ‘no’, and you were intellectually dishonest in posting that characterization of it.

  • Rick
32

That’s fine, but neither YHO nor MHO has anything to do with it. The question is: "Did President Clinton lie about sex when sex is defined as follows:

Note that that definition, which was the definition used in the Jones depo, draws a very clear distinction between sucker and suckee. The sucker has sex, the suckee does not. This is the basis for President Clinton’s famous “definition of is” remark- the Starr guy was trying to get President Clinton to accuse Monica of lying, and the President refused to play along.

Actually, even saying that the Starr “investigation” only came up with a blow job is incorrect- the real question about President Clinton’s deposition is whether he touched Monica Lewinsky’s “genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.” The blow job was outside the definition. JDM

33

Hey Rick how ya doing- it’s been a while…

You have a good point about the specifics of ML’s testimony- but it does come down to “he said-she said.”

But what about the question of materiality? First, questioning about Ms. Lewinsky was questionable in itself because the point of the Jones complaint was that the alleged incident was non-consensual and unwelcome. The Jones lawyers’ contention that any sex that President Clinton had with anyone other than Hillary Clinton was material to the Jones case seems to me to be incorrect. The only “pattern of behavior” questioning should have been about events similar to the Jones allegations.
Second, as we discussed back then, the Judge’s dismissal of the case was based upon her view that, regardless of whether the alledged “incident” took place, Paula Jones was unable to show that she received damage from her refusal. This has nothing to do with whether the alledged “incident” occured. The Judge said specifically that even if it had occured, Paula Jones had not proven her case. That makes President Clinton’s denial of sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky even less material to the Jones case. You said, correctly, that the final disposition of the Jones case was diverted by President Clinton’s settlement, and that the Appeals Court might have reinstated Ms. Jones’s claim. You also stated that it was reasonable to believe that that would not have happened.

Can there be perjury without materiality? JDM

34

I disagree that the ‘definition’ as posted gives him a loophole. He may not have had contact of her bits and pieces, she certainly had contact w/his, and by the definition is ‘sexual contact’. There was contact w/genetaila w/object of gratification of sexual desire of ‘any person’.

I don’t see anywhere in the definition that says as long as it’s only his genetailia and his gratification than it ‘isn’t’ sexual contact. I know he says he interpreted it thusly, but I’m not seeing it, as quoted here.

35

Elvis L1ves said:

**
In other words, you didn’t adhere to his “Clinton is innocent” point of view.

My post in this thread was in response to China Guy saying this:

**
I provided relative links to reputable media stories, as well as the Cox Report itself. (Which was submitted on a 9-0 vote of the committee, comprised of both Republicans and Democrats.)

**
People can feel free to accept the assessment of Elvis “Fair and Balanced, As Always” L1ves, or that of the New York Times, Washington Post and a bipartisan committee of Congress. This is America.

To reject the arguments of anyone who disagrees with you as a “Clinton-hater” would be roughly akin to my rejecting anything you have to say on the matter because you wish you could have nudged Monica out of the way to shine President Clinton’s nob yourself. But where does that get us?

I guess anybody who still wants to debate this issue isn’t all that interested in getting anywhere though, are they?

Bricker:

**
Are you new with this guy?

36

JDM, the definition of sex for purposes of the deposition did not draw any distinction, clear or otherwise, between sucker and suckee. The relevant portion of the definition is

Now, materiality is definitely an issue here.

Sua

37

Actually, it does matter that it was only (allegedly) Clinton’s genitalia. The question was something along the lines of “Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky?” Because “sexual relations” was defined as above (see the Inquisition report excerpted above in Captain Amazing’s first post), the question must be read as follows:

“Have you ever knowingly engaged in or caused contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of Monica Lewinsky with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person?”

If he didn’t cross any of the specifically enumerated Forbidden Zones (which I absolutely believe he did), the answer to the question must be no.

38

Oh, and I translated “any person” as “Monica” because it makes zero sense to include oneself as “any person” in that definition. Otherwise, “sexual relations” would include . . . aw heck, figure it out for “yourself.” :slight_smile:

39

ElvisL1ves, your continued patronizing tone and dismissive attitude make further comments addressed to you seem to be a waste of time.

Bricker, I too was confused when our OP considered your post a No. There is more than sufficient proof that Clinton committed perjury. And no, it is not just “he said, she said”, JDM, the corroborating testimonial, and physical evidence clearly supports ML’s testimony rather than Clinton’s. Add to that his actions since this first happened, and I think it is pretty clear he did have a “sexual affair”, “sexual relationship”, and/or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, and that he lied when he said he didn’t while under oath. And the materiality of the lies was clearly evident by Judge Wright’s initial ruling that these questions were, in fact, relevant. The posturing that it would have been inadmissible, or in fact did not help Paula Jones in her case doesn’t matter. What matters is that he lied while under oath regarding questions that were ruled to be material.

40

damn server.

minty, I emphatically disagree - the phrase used was “any person,” not “any other person.” If your interpretation were correct, the word “causes” would have been superfluous to the definition - how could Clinton have engaged in sexual relations with Lewinsky by “causing” the touching of her naughty bits without touching her naughty bits? (Well, unless he directed a Secret Service agent to touch her naughty bits. Ew.)

I just saw your genteel reference to masturbation, but I think that issue is disposed of by the question - “did you have sexual relations with …”

While you’re here, minty, I have a question concerning the materiality requirement - is that an objective or subjective test? IOW, if at the time an [utterly hypothetical] person lies during testimony, he thought the question was material, but later the court dismissed on unrelated grounds, did the testifier commit perjury? Or does it vary amongst jurisdictions?

Hamlet, materiality and relevance are not the same thing.

Sua