minty, I think Sua’s got it right. If you stand on your head and read it with one eye closed and your hand wrapped… well, you get the idea. I think it was a laborous maneuver to ‘not’ see it as ‘sexual relations’.
can depositions truly the fishing expeditions they seem? (yea, yea, we know they knew, but he didn’t know they knew …)
Sua, any thread as filled with boobs and butts as this one can use a little gentility now and then. 
But to answer your question, if “any person” includes oneself, then the question turns into “Did you have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky or yourself?” Again, that doesn’t make much sense. In all its efforts to be precise, the definition of sexual relations is really rather confusing. And really, what uptight, puritanical dumbass of a Clinton-hating lawyer could possibly be so stupid as to draft a definition that even arguably leaves out oral sex?
I note that in Texas, misdemeanor perjury does not require materiality, while the separate felony offense of aggravated perjury does require the false statement to be material. The statutory test of “material” is whether it “could have affected the course or outcome of the official proceeding.” It is a question of law for the court, and is not subject to the defense that the person mistakenly believed the statement to be immaterial. Tex. Penal Code sections 37.02-37.04. I have no clue what the standards are in other jurisdictions.
Rick, I think it’s pretty obvious how someone could distill your answer down to “No.” I mean, look at what you wrote:
Why, it’s all over the place, backwards and forwards! You couldn’t have said it any more clearly if you had drawn a picture.
Well, I can’t speak to the boobs issue, but my butt has always held itself to the highest standards of propriety.
I disagree, because the term “relations” requires more than one person in the equation.
The way I interpret it, “sexual relations” was defined as one of two activities:
(a) “engaging in” contact - touching the other person’s stuff;
(b) “causing” contact - getting someone else to touch your stuff.
Unless Lewinsky was chasing Clinton around the desk, he “caused” his wee-wee to be touched. And therefore engaged in sexual relations.
Sua
You all may find this table prepared by the Washington Post helpful. It lists the five allegations of perjury made by Kenneth Starr, what the questions to Clinton were and Clinton’s answers, available evidence, and the defense presented by Clinton’s lawyers. It draws no conclusions, only lays out the relevent specifics in concise fashion.
The most compelling evidence that Clinton was guilty of perjury is that Clinton, in so many words said so himself.
In his statement announcing the deal with independent counsel Robert Ray in January 2001, Clinton says (all emphases mine):
I believe the model rule he is referring to in the first paragraph refers to being truthful, i.e., not committing perjury. But I’m not sure about that. So let’s skip that.
In the second cited paragraph, Clinton states that he “KNOWINGLY violated” discovery orders in the deposition of the Paula Jones case. He then goes on to further characterize how he violated the discovery orders. He “tried to walk the fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely,” but he “did not fully accomplish this goal.”
I don’t have the benefit of running this through Clinton-to-English babelfish. If he did not fully accomplish the goal of walking the fine line between ACTING LAWFULLY and TESTIFYING FALSELY, does that not mean he occasionally testified falsely in an unlawful way? By his own admission?
What, can’t we take the guy at his word?
I disagree with you on the “causing contact” thing. Rather than “getting someone else to touch your stuff,” it sounds to me more like “making someone else touch your stuff.” If she touches it out of her own free will, he hasn’t “caused” anything to be touched.
Like I said, the definition is crap.
No way, minty - “cause” is a neutral term. If you pay a hit man $5,000 to kill your wife, you have “caused” said hit man to kill your wife, even though the hit man accepted the money of his own free will.
Here, “caused” would mean that Clinton induced, solicited, encouraged, etc. Lewinsky to do the nasty.
Sua
I don’t recall that Clinton paid Monica for those hummers, and I really don’t have a clear idea of how one “induces” a BJ. But “solicited” and “encouraged” I certainly understand, and I just don’t think they rise to the level of “cause,” a/k/a “to bring about.” Certainly, there’s a line somewhere between “leaving work,” “going to the strip club,” and “paying for the lap dance” where you can say that you have “caused” sexual relations as defined at the deposition. That line isn’t self-defining, however, and I guess I would draw it rather further towards the third example than you would.
Isn’t the Washington Post the same newspaper owned by the Rev. Moon and has a decidedly right-wing editorial slant?
Just checking…
You’re thinking of the Washington Times. The Washington Post has a decidedly (yet still nearly centrist) left wing slant.
Huh? When did I say there was anything about oral sex? What it does say is to “faithfully execute the office of the presidency”. Lying to the public is not being “faithful”.
Please don’t project your feelings onto me. I’m annoyed at him for lying to the American public because he lied to the American public. If Bush were to call a press conference for the sole purpose of betraying my trust, I’d be pretty pissed at him too.
Whether that fits the definition of “perjury”, I don’t know. I don’t think it does. But it most certainly does fit the definition of “breaking an oath”.
Bricker:
If I were to give a bag of contraband to a friend for safekeeping, I most certaintly would expect him to keep it private.
The inadmissability of evidence found in illegal searches is not an elimination of the violation, but a punitive measure meant to discourage such searches. If my house is illegally searched, and evidence against me is obtained, my rights have been violated regardless of whether that evidence is allowed in a court of law. The inadmissably of the evidence simply prevents the violation from being compounded, it does not eliminate it. If evidence against another person is obtained, my rights have been violated, again regardless of whether that evidence is used against me. This violation needs addressing. Perhaps there some form of censure that you did not mention, but AFAIK there are no consequences for this type of rights violation.
Milossarian
Which comprised both Republican and Democrats. Sorry, this is a bit of a pet peeve.
minty green
[
So you’re saying that we can eliminate an interpretation simply because it makes no sense? What, you expect the law to be logical?
Then you might has well have cited his marriage vows. Neither one qualifies as perjury, however.
As in innocent until proven guilty. What country do you live in Milo?
I’ll just keep posting, every 10 posts or so, that Clinton himself said he did it, until one of his acolytes acknowledges that, or tries to explain it.
To take your second answer first, the question was material because Jones’ lawyers were attempting to establish that the President had a habit of having sex with and requesting sex from his subordinates. The question is material because it refers to the President’s sexual habits. An example of a non-material question would be something like, “What is your favorite color.”
Remember, the Starr report is phrased the way it is, with “may have” and “seems to suggest”, because it is not in itself an indictment. It is a statement to Congress, indicating that there is evidence to bring an indictment or articles of impeachment against the President. Remember too, that even in an indictment before a grand jury, it isn’t the responsibility of the prosecutor to prove that an individual committed a crime. It’s his or her responsibilty to convince the grand jury that enough evidence exists to bring charges against that individual.
This seems to fit that requirement. It’s known that the President denied, under oath, having had a sexual relationship with any of his subordinates, especially Ms. Lewinsky. We also know that both Ms. Lewinsky and, later the President, later stated that the two of them engaged in oral sex on more than one occassion.
Therefore, on the perjury case, exist, it seems, on the face of it, there was enough cause to bring an indictment.
I think the word you’re looking for is libel, not slander. The Starr report does not seem to fit the definition of libel, because, IIRC, libel of a public figure requires that the written material in question be false, be known to the author as false, and that it be malicious. Regardless of the truth or falsity of the documentation in the Starr report, Mr. Starr and his assistants seemed to believe that the statements of the Starr report were true. Also, the report was not malicious. Mr. Starr’s office seems to have written it with the main purpose not to cause harm to the President (although it did of course), but to fufill his official responsibilities in investigating whether the President broke the law in regards to his and others’ testimony in the Jones case.
no he didn’t. Read the Clinton admission again, your preconceptions are getting in the way of your understanding of english. There is no admission of perjury there.
Even if it had been an admission of perjury, it still means nothing. That statment was a plea bargan, in response a threat of continued harrassment by Starr, et al. A confession under duress isn’t proof of anything except the effectiveness of the threat.
And finally, if this were truly a confession of perjury, then why is he being allowed to retain his law license? Answer: because it isn’t.
Oh surely you jest.
No, I’m serious. I’m not denying that there were political motives behind the whole Monica Lewinsky thing…of course there were, and I have no doubt Mr. Starr enjoyed his job immensely. That doesn’t change the fact that, whatever the motivations behind the investigation, Mr. Starr had legal authorization to do what he did, and was acting in accordance with the instructions he was given.
One thing that affects the way we view the definition is the fact that two clauses:
of the original definition proposed by the Jones legal team were eliminated from the final definition used. As you can see, if those clauses had remained then oral sex performed on Clinton would have been covered. The fact that those clauses were struck makes it reasonable to believe that the acts detailed in them were also removed from the definition.
As regards the question of materiality, first the Judge’s allowing of questioning involving Lewinsky was not based upon her perception that that area was material, but rather simply on her belief in the “good faith” of the Jones attorney:
As several people have stated, the Judge did not throw out the Jones case because Jones had not proven that the hotel room incident had happened (the only area where testimony about Lewinsky could be relevant, and I find even that questionable, since the Jones allegation involved a degree of coercion, and the Lewinsky affair was completely consensual). She said that it did not matter whether the incident had taken place or not.
To continue (I accidently posted the previous):
from Judges Wright’s decision:
Now in a previous thread Bricker pointed out that a later ruling of inadmissibility does not absolve the requirement for true testimony at the time. But I think it would have made it difficult to get a conviction on a perjury charge.
JDM