# The New Republican Hypocrisy **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 24, 2005, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613 "2005-10-24T03:15:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/181 "2005-10-26T04:37:10Z")
I should rephrase: **Bricker** and I both quoted summaries of her testimony. Mine was directly from the Starr Report, and I identified it as such. His may have been as well. (I guess you thought that was a signal to ignore it.) ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4af34b/32.png) [@Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_Loblaw_1)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/182 "2005-10-26T04:38:48Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I was the one who said maybe they didn’t know about the bjs. I’m pretty sure these questions, especially the later, are unanswerable. But I get the sense you have an opinion on it, and if so, please share it. I think there is a misunderstanding here. By the time of the impeachment trial, everyone knew about the BJs. The prosecutor, Starr and his successor, still had the right to charge Clinton after he was no longer in office. That’s what I’m referring to. Oh, and I missed the links to the Monica testimony. Please repost. I suspect that you and Bricker just quoted or paraphrased, and that really isn’t good enough for me. ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4af34b/32.png) [@Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_Loblaw_1)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/183 "2005-10-26T04:43:01Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I should rephrase: **Bricker** and I both quoted summaries of her testimony. Mine was directly from the Starr Report, and I identified it as such. His may have been as well. (I guess you thought that was a signal to ignore it.) Ah, simulpost. Sorry. Yeah, summaries of testimony from the Starr report is bullshit and the work of an advocate not even prepared to debate here. I’m prepared to review actual testimony, not propaganda and spin on what Ken Starr argued she said. And you should not have been satisfied with summaries either. The CNN posting of Clinton’s testimony is good enough to be considered authentic. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/184 "2005-10-26T04:45:10Z")
Here is [Brickers](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6722979&postcount=137) post. I’m not going to repost it here…you can use the link. There are several other similar posts on that same page that you seemingly ignored. If the information is wrong or not complete enough, generally a post stating that would be helpful, instead of seemingly ignoring them all together. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/185 "2005-10-26T04:45:14Z")
> [@Bob Loblaw](#): > > Oh, and I missed the links to the Monica testimony. Please repost. I suspect that you and Bricker just quoted or paraphrased, and that really isn’t good enough for me. Fuck you. I’m not doing extra work because you’re too stupid to click the Page 3 button. Read posts 130 and 137. I quoted directly from the Starr Report, and **Bricker** may have done the same. If you’re saying Starr may have inaccurately summarized her explicit testimony, I expect you to provide some evidence to support that idea. I’m not searching the 'net for her testimony to compare it chapter and verse to the summary of the testimony. At some point, you’ve got to either do a tiny bit of work here or just admit you’re a lazy douchebag. Go back one page in this thread if you plan to even claim you’re not that douchebag. ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4af34b/32.png) [@Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_Loblaw_1)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/186 "2005-10-26T05:00:27Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Here is [Brickers](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6722979&postcount=137) post. > > I’m not going to repost it here…you can use the link. There are several other similar posts on that same page that you seemingly ignored. If the information is wrong or not complete enough, generally a post stating that would be helpful, instead of seemingly ignoring them all together. > > -XT Yeah, I saw that, I asked for page and line a long time ago. The page and line stuff is only from Clinton’s depo, and we’ve already dealt with that. Starr summarizes Monica’s testimoy and I want page and line. Starr’s summary is an interpretation (and his prosecutorial abuse in requesting jurisdiction in a case he had advised the Plaintiff’s lawyers on without disclosing is just disgusting). So I’m not interested in what Starr argues Monica said under oath, but rather what she testified to. Now also remember that we have a right to confront witnesses in this country, and that Clinton did not have that in the Lewinsky case. Moreover, Starr may have required Lewinsky to lie, as he tried to do with Julie Hiatt Steele according to Steele: Starr charged her and tried her, and the jury handed him his ass: she accused Starr of suborning perjury from her. Any testimony that Starr might have extorted from Lewinsky would be subject to attack on the same basis. And you guys should be just as suspicious of any non-cross examined “testimony” that Starr argues about. Monica did say that she was intimidated and threatened before cutting a deal with Starr that required her to stop making those charges. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/187 "2005-10-26T05:14:28Z")
Okay, fine, here are a number of excerpts from her testimony. I’m sorry if anything becomes muddy because I’ve tried to keep this from being enormously long. My edits are in brackets, some other ellipses are in the testimony. [And here’s the goddamn link.](http://www.time.com/time/daily/scandal/monica/) This spans much of her August 6, 1998 testimony. I’m not sure where some of the other information comes from. I hope that, at least, this includes enough examples. > [@](#): > > Q. OK. Was there ever a time that your relationship became more of a romantic and sexual relationship? > > A. Yes. > > Q. And when did that occur? > > A. On Nov. 15, 1995. > > […] > Q. OK. And what happened in the back study area? > > A. We talked and we were more physically intimate. > > Q. OK. And on that occasion, did you perform oral sex on the president? > > A. Yes. > > Q. With respect to physical intimacy, other than oral sex, was there other physical intimacy performed? > > A. Yes. Everything up until oral sex. > > Q. OK. And just for the grand jury … I’ll just read it. … It states “Definition of Sexual Relations.” For the purpose 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. Ms. Lewinsky, do you understand that definition? > > A. Yes, I do. > > Q. OK. Did you have any further sexual encounters with him after that first time on the 15th? > > A. Yes. > > Q. When was the next time? > > A. On the 17th of November. > > Q. And could you explain how that contact occurred? > > A. We were again working late because it was during the furlough and Jennifer Palmieri and I, who was Mr. Panetta’s assistant, had ordered pizza … somebody accidentally knocked pizza on my jacket, so I went to go use the restroom to wash it off and as I was coming out of the restroom, the president was standing in Ms. Currie’s doorway and said, “You can come out this way.” > > So we went back into his back study area, actually, I think, in the bathroom or in the hallway right near the bathroom, and we were intimate. > > […] > > Q. Did the relationship after the events you’ve described of Nov.15 and 17, did it continue also to have a sexual component? > > A. Yes it did. … > > […] > > Q. Was there ever a time when your genitals actually touched each other? > > A. Grazed each other, yes. … > > […] > > Q. And could you describe what you and the president did? > > A. Mm-hmm. … We moved over to the back hallway and we were physically intimate. > > Q. OK. And did you perform oral sex on that occasion? > > A. Yes. … > > … (PROSECUTOR). … Now directing your attention back to February 28th, 1997, the day that you wore the blue cocktail dress. … You mentioned that you believe that there could be semen on it. Could you describe what you did with the president that led you to believe that? > > A. We were in the bathroom and - can I close my eyes so I don’t have to … > > Q. Well, you have to speak up. That’s the only … > > A. Okay. We were in the bathroom and I was performing oral sex. I’m sorry, this is embarrassing. And usually he doesn’t want to - he didn’t want to (ejaculate). > > Q. Ejaculate? > > A. Yes. […] > > And it was on this occasion … that after we had engaged in oral sex for a while and he stopped me as he normally did, I said to him, you know - this is so embarrassing, I’m sorry. I said to him, you know, I really - I want to make you (ejaculate). … > > […] > > Q. And is that from when you … did actually continue to perform oral sex on him later? > > A. I believe so. > > […] … Q. You mentioned earlier, perhaps an obvious thing, that you were alone with the president on the times that you had sexual contact with the president. > > A. Yes. > > Q. Were there also times when you were alone with the president that you did not have sexual contact with the president? > > A. Mm-hmm, yes. > > … Q. Were some of them brief? Were some of them substantial in length? > > A. Mm-hmm, yes. > > Q. Where within the White House would those have occurred? > > A. … Two occurred in the Oval Office and the others were in the back study area. … Not after, but when I was working there … we’d start in the back and we’d talk and that was where we were physically intimate, and we’d usually end up, kind of the pillow talk of it, I guess, was sitting in the Oval Office talking. ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4af34b/32.png) [@Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_Loblaw_1)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/188 "2005-10-26T05:18:16Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Fuck you. I’m not doing extra work because you’re too stupid to click the Page 3 button. Read posts 130 and 137. I quoted directly from the Starr Report, and **Bricker** may have done the same. If you’re saying Starr may have inaccurately summarized her explicit testimony, I expect you to provide some evidence to support that idea. I’m not searching the 'net for her testimony to compare it chapter and verse to the summary of the testimony. At some point, you’ve got to either do a tiny bit of work here or just admit you’re a lazy douchebag. Go back one page in this thread if you plan to even claim you’re not that douchebag. Went back read page 3 of the thread again, and still don’t see any citations to testimony, including posts 130 to 137. Since you are relying on the testimony of Lewinsky, it is your duty to provide such testimony, I object to the summaries (let’s see if I can lawyerize this) as argumentative, not best evidence and not under oath. Look, I read that stuff the first time, the second time and the third time and twice since. It’s not evidence, it is an argument and put forward by Starr. Even if you can find the grand jury testimony, I’m going to object to it on the ground that it lacked an opportunity to confront the witness and on the ground that Julie Hiatt Steel won her obstruction case against Starr’s office where she claimed he wanted her to lie about Clinton. There is no reason to believe he did not do the same to Monica Lewinsky because she claimed she did. Do you contend that it is fair to an accused to use testimony that doesn’t offer an opportunity to cross examine? It isn’t. All the arguments people have made in this thread ignore the rights of the accused: the right to trial by jury, the right to a presumption of innocence, the right to a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to confront witnesses, the right to testify on one’s own behalf (have your Clinton’s lawyer ask the question and explain how he interpreted the “definition”", the right to have a qualified lawyer argue his case. The only time that came close was during the Senate trial, where Clinton had legal counsel. I watched that trial, and Clinton’s lawyers wiped the floor with the House Impeachment managers. They couldn’t even get all the Republicans to go along with their crap case. Starr and his successor didn’t charge Clinton after he left office because they knew that if Clinton had rights of the accused, he would tear their case to pieces, the way Julie Hiatt Steele did with far less resources. They knew that if they repeated their “Clinton is guilty of perjury” lie enough in the press that they could convict him in the press, whereas in court, where Clinton had a full panoply of rights that he would have torn Starr’s team new poopers. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/189 "2005-10-26T05:20:55Z")
> [@Bob Loblaw](#): > > Since you are relying on the testimony of Lewinsky, it is your duty to provide such testimony, I object to the summaries (let’s see if I can lawyerize this) as argumentative, not best evidence and not under oath. I just did > [@](#): > > Even if you can find the grand jury testimony, I’m going to object to it So you’ve bothered to ask because… > [@](#): > > All the arguments people have made in this thread ignore the rights of the accused Speaking of argument by repetition, you’ve never managed to explain why that’s true. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/190 "2005-10-26T05:23:00Z")
I’m relieved that we’ve determined that Republican hypocrisy is, again, Clinton’s fault. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4af34b/32.png) [@Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_Loblaw_1)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/191 "2005-10-26T05:25:16Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Okay, fine, here are a number of excerpts from her testimony. I’m sorry if anything becomes muddy because I’ve tried to keep this from being enormously long. My edits are in brackets, some other ellipses are in the testimony. [And here’s the goddamn link.](http://www.time.com/time/daily/scandal/monica/) This spans much of her August 6, 1998 testimony. I’m not sure where some of the other information comes from. I hope that, at least, this includes enough examples. Okay, I’ve read your quote. Here’s the paraphrase of the specific and there is only one: “Did your genitals touch? Yes, they grazed.” Sorry, but that’s tentative at best. Now, if you were Clinton’s lawyer, might you argue that you were entitled to cross-examine? That grazing was accidental and not within the definition? That Monica’s interpretation of the definition isn’t relevant. Even assuming that Clinton might not be allowed to offer Hiatt Steele to show Starr was intimidating witnesses, suppose that Lewinsky became even more tentative on the stand and talked about the threats Starr made and how he pushed her. Sorry Charlie, but Starrkissed was Chicken of a Trial for good reason. The testimony you quoted isn’t any better than it was in 98 for purposes of a criminal conviction. ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4af34b/32.png) [@Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_Loblaw_1)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/192 "2005-10-26T05:27:30Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > I’m relieved that we’ve determined that Republican hypocrisy is, again, Clinton’s fault. 😉 Believe it or not dude, these guys claim to be non-Republicans. They drink the Kool Aid. ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4af34b/32.png) [@Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_Loblaw_1)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/193 "2005-10-26T05:32:34Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Speaking of argument by repetition, you’ve never managed to explain why that’s true. That lame assed three page quote from Lewinsky’s grand jury testimony? Not your fault it is lame assed, that’s what it is. You didn’t do the questioning, but it’s only slightly better than the yellowcake WMD case. We all agree that she gave him blow jobs, but if this is so convincing, convincing to you beyond a reasonable doubt, why didn’t the prosecutor charge after Clinton left office. Because that is weak ass testimony. All Clinton’s lawyer has to do is ask Lewinsky to testify about the threats made to her by Starr and ask her what she was sure of before those threats. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/194 "2005-10-26T05:35:33Z")
> [@Bob Loblaw](#): > > Okay, I’ve read your quote. Here’s the paraphrase of the specific and there is only one: “Did your genitals touch? Yes, they grazed.” Sorry, but that’s tentative at best. Now, if you were Clinton’s lawyer, might you argue that you were entitled to cross-examine? That grazing was accidental and not within the definition? That Monica’s interpretation of the definition isn’t relevant. Ah, now Clinton didn’t lie because he wasn’t allowed to cross-examine a witness. Excellent. Here I thought we were asking if the pair’s actions met the definition of sexual relations and Clinton said they did not have sexual relations. How fortunate that you’re considerate enough to change the subject. Anyway, I’m glad you read page three from 8/6/98, with this exchange in mind: > [@](#): > > Q. … Did you take any steps to try to be careful with how loud you might be in sexual matters? > > A. Yes. … I think we were both aware of the volume and sometimes I’d use my hand - I bit my hand - so that I wouldn’t make any noise. Betcha she bit her hand to stifle the noises and orgasms she had while she was blowing him and he wasn’t touching her with the intent to arouse. Good show again. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/195 "2005-10-26T05:37:29Z")
> [@Bob Loblaw](#): > > Yep, got it right on the button. Never said you weren’t using it correctly, Sparky. Just that you were blindly parroting it, since you’d obviously seen it used before, and just as obviously had never used it yourself. Or perhaps you were merely spelling it the way you pronounce it when you try to seem hip in real life? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/196 "2005-10-26T05:37:36Z")
Keep reading, **Bob**. And I’m definitely not a Republican. I’m just able to look at different sides of an issue because my IQ surpasses room temperature. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/197 "2005-10-26T05:41:42Z")
And you know, I’m still a little confused here. Are you arguing that Bill’s weaselling wasn’t really weaselling? Or that Monica lied? Oh, ok, she lied because she was threatened by Kenny, is that it? Fuck’s sake. He was impeached. He got off. He was still popular enough to have won a third term had it been legal. The current crop of neocons and RINOs in Congress are hypocrites. Deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/198 "2005-10-26T05:45:06Z")
> [@Bob Loblaw](#): > > They drink the Kool Aid. Another parroted phrase. At least you can probably pronounce this one. I’m starting to wish I _was_ a Republican- the idea of sharing a political party with you is embarrassing. ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4af34b/32.png) [@Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_Loblaw_1)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/199 "2005-10-26T05:54:34Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Never said you weren’t using it correctly, Sparky. Just that you were blindly parroting it, since you’d obviously seen it used before, and just as obviously had never used it yourself. Or perhaps you were merely spelling it the way you pronounce it when you try to seem hip in real life? No, I just spelled it wrong. That is exactly what I intended to call Bush’s flunkies. ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4af34b/32.png) [@Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_Loblaw_1)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/200 "2005-10-26T05:57:32Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Keep reading, **Bob**. And I’m definitely not a Republican. I’m just able to look at different sides of an issue because my IQ surpasses room temperature. I didn’t say it didn’t. I’m sure it’s at least twice the room temperature of the room I’m in. I’m able to look at both sides of an issue to, and when I’m done with the Clinton thing, it looks like as much of a railroading now as it did back then. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613.md?page=11)