# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/121 "2005-10-25T17:38:14Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > They presumably seemed relevant to Clinton when he signed the law that allowed them to be introduced into evidence in federal cases. Let’s remember, too, that the threshhold for questions during a deposition is different than the threshhold at trial. At trial, a question must seek relevant evidence. During a deposition, a question may seek relevant evidence, or it may seek evidence that is itself irrelevant, but is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. In any event, it’s not for the deponent to judge the relevancy of the evidence sought. If he wishes to withhold testimony under a claim of relevance, he can, and the matter will be adjudicated by a judge. But he may not decide, on his own, that a particular question is irrelevant and offer up a lie in response. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/122 "2005-10-25T17:48:07Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > But don’t we eventually slide into a climate where Special Prosecutors can just go trolling and keep at it until they nail somebody with something, anything? To some degree, don’t prosecutors do that anyway? Look for as many charges as they can bring, and go with a lot of small things if they don’t find something major? See also: Capone, Al. That can be abused, but you don’t get to lie in court just because you think the thing being investigated is not a crime. **Bob** , please read my last post before this one. I responded to almost everything you just repeated to **rjung**. I don’t remember Clinton ever saying “I did not have sex with that woman.” The phrase he used in his famous address to the nation, not under oath, was “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” In his wisdom, he may have chosen to say something other than “sex,” perhaps to say they not only hadn’t had intercourse, but hadn’t done other stuff. As I showed, he also said it under oath. I don’t think you can say his comments under oath were the result of an honest difference of opinion about what sex is, since the term was defined pretty clearly. ---
**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 25, 2005, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/123 "2005-10-25T17:59:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What the hell are you talking about? > > Are you familiar with Mr. Clinton’s testimony before the grand jury? Or are you just typing the first thoughts that enter your head? > > Do have the slightest understanding of how the events unfolded? > > The President was sued by Paula Jones. During the course of that lawsuit, he was required to provide answers to questions under oath. One set of questions in that process involved asking him if he had sexual relations with anyone else in his employ. This was claimed relevant to Ms. Jones’ lawsuit: she said that, as an employee of his, she was sexually propositioned by Clinton; she wanted to show that Mr. Clinton had a habit of doing the same to other women in his employ. > > Mr. Clinton lied in response to those questions. As a result, a grand jury was convened to investigate the lying under oath during the Jones deposition. Mr. Clinton appeared in front of that grand jury and lied again. Then the prosecutor revealed that he had physical evidence that contradicted Clinton’s sworn testimony - the blue dress. > > This has nothing to do with Mr. Clinton’s answers to a reporter and everything to do with his answers under oath during the Jones deposition and the grand jury inquiry. Cite page and line please. We already dealt with the deposition above, and I can see why they didn’t get a conviction in the Senate, the question wasn’t asked. You may contend that the deponent isn’t allowed to interpret what he thinks is relevant and argue it later, but it seems that the jury of Senators disagreed with you. I am reliably informed that Clinton was acquitted of the very charges being made. I reviewed what was available at the time, and I didn’t see where they asked him a question and he lied. But if you’ve got a page and line cite that I missed, I’ll be happy to look for argument’s sake. But for fact’s sake, the jury acquitted, get over it and stop being a sore loser. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/124 "2005-10-25T18:03:23Z")
> [@Bob Loblaw](#): > > Cite page and line please. I think somebody did that. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/125 "2005-10-25T18:12:58Z")
> [@Bob Loblaw](#): > > Cite page and line please. We already dealt with the deposition above, and I can see why they didn’t get a conviction in the Senate, the question wasn’t asked. [Let’s start with a definition](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/clintondep031398.htm#define) > [@](#): > > Editor’s Note: The 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." Scroll down about half way and you get > [@](#): > > 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. oooh, here comes “the question” > [@](#): > > 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. I’ve never had an affair with her. If he had a blowjob from Monica, did his genitals not touch part of her body, thus making it “sexual relations”? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/126 "2005-10-25T18:20:52Z")
> [@Bob Loblaw](#): > > Cite page and line please. We already dealt with the deposition above, and I can see why they didn’t get a conviction in the Senate, the question wasn’t asked. > > You may contend that the deponent isn’t allowed to interpret what he thinks is relevant and argue it later, but it seems that the jury of Senators disagreed with you. I am reliably informed that Clinton was acquitted of the very charges being made. I reviewed what was available at the time, and I didn’t see where they asked him a question and he lied. But if you’ve got a page and line cite that I missed, I’ll be happy to look for argument’s sake. But for fact’s sake, the jury acquitted, get over it and stop being a sore loser. You’ve been given a cite directly above. Do not confuse the Senate with a jury. Their purpose was not to judge a criminal trial. They did not hear testimony. There was no effort to examine any senator for bias. Their question was not “Did he commit the acts?” Their question was “Should he be removed from office?” To that question, and that question only, they answered “no”. A real criminal jury is a fact-finder. They hear testimony, both direct and by cross-examination. They are chosen to be a neutral tribunal. They are tasked with resolving factual disputes in testimony and rendering a verdict based on criminal law. None of that describes the Senate’s role. Do you believe that a Senate “conviction of impeachment” would serve as a bar to future criminal prosecution under the double jeopardy clause? Do you believe that the Senate’s “acquittal of impeachment” serves as a bar to criminal prosecution? Hint: they don’t. The impeachment trial in the Senate is not analogous to a criminal trial, and you cannot argue from the results that the Senate found any particular set of facts to be proven or unproven. ---
**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 25, 2005, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/127 "2005-10-25T18:32:21Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I think somebody did that. :rolleyes: Yes, you did cite to a deposition, but not any other grand jury testimony and I read it. It’s my understanding that that “deposition” is what is referred to as the grand jury testimony. Anybody else is welcome to cite something else. Here’s the point, Clinton didn’t gratify Lewinsky by touching her, it was vice versa. The definition which you cited can fairly be read as saying that if Bill did not intend to gratify Monica, Bill did not touch Monica to have sexual relations with her, then he didn’t. Did Monica have relations with Bill per that definition, yes. The fact of the matter is that they deliberately did not ask him “did Ms. Lewinsky perform fellatio on Mr. Clinton” when they already knew she had. Were this only a legal case (and not fundamentally about politics), that would be lawyer malpractice to fail to ask that question. To substitute a multi-part definition of “sexual relations” that doesn’t cover this instance is not just bizarre, it is political. And the jury rightly dealt with it on that basis. There was a reason that they did not ask Clinton “did Ms. Lewinsky perform fellatio on you” directly: they knew he would answer in the affirmative, and so they substituted the line of questioning they used because they knew he would dance around it. He did because it was fatally flawed. It was like it was written by lawyers who knew nothing about sex (there’s a stretch) with human beings. So Starr’s guys still didn’t get Clinton because they played at lawyer and prosecutor and politics instead of asking: did female A blow male B. It was a lot of crap about who was pleasuring whom. Bill didn’t think he was pleasuring Monica. Had he done more than shove a cigar up her patootie, there might be a case. But he did not kiss her, he did not perform cunnilingus on her, he did not fuck her. His reasoning was that she was pleasuring him, and not vice versa, which was entirely compliant with the badly written legalistic defnition of sexual relations. I don’t know who wrote that definition, but it seems to me that it is almost as if Clinton’s lawyers demanded the other side use that definition and then laughed when they did. Do I think Clinton got a blow job from Lewinsky? Yes. Do I think the prosecutor knew it when they asked those questions? Yes. Do I think the prosecutor asked the question any comptent lawyer would have asked? No. And they didn’t because they knew if they asked direct question Clinton would answer it truthfully and they were hell bent on prosecuting him, not a crime. That’s prosecutorial misconduct, not perjury. What this has always boiled down to is whether the “sexual relations” definition adequate. There are people who think it is, and people who don’t. I’m in the camp who thinks it is inadequate, you think it is just fine. Good for you. The jury agreed with me. Get over it Sore Loserman. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/128 "2005-10-25T18:36:56Z")
> [@Bob Loblaw](#): > > Yes, you did cite to a deposition, but not any other grand jury testimony and I read it. It’s my understanding that that “deposition” is what is referred to as the grand jury testimony. Anybody else is welcome to cite something else. > > Here’s the point, Clinton didn’t gratify Lewinsky by touching her, it was vice versa. The definition which you cited can fairly be read as saying that if Bill did not intend to gratify Monica, Bill did not touch Monica to have sexual relations with her, then he didn’t. Did Monica have relations with Bill per that definition, yes. Did you read the definition, or does it all depend on what the meaning of “or” is? 1, 2, or 3 does not mean 1. ---
**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:** [October 25, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/129 "2005-10-25T18:39:44Z")
> [@Bob Loblaw](#): > > Do I think Clinton got a blow job from Lewinsky? Yes. Do I think the prosecutor knew it when they asked those questions? Yes. Do I think the prosecutor asked the question any comptent lawyer would have asked? No. And they didn’t because they knew if they asked direct question Clinton would answer it truthfully and they were hell bent on prosecuting him, not a crime. That’s prosecutorial misconduct, not perjury. There was no prosecutor involved in that deposition. It was a deposition as part of a civil trial. And, anyway, if he and Lewinsky had oral sex, that would fit under the definition of “sexual relations” under definition 3. > [@](#): > > (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." ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/130 "2005-10-25T18:41:47Z")
Ah, I see. Clinton only saw definition one and said he didn’t do it, not two and three. Now that I have, regrettably, read a little of the Starr report. Thanks for making me debase myself, **Bob**. Anyway, Lewinsky still contradicts him on several points. > [@](#): > > The President also maintained that none of his sexual contacts with Ms. Lewinsky constituted “sexual relations” within a specific definition used in the Jones deposition. […] He testified: > > \*f the deponent is the person who has oral sex performed on him, then the contact is with – not with anything on that list, but with the lips of another person. It seems to be self-evident that that’s what it is. . . . Let me remind you, sir, I read this carefully. No kidding. 😉 > [@](#): > > Initially, according to Ms. Lewinsky, the President would not let her perform oral sex to completion. In Ms. Lewinsky’s understanding, his refusal was related to “trust and not knowing me well enough.” I’ll stop interjecting, but can I say that this is also pretty funny? > [@](#): > > According to Ms. Lewinsky, she performed oral sex on the President on nine occasions. On all nine of those occasions, the President fondled and kissed her bare breasts. He touched her genitals, both through her underwear and directly, bringing her to orgasm on two occasions. On one occasion, the President inserted a cigar into her vagina. On another occasion, she and the President had brief genital-to-genital contact. All of which qualifies under definition numero uno. I feel queasy. > [@Bob Loblaw](#): > > Good for you. The jury agreed with me. Get over it Sore Loserman. As **Bricker** has already explained, that’s not what the jury did. The jury decided he shouldn’t be removed from office. And as I opposed the impeachment in the first place, as I already stated, even a brilliant legal mind such as yourself can’t reasonably conclude that I’m a sore loser about it. If you like, though, you can try. :rolleyes: ---
**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 25, 2005, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/131 "2005-10-25T18:48:40Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > There was no prosecutor involved in that deposition. It was a deposition as part of a civil trial. And, anyway, if he and Lewinsky had oral sex, that would fit under the definition of “sexual relations” under definition 3. No, it wouldn’t any more than 1 or 2. I will acknowledge that people disagree, but I’ll still point out that the jury agreed with Clinton. According to Clinton’s interpretation, it isn’t even close to asking the question. I notice that the pro-impeachment folks never do address the question of why “blow job” or fellatio by Monica was not asked directly. ---
**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 25, 2005, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/132 "2005-10-25T18:53:14Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > There was no prosecutor involved in that deposition. It was a deposition as part of a civil trial. Yes, you are correct, I was mistaken. Does that change the assumption about bad lawyering? My recollection is that the deposition took place after the Lewinsky charges became public. If a lawyer knows the exact facts, why doesn’t he/she ask and pin the witness down? ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/133 "2005-10-25T18:53:30Z")
> [@Bob Loblaw](#): > > And frankly, whether the President cheats on his wife, **like Bush I did with Jennifer Fitzgerald** , is only gossipy interesting, it’s really none of my business, or the public’s, unless the President has been on a big moral high horse about how un-sinning he is, which Clinton wasn’t. I don’t care either whether a president cheats on his wife. [But there was never any credible evidence of an affair between GHWB and Jennifer Fitzgerald.](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_311.html) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/134 "2005-10-25T18:54:32Z")
> [@Bob Loblaw](#): > > I’ll still point out that the jury agreed with Clinton. I’ll note that if you acknowledge **Bricker** ’s post that the jury did no such thing. > [@](#): > > I notice that the pro-impeachment folks You are making me wonder if the phrase “dumber than a sack of hammers” can ever be an understatement. > [@](#): > > never do address the question of why “blow job” or fellatio by Monica was not asked directly. This deposition was taken in January of 1998, eight months before the Starr Report took up all the spaces next to _Hustler_ on the magazine racks. Could you cite that everybody knew blowjobs were the issue in January of '98? Clinton being the extremely intelligent guy he is, I expect that if he’d been asked directly about a “blowjob,” he’d have said no, and then later testified that oral sex cannot be termed a “blowjob” unless the blowee licks in a counterclockwise motion, and that because what Ms. Lewinsky’s tongue moved clockwise, what he received was in fact a “hummer.” Any reasonable person would agree. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/135 "2005-10-25T18:59:37Z")
Some cites: [An audio file.](http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/audio/addresses/20050722_johnson.mp3) [A cite for the testimony of James Marcinkowski.](http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0723-26.htm) [Another cite.](http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/s072004.html) [Colonel (ret) Patrick Lang on the matter.](http://talkleft.com/lang722.pdf) ---
**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:** [October 25, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/136 "2005-10-25T19:00:58Z")
> [@Bob Loblaw](#): > > No, it wouldn’t any more than 1 or 2. I will acknowledge that people disagree, but I’ll still point out that the jury agreed with Clinton. According to Clinton’s interpretation, it isn’t even close to asking the question. How is receiving a blow job not “contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person’s body”? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/137 "2005-10-25T19:04:25Z")
OK. Let’s do this thoroughly. Monica Lewinsky testified that they had ten separate sexual encounters: > [@](#): > > i) Wednesday, November 15, 1995 > > Ms. Lewinsky testified that she had her first sexual contact with the President on the evening of Wednesday, November 15, 1995, while she was an intern at the White House. Two times that evening, the President invited Ms. Lewinsky to meet him near the Oval Office. On the first occasion, the President took Ms. Lewinsky back into the Oval Office study, and they kissed. On the second, she performed oral sex on the President in the hallway outside the Oval Office study. During this encounter, the President directly touched and kissed Ms. Lewinsky’s bare breasts. In addition, the President put his hand down Ms. Lewinsky’s pants and directly stimulated her genitalia (acts clearly within the definition of “sexual relations” used at the Jones deposition). > > (ii) Friday, November 17, 1995 > > Ms. Lewinsky testified that she met with the President again two days later, on Friday, November 17, 1995. During that encounter, Ms. Lewinsky stated, she performed oral sex on the President in the private bathroom outside the Oval Office study. The President initiated the oral sex by unzipping his pants and exposing his genitals. Ms. Lewinsky understood the President’s actions to be a sign that he wanted her to perform oral sex on him. During this encounter, the President also fondled Ms. Lewinsky’s bare breasts with his hands and kissed her breasts. > > (iii) Sunday, December 31, 1995 > > Ms. Lewinsky testified that she met with the President on New Year’s Eve, Sunday, December 31, 1995, after the President invited her to the Oval Office. Once there, the President lifted Ms. Lewinsky’s sweater, fondled her bare breasts with his hands, and kissed her breasts. She stated that she performed oral sex on the President in the hallway outside the Oval Office study. > > (iv) Sunday, January 7, 1996 > > Monica Lewinsky testified that she performed oral sex on the President in the bathroom outside the Oval Office study during the late afternoon on Sunday, January 7, 1996. The President arranged this encounter by calling Ms. Lewinsky at home and inviting her to visit. On that occasion, the President and Ms. Lewinsky went into the bathroom, where he fondled her bare breasts with his hands and mouth. During this encounter, the President stated that he wanted to perform oral sex on Ms. Lewinsky, but she stopped him for a physical reason. > > (v) Sunday, January 21, 1996 > > Ms. Lewinsky testified that she and the President had a sexual encounter on the afternoon of Sunday, January 21, 1996, after he invited her to the Oval Office. The President lifted Ms. Lewinsky’s top and fondled her bare breasts. The President unzipped his pants and exposed his genitals, and she performed oral sex on him in the hallway outside the Oval Office study. > > (vi) Sunday, February 4, 1996 > > Ms. Lewinsky testified that she and the President had sexual contact in the Oval Office study and in the adjacent hallway on the afternoon of Sunday, February 4, 1996. That day, the President had called Ms. Lewinsky. During their encounter, the President partially removed Ms. Lewinsky’s dress and bra and touched her bare breasts with his mouth and hands. He also directly touched her genitalia. Ms. Lewinsky performed oral sex on the President. > > (vii) Sunday, March 31, 1996 > > Ms. Lewinsky testified that she and the President had sexual contact in the hallway outside the Oval Office study during the late afternoon of Sunday, March 31, 1996. The President arranged this encounter by calling Ms. Lewinsky and inviting her to the Oval Office. During this encounter, Ms. Lewinsky did not perform oral sex on the President. The President fondled Ms. Lewinsky’s bare breasts with his hands and mouth and fondled her genitalia directly by pulling her underwear out of the way. In addition, the President inserted a cigar into Ms. Lewinsky’s vagina. > > (viii) Sunday, April 7, 1996 > > Ms. Lewinsky testified that she and the President had sexual contact on Easter Sunday, April 7, 1996, in the hallway outside the Oval Office study and in the study itself. On that occasion, the President touched Ms. Lewinsky’s breasts, both through her clothing and directly. After the President unzipped his pants, Ms. Lewinsky also performed oral sex on him. > > (ix) Friday, February 28, 1997 > > Ms. Lewinsky testified that her next sexual encounter with the President occurred on Friday, February 28, 1997, in the early evening. The President initiated this encounter by having his secretary Betty Currie call Ms. Lewinsky to invite her to the White House for a radio address. After the address, Ms. Lewinsky and the President kissed by the bathroom. The President unbuttoned her dress and fondled her breasts, first with her bra on and then directly. He touched her genitalia through her clothes, but not directly, on this occasion. Ms. Lewinsky performed oral sex on him. On this day, Ms. Lewinsky was wearing a blue dress that forensic tests have conclusively shown was stained with the President’s semen. > > (x) Saturday, March 29, 1997 > > Ms. Lewinsky testified that she and the President had sexual contact on the afternoon of March 29, 1997, in the Oval Office study. On that occasion, the President unbuttoned Ms. Lewinsky’s blouse and touched her breasts through her bra, but not directly. He also put his hands inside Ms. Lewinsky’s pants and stimulated her genitalia. Ms. Lewinsky performed oral sex on him, and they also had brief, direct genital-to-genital contact. During pretrial discovery, Paula Jones’s attorneys served the President with written interrogatories. One stated in relevant part: > [@](#): > > Please state the name, address, and telephone number of each and every [federal employee] with whom you had sexual relations when you [were] . . . President of the United States. The interrogatory did not define the term “sexual relations.” Judge Wright ordered the President to answer the interrogatory, and on December 23, 1997, under penalty of perjury, President Clinton answered “None.” (President Clinton’s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories, see Response to Interrogatory no. 10). The President was asked if he was ever alone with Ms. Lewinksy. He claimed he did not recall. (Clinton 1/17/98 Depo. at 52-53). During his grand jury testimony, he was asked if oral sex was covered by the definition of “sexual activity” used in the deposition. He replied that it was not. He conceded that his touching of Ms. Lewinsky’s breasts and genitals WOULD fall within that definition, but insisted that he never did that. > [@Clinton 8/17/98 GJ at 110](#): > > Q: The question is, if Monica Lewinsky says that while you were in the Oval Office area you touched her breasts would she by lying? > > A: That is not my recollection. My recollection is that I did not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky and I’m staying on my former statement about that. . . . My, my statement is that I did not have sexual relations as defined by that. > > Q: If she says that you kissed her breasts, would she be lying? > > A: I’m going to revert to my former statement [that is, the prepared statement denying “sexual relations”]. > > Q: Okay. If Monica Lewinsky says that while you were in the Oval Office area you touched her genitalia, would she be lying? And that calls for a yes, no, or reverting to your former statement. > > A: I will revert to my former statement on that. > > The President elaborated that he considered kissing or touching breasts or genitalia during sexual activity to be covered by the Jones definition, but he denied that he had ever engaged in such conduct with Ms. Lewinsky. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/138 "2005-10-25T19:05:05Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > How is receiving a blow job not “contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person’s body”? What I gather now is that Clinton was only asked about the first definition on that list (circled in **byomtoob** ’s link). Although that would still seem to be false. ---
**Author:** ![DarkPrince](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce73a5/32.png) [@DarkPrince](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DarkPrince)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/139 "2005-10-25T19:30:00Z")
> [@F. U. Shakespeare](#): > > I don’t care either whether a president cheats on his wife. [But there was never any credible evidence of an affair between GHWB and Jennifer Fitzgerald.](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_311.html) Obviously we need a special prosecuter to look harder. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613/140 "2005-10-25T19:48:31Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > To some degree, don’t prosecutors do that anyway? Look for as many charges as they can bring, and go with a lot of small things if they don’t find something major? See also: Capone, Al. That can be abused, but you don’t get to lie in court just because you think the thing being investigated is not a crime. Well, Al Capone got caught comitting other crimes. My hypothetical Politician X did nothing illegal. That’s where it gets difficult for me. One scenerio in the case most relevant to this discussion is Libby fibbed about discussions he’d had with, say, his boss. Maybe Cheney got the word from Tennent, Cheney mentioned Wilson was Plame’s husband, but there was nothing illegal or retributive about the discussion. Maybe neither even knew at the time she was covert. So, much later, Libby decides, probably quite rightly after the issue explodes, that such internal dialogue will appear to be, in retrospect, inappropriate, and hence politically damaging to Cheney if word of it got out (which it probably will, as we’ve seen). So he says Rove told him about Plame. It really doesn’t matter for any practical purpose who told him, because it was _Libby_ who divulged Plame’s identity, not Cheney. However, politically, the narrative will be embellished and characterized as a plot from the highest levels to out Plame and discredit Wilson, with Libby acting upon the wishes of the Vice President. Nothing of the sort may have occurred, and even if it did, the only truly questionable action was Libby’s divulgence of the relationship between Wilson and Plame. Now we know Cheney told Libby, and we know this because some lawyers (who remain unidentified) told the papers. This is not a hypothetical. Getting back to the hypothetical scenerio (it being a plausible one, I think), Libby gets nailed for perjury because he said someone other than Cheney told him. And that is the only crime committed in the whole debacle. If, as **Bricker** says, these proceedings are going to be kept secret, Libby’s actions are far less excusable. But some matters germain to the proceedings have _not_ been kept secret. Therefore (and believe me, it pains me to say this, because nobody would like to see BushCo. get nailed more than myself), all of this may truly be a tempest in a teapot, as inconsequential as the Clinton BJ Incident. Worse, the Democrats will seek vengeance for Clinton’s trials by siezing only on the technical illegality of the matter, using the conviction as a brand, and magnifying it with suspicion and innuendo about the motives behind the perjury. And on it goes, each subsequent administration under the microscope, regardless of party, with special prosecutors misused as smart bombs, guaranteed to dig up actionable dirt, no matter its severity or relevence. I find the whole pattern, if there is such a pattern, ugly in the extreme, and things will only get uglier if such investigations are used primarily as a political tactic. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republican-hypocrisy/327613.md?page=8)