# Yet Another Clinton Perjury Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 29, 2003, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-clinton-perjury-thread/171823 "2003-04-29T01:14:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-clinton-perjury-thread/171823/61 "2003-05-01T20:19:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > \*\*Indeed, yes Bricker- that is all you claim NOW. But you earlier claimed that “the impeachment of Mr Clinton arose from his lies under oath- a federal criminal offense”. Mr Clinton’s “lies” were not, and are not a “federal criminal offense”. This is the line I called you to task for in the other thread. \*\* You know what? Good point. I hereby revise and extend my remarks. I should have said: “…the impeachment of Mr Clinton arose from his lies under oath – lies which, under certain circumstances, could be prosecuted as a federal criminal offense.” But you are quite right. What I said above assumed that Mr. Clinotn had committed a federal criminal offense, and that was wrong of me. I apologize and retract that sentiment. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-clinton-perjury-thread/171823/62 "2003-05-01T20:57:51Z")
Sorry, but an instance of consensual oral sex does not constitute a “pattern.” While Ms. Jones’s lawyers may have been entitled to explore Clinton’s sexual contact with subordinates in discovery (as I have said)-- so as to determine whether there was a pattern of _harrassment_ or _assault_ of the type alleged by Ms. Jones-- the evidence revealed no such pattern. In the absence of such evidence coming forward in the discovery period, no judge in his/her right mind would have allowed the Lewinsky stuff to come in at trial. No “pattern,” no relevance. No relevance, no materiality. No materiality, no perjury. Bear in mind that any pattern, to have relevance, would have to be a pattern of sexual harrassment or assault, not simply sexual behavior. Propositions are not illegal. (Besides which, it seems to me that Lewinsky, not Clinton, was the one doing the propositioning.) ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-clinton-perjury-thread/171823/63 "2003-05-01T22:57:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spoke- \* > **Please look at the heading for Federal Rules of Evidence 401 _et seq._:** Headings are for convenience only. They do not determine the law. \*\* > [@](#): > > See, rule 404(b) one of the rules which define the limits of relevance, and under that rule: \*\* Yes, and see where that rule says such evidence is “not admissible” – not that such evidence is “not relevant.” You can elect to believe that “relevance” and “admissibility” are the same thing if you want, but you’d be flat out wrong. Seriously, this is a very, very basic distinction, tested in law school classrooms and on state bar exams. It is foolish of you to pretend otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-clinton-perjury-thread/171823/64 "2003-05-01T23:28:51Z")
Thank you Bricker. Even though we disagree here & there, you are a very knowledgeable dude, and willing to admit you were wrong- well, not really wrong, you just worded your statement poorly- which is what I suspected. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-clinton-perjury-thread/171823/65 "2003-05-01T23:32:30Z")
And I still completely agree with Bricker that if Clinton had simply said “I am a gentleman, I refuse to answer that sort of question”, I would have admired him more, and we might have skipped the whole shitstorm- well, some of it anyway. And I think that the Judge would have had a hard time doing anything to him, given the _doubtful_ relevance of the question. (Note I said “doubtful”, you guys argue that out 😃 ) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-clinton-perjury-thread/171823/66 "2003-05-02T00:22:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spoke- \* > > Bear in mind that any pattern, to have relevance, would have to be a pattern of sexual harrassment or assault, not simply sexual behavior. Propositions are not illegal. Um… what do you think “quid pro quo” sexual harrassment is? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-clinton-perjury-thread/171823/67 "2003-05-04T15:40:08Z")
Um…what do _you_ think “quid pro quo” sexual harrassment is, **Bricker**? Sorry, but a proposition (even conceding Clinton made a proposition to Lewinsky, rather than _vice versa_) does not _ipso facto_ equal sexual harrassment. (And that’s for the very reason that there must be a _quid pro quo_ involved to establish that type of harrassment case. There was no evidence of any such _quid pro quo_ in the Lewinsky matter. No evidence that she was offered any job benefits or threatened with on-the-job repercussions if she refused to go along.) The testimony was “beyond the limits of relevance,” to refer back to the heading of Chapter 4 of the rules of evidence. (And **Dewey** , I’m still waiting for a cogent argument from either you or **Bricker** as to why consensual sex between Lewinsky and Clinton somehow makes it more likely that Clinton harrassed Jones in her hotel room. No sane judge (well, sane and non-patisan) would rule that testimony relevant.) **Bricker** wrote: > [@](#): > > [E]vidence of past wrongful acts is admissible to prove a common plan, scheme, or motive… It’s not that easy to make the exceptions swallow the rule. What “common plan”? What “scheme”? Was Bill Clinton working on a master plan of some sort? Please explain. And explain how consensual sex with Lewinsky would be relevant? “Motive?” How would motive be at issue in the Jones case? Is there any doubt (if Jones’s testimony is taken as true) what motives were involved? And how would _subsequent, consensual_ sex with Lewinsky establish such motive? Furthermore, I really conceded too much even to say that a pattern of sexual harrassment might be admissible. In fact, Rule 404(b) is designed to exclude _that very sort_ of evidence. You simply can’t use a person’s bad behavior on one occasion to show they acted in similar fashion on another occasion. Such evidence _is not relevant_ for that purpose. Only if the pattern of conduct is so pervasive as to rise to the level of habit ([/doc/{@86}?"]Rule 406]([http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/fre/query=](http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/fre/query=)[jump!3A!27rule406!27)) is such testimony admissible. That is a high hurdle, and certainly not met by showing of _consensual_ oral sex with Lewinsky. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-clinton-perjury-thread/171823/68 "2003-05-04T18:23:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spoke- \* > \*\*(And **Dewey** , I’m still waiting for a cogent argument from either you or **Bricker** as to why consensual sex between Lewinsky and Clinton somehow makes it more likely that Clinton harrassed Jones in her hotel room. No sane judge (well, sane and non-patisan) would rule that testimony relevant.) \*\* Lewinsky is an example of Clinton pursuing sexual favors from one of his subordinates. That may or may not be _admissible_ (depending on the course of the trial and the manner in which it is offered as evidence), nor is it _dispositive_, but it sure as hell is _relevant_ to the claims made by Jones. What you don’t seem to grasp is that mere relevance is a _very_ low bar to meet. If a piece of evidence makes a given claim even the slightest bit more or less likely, it is relevant, by definition. Clinton’s conduct with Lewinsky does not need to be a mirror image of his alleged conduct with Jones for that testimony to be relevant. And it bears repeating: headings are for organizational convenience; they do not determine the law. Rules 404 through 415 deal with inadmissibility of otherwise relevant evidence, as is clear from the text of each rule. A good example of this is Rule 410, forbidding the admission of plea discussions. Obviously, if a criminal defendant spills his guts during a plea discussion, those statements are _relevant_ to the question of his guilt or innocence. They are deemed _inadmissible_, not because they are irrelevant, but because there is a competing policy interest in excluding those discussions (namely, encouraging plea arrangements). The headings do not determine the law. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2003, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-clinton-perjury-thread/171823/69 "2003-05-05T00:38:50Z")
Aw hell, **Dewey** , by that logic, _anything’s_ relevant. An imaginary transcript: > [@](#): > > Plaintiff’s Counsel: Mr. Clinton, have you ever had sex in a hotel room? > > Defense Counsel: Objection your honor, irrelevant! > > Plaintiff’s Counsel: Not at all; it shows Mr. Clinton is apt to make sexual advances in hotel rooms! > > … > > Plaintiff’s Counsel: Have you ever had sex with a horse? > > Defense Counsel: Objection your honor! Irrelevant! > > Plaintiff’s Counsel: Your honor, the relevance of this line of questioning should be obvious! Sorry, **Dewey** , but you and Bricker are extrapolating relevance beyond where the law will take it. Like I said before, no sane judge would find the **consensual** (can’t emphasize that word enough) relationship between Clinton and Lewinski was relevant to the Jones case. If I’m wrong, tell us again why Clinton isn’t being prosecuted? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2003, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-clinton-perjury-thread/171823/70 "2003-05-05T01:08:06Z")
Look, **spoke-** , in a case revolving around demands made by a superior to a subordinate for sexual favors, that superior’s sexual conduct with other subordinates is relevant, even if not admissible. The way the defendant manages his relationships with subordinates is clearly an issue in the case. Sexual conduct with other subordinates makes the allegation more likely, even if only by a very small amount. That is the very definition of relevance. Your counterexamples just don’t do that. Your first example would not be relevant unless the location of the advances was in dispute. They were not. Clinton did not allege “the encounter did not take place in a hotel room;” he alleged “the encounter did not take place at all.” The second example is simply absurd. As for why he isn’t being prosecuted – like **Bricker** and I have said all along, it isn’t certain that a jury would reach a guilty verdict. We haven’t been claiming that. Predicting what a jury will decide is a difficult thing to do. Our only point has been that a jury _could_ reach a guilty verdict, and that such a verdict would not fail on evidenciary sufficiency grounds. As a matter of prosecutorial discretion, it is probably wise not to pursue the matter because there is a substantial chance the jury will not return a guilty verdict. ---
**Author:** ![Pashnish\_Ewing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@Pashnish\_Ewing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pashnish_Ewing)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2003, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-clinton-perjury-thread/171823/71 "2003-05-05T16:20:27Z")
I thought ML was a “former intern” during the time of the (oral) sexual relationship. Could a clear superior/subordinate line be drawn in that case? Is everyone in the government considered a subordinate to POTUS? Pash ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2003, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-clinton-perjury-thread/171823/72 "2003-05-05T16:47:48Z")
She was a current White House intern at the time of the relationship. If she wasn’t, she’d have no way to get close to the President. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2003, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-clinton-perjury-thread/171823/73 "2003-05-05T19:23:17Z")
Current intern, former intern, I don’t know. Point is the relationship was consensual, and in fact instigated by Miss Lewinsky. No conceivable relevance to the Jones case, and utterly immaterial. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-clinton-perjury-thread/171823.md?page=3)