-Caveat Lector-
Carlene M. Wojahn wrote:
>>
>> Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't the only thing Clinton admitted
to
>> lying about the fact that he had sex with Monica Lewinsky?
>
>Ahhhhhhh.......but he hasn't admitted that..you see they didn't have sexual
>relations...he wasn't having any with her, she was having relations with
him.
+++++++++++++++
The point so many people seem to be missing is that this whole scandal
started with a lawsuit brought by a woman whose credibility is severely in
question, at a time when the law was not even clear whether a civil lawsuit
could be brought against a sitting president. Clearly, lawyers--including
friends and associates of Kenneth Starr--approached Ms. Jones with offers to
take her case and somehow come up with money for her living expenses in
order to argue the position that a president can be sued during his term.
Suppose for a moment that she lied about what happened. Suppose also that
the lawyers were acting on behalf of politically motivated individuals who
hate Clinton for political reasons only--because his policies hurt their
pocketbooks, for example. Suppose these same people knew Monica's
proclivities and Bill's weakness and set up a scenario for him to fall into,
while at the same time pushing the Jones case through the court so that
depositions could be taken. Then they monitored Monica's reports through
agents Tripp and Goldberg, making sure any available evidence (like the
dress) is preserved.
I believe this scenario--given the connections between Ted and Barbara
Olson, Kenneth Starr, the Rutherford Foundation and Richard Mellon
Scaife--is much more credible than the "common sense" allegations Starr
presented to Congress, without any real evidence, such as any small-town
prosecutor in Texas would have to have in order to convict anybody for
anything. If the real evidence he had, and the way he got it were revealed,
and were subject to cross-examination in a real court, the judge would
dismiss the case without presenting it to the jury.
Linda
============
from:
http://www.rain.org/~openmind/lies.htm
The Truth, the Whole Truth . . .
By David LePlunom
What is the truth? Is it a reasonable goal of the court that every statement
made in a court of law should be true? This doesn't appear reasonable or an
effective means to achieve a rule of law.
For example, what is the truth as it related to the testimony of Paula
Jones?
Paula Jones clearly lied under oath in her complaint and in her deposition.
Judge Wright described Paula Jones' testimony regarding tangible job
damages as vague, contradictory and contrary in some cases to state
employment records in her April 1 order dismissing the case. This was a
very accurate description of the testimony of Paula Jones. It is emphasized
that this was the legal basis for which Monica Lewinsky was permitted to be
subpoenaed as a witness.
We have taken the testimony from the actual deposition transcripts and the
complaints to emphasize points where probable perjury was commited. This
will not effect the sanctimonious in the press who will continue to
emphasize President Clinton's lie under oath. We have to remember that the
Starnographers are incapable of being influenced by truth. No matter what
the testimony showed, the Starry Eyed were just going to emphasize
everything Paula Jones' attorneys were stating and ignore the truth about
how weak her case was. By the way for the McCollum, Barr and Sennsenbrenner
groupies, there are quite a few I don't recall statements here.
In this article by the way, I have emphasized points in her complaint or
deposition contradicted at another point in testimony by either Paula Jones
or state employment records. I have not cited excerpts from other
depositions that would imply she is not telling the truth. I have also
emphasized situations where I believe it is clear Paula is not telling the
truth.
The following are the points that clearly indicate that Paula's testimony
was far from the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth:
1) Paula Jones claimed in her sworn complaint that she did not receive merit
raises in retribution for refusing to accede to Governor Clinton's alleged
advances. However, the records of the state indicated she did receive
several of these raises. Let us examine her testimony in this area to see if
it was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth:
Q. All right. And on March 11th, 1992, you received a merit increase?
A. Um-huh.
Q. Didn't you?
A. Probably. That's what everybody else received too.
Q. And on -
A. Cost-of-living-raise.
Q. And on July no. I said merit increase.
A. Oh, I don't what that is.
Q. You know there's a difference between a merit increase and a
cost-of-living increase, you know that?
A. No.
Q. You don't know that you got both cost-of-living increases and merit
increases when you worked at AIDC?
A. I don't know if I did or not.
Comment on Point 1: She really seems to feign ignorance to avoid stating
that she lied in her sworn complaint about never having received the raises.
How is it possible that she doesn't know the difference between a merit and
cost of living raise if she signed a complaint stating that she didn't
receive merit raises?
2) Paula Jones claimed in her sworn complaint that she did not receive
promotions. It is noted that less than 2 months after the incident with
President Clinton, she received a promotion from Grade 9 to Grade 11. Paula
Jones also claimed in her sworn complaint that she was supposed to receive a
higher grade for a job which she was transferred to when she came back from
pregnancy leave. However, in her deposition she states that she was not
aware of what grade she was, what grade she left at or how the grades
worked. Let us examine her testimony to see if it represents the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth:
Q. But you have indicated in your answer previous answers to me that in a
way they wanted you out because you couldn't get certain positions you
wanted. Did I understand you correctly?
A. Correct.
Q. And I'm asking you what those other positions were that you applied for
that you didn't get. Would you give me specifics?
A. It was a grade higher, that I could make more pay. It was something that
I know that maybe could broaden my skills and help me grow and I would try
to apply for them because document examiner was at the very low entry level
and I wanted to try to grow. And each time I would try to do that, I would
talk to my supervisor about it and she would always discourage me and make
me believe that I could grow within the administrative services, which in
fact I didn't. I got degrade downgraded.
Q. All right. Now what higher grade were you trying to get to?
A. Just the next grade. You know, there's always a pay level difference when
you go to another step and another grade and that's want I was wanting.
Q. What was that grade?
A. I really don't know. It was higher than the grade that I was at and I
don't remember what grade level I was at when I was hired.
Q. Do you know what grade level you were at?
A. No.
Q. And you don't know what the higher grade level was?
A. No. Ten or 11 maybe. Ten or I don't recall exactly how it went now.
Q. Do you know what the qualifications were for the next higher grade?
A. Yes.
Q. What were they?
A. Well, it was the qualifications that I knew that I could that I was
qualified for. It was for typing and different things. It just had a higher
grade level. There might not have been much of a job difference or in your
job duties, but it would have a higher grade level. According to which
position of the building, you know, an area that it was in.
Q. Now also on July 1st, 1991, you were upgraded from a Grade 9 to a Grade
11, the very grade you mentioned, weren't you?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Well, do you dispute that that's what the record show?
A. No.
Q. So you did get a Grade 11, didn't you?
A. That's what I'm saying. I don't really know how the grades went. I don't
know how the grades went. I don't know what I came in as and I don't know
what I left as. So I don't know.
Q. Well, you went from, on July 1, 1991, according to the records, you went
from a Grade 9 to a Grade 11. Did you ever apply for a grade 12 or 13 or 14?
MR CAMPBELL: Objection. No foundation. No evidence in the record.
Q. Did you ever apply for a grade higher than 11?
A. Yes. I believe I did.
Q. When?
A. I don't know. I just those few times when I would talk to Clydine and
she would say that, I would go ahead and fill out an application maybe or
something.
srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/jonestext022198.htm">Paula Jones Depostion
Judge Wright stated in Footnote 16 that plaintiff originally claimed that
the job in which she was placed called for a higher grade and pay, but that
she was not paid more money than she received in her previous position and
never received a raise beyond a cost of living increase, even though other
employees received merit increases. (Am. Compl. Paragraph 39). That claim
apparently has been abandoned as it is not mentioned in plaintiff's response
to the President's motion for summary judgment. The Court notes that
plaintiff apparently never reviewed her employment records at AIDC prior to
filing suit in May 1994 and had not done so prior to her deposition. (Pl.'s
Depo. at 33, 76).
Judge Wright's Ruling Dismissing Paula Jones Case
Comments on Point 2: How could she sign a sworn complaint stating that she
should have been classified in a higher position when she states she did not
know how the grades worked? Does it make sense after pursuing an employment
suit for three years, she has no idea what grade she was at? That she has no
idea that she received a promotion.
3) Paula Jones had been terminated for 4 jobs previously for cause. This
fact certainly indicates that if she had been treated unfavorably by her
supervisors, there are reasons other than retribution for refusing Governor
Clinton's advances which could explain this. Among them are her poor work
habits which include coming in late, talking too much and poor performance
in doing her tasks. Let's look at her discussion of this in her deposition
to see if this is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth:
Q. Did Ms. Pennington interview you for your job?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you tell Ms. Pennington at the time of your interview that you had
been fired from these several jobs?
A. If she asked me, yes, I did.
Q. On the application there is a line asking you the reasons for leaving,
wasn't there?
A. No, I don't know. [Note: One of Paula's jobs was to process employment
applications.]
Q. You didn't fill that out, did you?
A. I don't know if I did or not.
Q. Is it your testimony that if - that you - if Clydine Pennington asked
you why you left those other jobs, you would have told her you were fired
from some of them; is that correct?
A. I would have told her, yes, if she asked me.
Later discussing her job history:
Q. And you were fired from that job as well, weren't you?
A. Well, it was actually a mutual thing, but yes. On the paperwork I believe
it was that I was fired.
Q. And the reason they gave you for firing you?
A. For being late.
Comment on Point 3: I don't think being late is considered a mutual thing as
a reason for termination. I also have never been on a job interview where
they have not asked why I left a job or conducted a job interview where
this question was not asked. I have never seen an application for
employment that did not ask why I left a job. It's obvious that she lied to
Clydine Pennington regarding her employment record. I also can't believe
that someone who has been fired as often as she was is not conscious of the
fact that the question of why you left a previous job is asked on employment
applications. It's quite possible she has filled out dozens of applications
for employment considering her employment record.
I would note that it was footnoted in some of the recently released motions
that Clydine Pennington had testified that she was asked the question as to
why she left jobs and never indicated that she was terminated for cause.
4) Paula Jones claimed that David Herrington, a good friend of Governor
Clinton was the individual responsible for keeping her down at the AFDC. Let
us look at her testimony with respect to David Herrington:
Q. Did you ever talk to Dave Herrington?
A. Very seldom.
Q. Did Dave Herrington ever say anything to you to suggest that he wanted to
control you?
A. We never talked at length. It was just "hi" or something like that. That
was it. Never had any conversations. Later in the Deposition
Q. Now do you have any reason to believe that any of these people knew about
this incident?
A. Well, Governor Clinton told me that Dave Herrington was a good friend of
his and he appointed him to that job. So, yeah, I have every reason in the
world to believe that they could have found known about it.
Q. Okay. Now, did anybody in those two years ever complain about how you
dressed or criticized how you dressed?
A. No. As a matter of fact, even Dave Herrington I remember him one time
saying how really nice I always tried to dress and everything when I was up
there. And after I had the baby, I remember him commenting on how I had
gotten back down my weight back down and how nice I was looking.
Q. And what did you say to Mr. Herrington and Ms. Pennington?
A. I explained to Mr. Herrington, whether he was aware of it or not, how Ms.
Pennington treated me and that she was I always tried to get jobs. I
brought that up. And nobody would let me try to get another job and better
myself. And I just spewed on them really. Because I was just very upset from
how I had been treated up there by trying to better myself.
Q. What do you mean you "spewed on them"?
A. Well, just I was upset and I was telling them and I wanted Mr.
Herrington to know how Ms. Pennington was and I didn't feel that Ms.
Pennington was a very good supervisor and I was just telling I don't
recall everything that was said. I just know that I wanted Mr. Herrington
to know what Clydine Pennington, how I felt about the way I had been treated
over in that section, whether he was aware of it or not, I wanted him to
know that before I left the building.
Comment on Point 4: This sequence clearly indicates that Paula Jones did not
believe that the Governor had told David Harrington about the incident and
this caused her to suffer tangible job damages. These accusations made by
Paula are completely false and without merit. Why are they shown to be
without merit?
If she complains to Dave Harrington about Clydine Pennington, doesn't this
indicate that she never viewed David Harrington as acting on orders from
Governor Clinton to retaliate against her. This is clear that she viewed
Clydine Pennington, her direct supervisor as causing her problems. Judge
Wright noted in Footnote 13, that had plaintiff demonstrated adverse
employment action, which she has not, the Court would not find the
Governor's alleged statements to be sufficient evidence of a causal link
between that harm and any alleged quid pro quo demands. Cf. Cram, 49 F.3d at
474 (statement by harasser that, "I'll get you for this," held to be
insufficient to show enforcement of quid pro quo demand where there was no
reference to plaintiff's job); Hartleip v. McNeilab, Inc., 83 F.3d 767,
775-76 (6th Cir. 1996) (statement from harasser that he was "close friends"
with individual who had impact on claimed adverse employment decisions held
to be too attenuated to establish causation).
5) The supposed demotion also appears to be something cooked up by Paula:
Q. At no time that you worked for AIDC did you ever get demoted in pay, did
you?
A. I'm not sure actually. I don't think so. (Do you think someone wouldn't
know if they were receiving less money?)
Q. Did they ever decrease your grade at any time at AIDC?
A. I think they did.
Q. When?
A. When I came back from maternity leave.
Q. All right. You think you went down in grade?
A. I was thinking I did, yes.
Q. What grade did you go down to?
A. To like a 9 or 10 or something like that, it seemed like. [Note: How
could she claim in her complaint that this was a higher grade and then take
this position?]
Q. If I were to tell you that the records show that you didn't go down a
grade, would you dispute that?
MR. CAMPBELL: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. No foundation.
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
BY MR BENNETT: Q. You would dispute that?
A. Yes, I would.
Q. Do you know how much money you made before you went on maternity leave?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Do you know how much money you made after you came back from maternity
leave?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Didn't you work on data both before and after you the input of data?
A. No. Actually I worked for personnel at that point. I input applications
that were brought in to AIDC for employment [See Item #3] and that's what I
did all day long. I sat there and input applications into the database.
That's all I did.
Q. That's when you came back?
A. Right. I did no longer do purchasing at all.
Q. But when you were working in purchasing before you left, you were
putting purchasing order, that's data input -
A. Right.
Q. -- involving purchasing orders, right?
A. Um-huh.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Um-huh.
Q. You have to answer it
A. That was my job. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.
Q. So in both instances, you were doing data input; is that right? A. Yes.
But that was not my job title before I left. I had I was a purchasing
assistant. When I came back, I was no longer dealing with purchasing
department, period. Without me transferring or asking to be moved, I was
moved without anybody asking me if that's what I wanted to do.
Comment on Point 5:
Judge Wright noted in Footnote 17 that Plaintiff offered no evidence that
her previous position conferred some type of status or prestige not
conferred in her subsequent position, and she offers no evidence that the
change in her duties impaired her ability to advance in her career.
Requirement to Show Tangible Damages
Judge Wright stated in Footnote 12 that the plaintiff's contention that she
is not required to show a tangible job detriment is at odds with her
representation made in her opposition to the President's motion for judgment
on the pleadings (filed July 29, 1997), that sexual harassment occurs when,
among other things, "rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as
the basis for employment decisions." See Pl. Opp'n to Mot. for J. on the
Pleadings at 26 (citing Tide VII cases and guidelines promulgated by the
EEOC). Indeed, the primary basis of plaintiff's original and amended
complaint is her contention that she suffered reprisals for her rejection of
the Governor's alleged advances.
Incident in Hotel Room
Judge Wright stated in Footnote 5 that in her amended complaint, plaintiff
states that the Governor "put his hand on [her] leg and started sliding it
toward the hem of [her] culottes, apparently attempting to reach [her]
pelvic area " Am. Compl. Paragraph 20. In her original complaint, plaintiff
states that the Governor "put his hand an [her] leg and started sliding it
toward the hem of [her] culottes," with no reference to her "pelvic area."
Compl. Paragraph 20.
It is noted that in her original statement on the matter, she did not
mention anything regarding the Governor dropping his pants. As excerpted
from Stuart Taylor's article, Paula and her husband appeared on the same
stage with Jackson and his trooper clients, who were touting a "Troopergate
Whistle-Blowers Fund." Jones told the reporters that Clinton had tried to
kiss her, reached under her clothing, and asked her to perform an
unspecified "type of sex."
The Truth and the Parsing of Language
The plaintiffs lawyers argued in the appeal that Governor Clinton's alleged
statement that "if you have a problem for leaving the desk , I will take
care of it" as a threat. As Judge Ross pointed out in the appeal hearing,
this would normally be construed as an offer to help her. Of course, Judge
Bowman pointed out that she has a spin on that. I mean if you want to talk
about the parsing of words, this is really an amazing bit of parsing of
words.
Then Judge Wright's commented that they should just ask the President direct
questions rather than relying on their idiotic definition of sexual
relations. As Abbe Lowell pointed out, Donovan Campbell stated that he "did
not want to ask the President salacious questions". Talk about lying to a
federal judge. They could have asked him if he and Ms. Lewinsky had either
coitus, fellatio, cunnilingus and asked him these question. It's very hard
to understand the definition they gave him and what it covers. I don't know
that touching of the breasts meant gratification because gratification could
mean orgasm in my view of the situation. She said she was brought to orgasm
twice but he may never have thought about this. Remember he has only a small
amount of time to try and figure out these definitions.
Actually as I see it , the Jones Lawyers were trying to come up with an
incredibly broad definition of sexual relations and were foiled by the Judge
who just told them that they should ask him the questions directly rather
than coming up with a nonsensical definition of sex. They were attempting to
come up with some broad definition to include all types of activities that
might even include petting.
Parsing of Language:
I don't think that the country could live with the House Judiciary
Committee's interpretations of what perjury is. It is an outrageous
expansion of the law applied to a single individual primarily because they
do not like that individual.
Regarding parsing of language, what did Linda Tripp state about her lie on
the employment application? They asked her on the application were you ever
arrested. She states she answered No because allegedly the Judge told her it
was okay and that she wasn't going to be prosecuted for grand larceny. She
clearly lied on the application and attempts to come up with a justification
for the false statement. She didn't want to state the truth that she was
charged with a lesser crime in exchange for pleading guilty.
Perjury and the Real World:
This view comes from my experience in the tax world. The general rule as to
whether something might be fraud is whether there is a basis to take that
position. It is not whether that position is ultimately correct. It is
possible that after review, he would not have concluded that the answers he
gave were accurate. However, the issue is whether you could have thought
that he did not have sexual relations under that definition. If the basis
for perjury was whether the position was correct, then there would be a heck
of alot of tax fraud, medical fraud , billing fraud, contractual fraud or
legal fraud charged.
The term that they gave him was exceptionally complex. He did not have
intercourse and never performed cunnilingus on her. I don't know exactly
what gratification of any person means. He could have interpreted the
statute, tried to find a logic to get around it and been erroneous in his
view that he had succeeded. In my mind, this is not fraud. This is what
people do. He doesn't have a long time to review the definitions. The
plaintiff's attorneys disregarded the view of Judge Wright that they should
just ask him specific question. They could have asked him whether he
performed cunnilingus on her, whether she had performed fellatio on him,
whether they had intercourse or whether she had ever given him a "hand job".
But when they gave him a term such as "sexual relations", I think he has as
much right as any other citizen to interpret this as freely as he thinks in
the most favorable manner he possibly can.
I would remind our Republican friends what would happen if taxing agencies
took a view that you couldn't have thought something was exempt or you
couldn't have thought something was deductible. They would be screaming and
justifiably so in most cases. Let us remind them that these are not cases
where something is very personal or where you are given a complex definition
with very little time to examine it.
I view the President's statements in this context. He took an aggressive
position with respect to a question that never should have been asked and
probably was not correct in his response. However, if a person could think
that they were answering the question truthfully, then they are entitled to
the benefit of the doubt.
We could not live with the amount of fraud that could be charged in this
country if the House Judiciary Committee's views are upheld. It is for the
Rule of Law to be upheld and for the principal of materiality to be
respected that the members of the House must vote No.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
