-Caveat Lector-
##This was posted on another list. If someone asked me if I had sex with
someone, I would understand what they meant. If someone asked me if I had a
sexual relationship with someone, I would know what they meant. Until this
whole fiasco, I had never heard the term 'sexual relations.' Why was that
phrase chosen instead of one more familiar? One could argue that it was an
elaborate scheme to let the president off the hook by giving him something he
could weasel out of. One could also argue that it was a perjury trap. I
guess it all depends on your perspective.
Hi Gang,
At the deposition, the Paula Jones Inc. attorneys presented a broad,
three-part definition of the term "sexual relations" to be used by them in the
questioning. Judge Wright ruled that two parts of the definition were "too
broad" and eliminated them. (2 & 3, as well as the definition of "Contact"
were struck. Only Number 1 was used. The definitions still appeared on the
document, but they had a line drawn through them. Clinton could see what had
been struck.) The President, therefore, was presented with the following
definition (as he understood it to have been amended by the Court):
Definition of Sexual Relations
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 and 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.
________________________________________________
This is what is know as a Perjury Trap. If the President would have
referred to sexual relations outside of this definition, he would have been
guilty of perjury before the court, but seen as honest before the public. By
staying within this definition, he was honest before the court, but seen as
guilty before the public. What pisses off the GOFP is that by the phrase in
Number 1, "with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any
person", the lawyerly wordsmith Clinton saw a way to deny even this. He could
say, "I didn't intend to gratify her. I was merely holding her breast for
balance." (c; Ok, maybe he wouldn't use the balance part, but you get the
idea. Regardless, by this definition, he did not commit Perjury. Legally, he
beat them with their own definition. But with this "testimony", the GOFP was
free to run before any and every camera to show "Proof" that the President
lied and committed Perjury. And did they ever.
The GOFP was not originally concerned with an actual conviction. They were
quite happy to keep Clinton hamstrung from actually implementing any of his
policies, while lining their own pockets, and the pockets of their
contributors, without the watchful eye of a scandal-crazed media paying much
attention to anything else. The Rich were getting Richer quickly. In fact Newt
would have never allowed this to go this far. Kind of hard to say you "miss
Newt", isn't it? Newt may be many things, but he is not a political fool. The
GOFP, now running a wild Jihad without an Ayatollah, has actually convinced
itself it can and should convict. Thankfully, the public knows better. And
with the actions of the Taliban-prosecutors interrogating Lewinsky today, now
so do many members of the Senate.
Hopefully enough of them to dismiss these charges tomorrow.
Bongo
BTW, the entire Senate Trial Memoranda can be seen at http://www.american-
politics.com/011399Clinton.html
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
