oldschool's blog

why do liberals keep lying about clinton?

 abuse

In recent weeks, I have been confronted twice by liberal no-minds who are either utterly ignorant of recent history or deliberately attempting to revise it with out-right lies.  Both have claimed that former President William Jefferson Clinton did not “lie” under oath.  Both claimed that there was some “loophole” and that it was all Judge Susan Webber Wright’s fault for failing to clarify the definition of “sexual relations”.  Both seemed to admired the verve with which the brilliant Clinton mislead without actually lying in his depostition.

To help us start out, below is the definition of “sexual relations” agreed to by the parties in “Jones v. Clinton”: 

“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." – Exhibit A, deposition of William Jefferson Clinton 

Next, we have the excerpts of testimony from Mr. Clinton during that deposition:

“Q. Mr. President. . . . At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone together in the Oval Office?

A. I don't recall, but as I said, when she worked at the legislative affairs office, they always had somebody there on the weekends. I typically worked some on the weekends. Sometimes they'd bring me things on the weekends. She – it seems to me she brought things to me once or twice on the weekends. In that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop it off, exchange a few words and go, she was there. . . .”

“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.

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. . . .

A. I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her. “

“The record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the President responded to plaintiff's questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process.”

“Although there are a number of aspects of the President's conduct in this case that might be characterized as contemptuous, the court addresses at this time only those matters which no reasonable person would seriously dispute were in violation of this court's discovery orders and which do not require a hearing, namely the President's sworn statements concerning whether he and Ms. Lewinsky had ever been alone together and whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. . . .”

“Simply put, the President's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false, notwithstanding tortured definitions and interpretations of the term "sexual relations." – April, 1999

So what gives?  Republicans disavowed Nixon , Craig, Livingston, Agnew, Lott, Cunningham – heck the list goes one.  Yet for the democrats, Bill Clinton can do no wrong and William Jefferson (democrat Congressman found with $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer) continues to “represent” his party. 

Why can’t liberals just admit Clinton was a liar?

(Oh, and for those ignorant buffoons who will say “Bush lied, people died.” – prove it, as I have proven MY point.  You won’t do it, because you can’t, but at least I asked.)