That gets the "TWISTER" award for intellectual gyration above and beyond the call of kneepad duty.
Posted on 12/26/2001 5:50:05 PM PST by Apollo
The master of hair-splitting manages to split the split ends. This statement is from his testimony concerning the Monica Lewinsky affair. Can you imagine hearing such an excuse from a regular person in court? “Your honor, these men accuse me of robbing a bank, but the accusations are false because ‘robbing’ means that the robbing is happening right now. If I were robbing a bank, I wouldn’t be here on the stand next to you right now. I’m talking right now, not robbing anyone. How can I be robbing a bank when I’m here talking to you right now?”
Sorry, but your interpretation of President Clinton's testimony deviates by about 180 degees from what really happened when the President made his quoted statement. In reality, the President was defending his non-objection when President Clinton's attorney previously said that "there is no sex". The quoted statement was the President's lecture to the IC that his attorney's statement was literally correct, because President Clinton was not having sex at the time the attorney's statement was made.
IOW, the IC was splitting hairs, not President Clinton!
"This crusade against terrorism is going to take a long time."
"You can't balance the budget on the backs of the taxpayers!"
Oops, sorry, little Dumbya made the first blunder, and the second statement was Raygun's.
"If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people he should resign."
Your point is almost too silly to warrant a reply, but here goes.
The quoted statement was the President's lecture to the IC that his attorney's statement was literally correct, because President Clinton was not having sex at the time the attorney's statement was made.
So, the IC asks how it is possible to square two opposing facts: (1) Lewinsky's semen-stained dress with (2) his laywer's statement that there is not sex going on between him and Lewinsky. And his reply is to engage in an utterly ridiculous "lecture" to the IC that his lawyer was speaking truthfully because he was not engaged in sex at the time the statement was made. And it's the IC who is splitting hairs? Pullleeezzzzze!
This is a man who testified that he was never alone with Ms. Lewinsky because, after all, there's always someone, somewhere, lurking in the White House grounds. Your hero is man-child who lives in an alternative universe unfamiliar to adults who have more than two brain cells to rub together.
that single statement is probably the MOST destructive of any others and the one that makes the ANGRIEST when i hear it repeated.
well put! lol! :)
Nice try, but your statement has no relation to the context in which President Clinton lectured the IC.
The correct context was that the IC asked President Clinton why he did not object when David Kendall said "There is no sex." The exchange about "is" only related to literal truthfulness of Mr. Kendall's statement, and had nothing to do with semem-stained blue dresses.
Monica says "I need this stain removed from the front of my blue dress!" The old man, straining to hear, cups his hands behind his ear and says: "Eh! Come Again!!??"
"No!" Monica replies. "Just mustard this time!"
That gets the "TWISTER" award for intellectual gyration above and beyond the call of kneepad duty.
The law is not a parlor game where you win if you can trick your opponent into saying Rumplestilskin -- or not saying it. The notion that "there is no sex" between him and Monica because she wasn't blowing him at the time the question was asked wouldn't cut it in any court of law in the country. And, as Clinton learned through his various legal findings against him (Judge Wright) and his disbarrment, his clever evasions weren't nearly clever enough.
Nice try, but Clinton is a liar, just as water is wet, and puppies are cute.
I dissagree, I've never found the Clintons to be "good" liars, but only that the big media refused to bust 'em on anything. Their dodgings were laughably transparent to those of us who still had cranial activity. Nixon tried to squirm out of his corruptions, but his own party busted him on it, he resigned under pressure from REPUBLICANS.
When the Democrats discovered (too late) that their poster boy baby boomer president was another Nixon, they did not call for his head: they circled the wagons. Ego made them continue this strategy while Bill and Hill continually knocked over the china cabinets (figuratively) in the White House.
No, Nixon and Clintons were both corrupt presidents, while only the Pubs knew enough to clean up their own mess.
Actual qoute from his grand jury testimony: "[I]t depends on how you define "alone" ... there were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.