Replies

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.

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 Lewinsky takes her blue dress to the cleaners. She walks into the cleaners and and hands the dress to the old man behind the counter. He is hard of hearing and his hearing aid is broken.

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!"

Fine. But my larger point remains. It is the Sink Emperor who is splitting hairs over the definition of "is," not the IC. The context of David Kendall's statement of "there is no sex" is also not included here. It was certainly not a case where the IC asked one question "Did the president engage in sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky" and he replied "There is no sex" and they moved on to other subjects.

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.