Monica's back – says Clinton lied

Politico.com ^ | 12/17/09 | JOSH GERSTEIN & JOHN F. HARRIS

[OldDeckHand]

In the years since their bitter battle, both former President Bill Clinton and independent counsel Ken Starr have predicted they’d be vindicated in the history books.

Now the first definitive history of the Clinton scandal is about to arrive – and neither man can be completely happy about his portrayal in its pages.

“The Death of American Virtue,” due out in February, asserts that Clinton had yet another extramarital affair, with Susan McDougal of Whitewater fame. Also in the book, Monica Lewinsky tells author Ken Gormley that she believes the president lied under oath when he described their encounters.

At the same time, Gormley offers a harsh portrait of Starr as a man out of his depth and who lost all sense of proportion. His interviews offer new ammunition to critics who contend the Lewinsky investigation was marred at its outset by improper questioning of Lewinsky in January 1998 by Starr’s lieutenants, who continued to grill her even after she asked for a lawyer.

Two presidents later, the saga feels like a far-off chapter in the nation’s history but the book makes clear that the principals, including Clinton himself, remain keenly interested in squaring the historical record to their liking.

In three interviews with the author, Clinton makes clear – to no surprise of longtime observers of the 42nd president – how aggrieved his continues to feel over the whole episode, unspooling a stream of choice invective about his other accusers. In Clinton’s telling, the head of the House impeachment team, Henry Hyde, is a “bitter right-winger” and “hypocrite,” and the judge who cited Clinton for civil contempt was merely currying favor with the conservative wing of the GOP.

[OldDeckHand]

That should have read..

It's my recollection that Lewinsky may have been in some criminal jeopardy for either lying to investigators....

[GovernmentShrinker]

Thanks. I’ll try to read up on it later. I just can’t quite see anybody trying to prosecute a young White House intern over something like this. So she lied to investigators — she felt she had to lie to protect the lying President of the United States/Commander-in-Chief! Same with the mother, who could reasonably claim she was scared of retaliation against herself and/or her daughter, if she said anything the Clintons didn’t want her to say. The stakes were high and any rational personal would be considering the risk of “Arkancide”.

[OldDeckHand]

"I’ll try to read up on it later. I just can’t quite see anybody trying to prosecute a young White House intern over something like this."

It's been my experience that when federal prosecutors (and especially independent prosecutors) want some badly enough, they tend to get whatever it is they want. They wanted Lewinsky's testimony in the grand jury. I think bringing her up on obstruction charges was a very real possibility, if only to create the leverage they needed.

Ask Scooter Libbey what an independent prosecutor will do when they want something.

[goat granny]

What woman wants to buy a Lewinsky. She should have made mens wallets...

[theDentist]

Hey, he’s smoking a genuine moeNica ceeegar!