Independent counsel says prosecutors had ample evidence to charge Clinton in Lewinsky scandal

To: Marysecretary

The Clinton Crime List minus all the sex stuff:

61 posted on 03/06/2002 9:34:13 AM PST by Slyfox

HAL9000's link works.

Snip:

To evaluate the truthfulness of President Clinton’s testimony before a federal grand jury, the Independent Counsel examined President Clinton’s responses to questions posed to him before the grand jury. With respect to those responses, the Independent Counsel reports:
• President Clinton acknowledged he had been alone with Mon-ica Lewinsky.
• President Clinton denied having had sexual relations with Lewinsky, as he understood the term, and also denied that he had had intimate contact with her breasts or genitalia.
• President Clinton said his conversation with Currie following his Jones deposition was for the purpose of determining whether his own recollection of his contact with Lewinsky was accurate. [20]

62 posted on 03/06/2002 9:35:43 AM PST by KC Burke

The Clinton Crime List WITH all the sex stuff:

Sexual Harassment
Indecent Exposure in the Second Degree
Indecent Assault
Sexual Abuse of Employees
Lewd and Lascivious Conduct
Exchange of Promotions or Benefits for Sexual Favors
First Degree Sexual Assault
Second Degree Sexual Assault
Third Degree Sexual Assault
Fourth Degree Sexual Assault
Unlawful Carnal Knowledge
Statutory Rape
Intent to Rape
Suspicion of Rape
Rape
Forcible Rape
Oral Copulation
Misdemeanor Sexual Assault
Sexual Misconduct in the First Degree
Criminal Sexual Conduct by Force and Coercion
Unlawful Sexual Activity with a Minor
Consensual Digital Penetration
Lewd Proposal
Sexual Battery
Penetration by a Foriegn Object
Failure to Register as a Sexual Offender

63 posted on 03/06/2002 9:36:04 AM PST by Slyfox

To: Marysecretary

Hmm, who was on the take for these????

That, my dear, is the question of the millenium.

64 posted on 03/06/2002 9:37:24 AM PST by Slyfox

Snip:

Q: [H]ave you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, [87] as modified by the Court?

A: I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I’ve never had an affair with her.88

87 Definition of Sexual Relations,
Deposition of William Jefferson Clinton, Jones v. Clinton, (Jan. 17, 1998) (Doc. No. 849–DC–00000586).
The proffered definition was in three parts. Id. President Clinton’s attorney objected that it was confusing and overbroad. Clinton 1/17/98 Depo. at 20. Judge Wright agreed “definition number two is too encompassing, it’s too broad, and so is definition num-ber three. Definition number one encompasses intent,...but numbers two and three. . . are just too broad.” Clinton 1/17/98 Depo. at 22. As a result of Judge Wright’s ruling (reflected below in strike-out), the definition of “sexual relations” used was as follows:
Definition of Sexual Relations
For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in “sexual relations” when the per-son 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.
President Clinton later agreed the definition “was the one the Judge decided on and I was bound by it.” Clinton 8/17/98 GJ at 18.
88 Clinton 1/17/98 Depo. at 78; but see Lewinsky 12/8/00 Int. at 4 (stating the opposite).
89 Clinton 1/17/98 Depo. at 72. [30]

[i underlined where the strick-out was]

65 posted on 03/06/2002 9:45:42 AM PST by KC Burke

Snip:

During the first break in the deposition, President Clinton, his attorney Robert S. Bennett, White House Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff, and Deputy White House Counsel Bruce R. Lindsey discussed whether to place Lewinsky’s affidavit on the record, ultimately agreeing that Bennett would do so and then “ask Presi-dent Clinton a few questions about it.”91 Bennett recalled that at this break, he and President Clinton “read[ ] or review[ed] Paragraphs 6 and 8 of the Lewinsky affidavit” in which she denied a sexual relationship with President Clinton.92 President Clinton expressly “consented to” placing Lewinsky’s affidavit “on the record at the deposition,” and “indicated he would affirm Paragraphs 6 and 8.”93 Immediately after the break, Bennett asserted before Judge Wright that the affi-davit established that “there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form” between President Clinton and Lewinsky.94 Following a later break in the deposition, Bennett read aloud for the record the portion of Lewin-sky’s affidavit denying a “sexual relationship” and asked President Clinton whether the statement was “true and accurate,” to which President Clinton responded under oath: “That is absolutely true.”95 [31] [32]

66 posted on 03/06/2002 9:47:55 AM PST by KC Burke

WP article:
In response to the report, Clinton attorney David Kendall issued a brief statement:
"The investigation of President Clinton from 1994 to 2001 was intense, expensive, partisan and long.
There's still no Whitewater report, and there's nothing new in this report. It's time to move on."

Could you please post the David Kendall picture that you did? It's hilarious.

67 posted on 03/06/2002 9:49:48 AM PST by Constitution Day

And we are still talking about sex instead of treason. The Monica thing misdirected justice so badly I suspect bill made sure it got out himself.

This is exactly what I thought at the time, too. I said to my wife, This is bad - the democrats want this to be all about sex and the Republicans are falling right into their trap. They were all tarred with the same brush and Clinton was empowered to muddle the whole issue with the "Everybody does it" argument.

68 posted on 03/06/2002 9:53:35 AM PST by Argus

Snip:

At the conclusion of the deposition, Judge Wright specifically instructed President Clinton that the parties were prohibited from “saying anything whatsoever” to anyone about the substance and details of the deposition pur-suant to the Court’s October 30, 1997 Confidentiality Order:
96

JUDGE WRIGHT: All right. Before he leaves, I want to remind him, as the witness in this matter, and everyone else in the room, that this case is subject to a Protective Order regarding all discovery, that it’s my intent that this deposition not be used for any purposes other than the purposes envisioned by the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Evidence, and that is for use in this Court case and for no other pur-pose, and therefore, all parties present, including Secret Service agents, videographers, court reporters and the witness are not to say anything whatsoever about the questions they were asked, the substance of the deposition, the length of it, objections, recess, any details, whether the President did well or did not do well, whether he is credible or not credible, whether he admitted or denied any specific allegations, and this is extremely important to this Court that the, this process not be used for any purpose other than the purposes envisioned in the Rules of Evidence and the Rules of Civil Procedure, and that’s all I’m going to say. I gave a similar admonition about a year-and-a-half ago when I was up here in the White House, and it worked that time, and I hope that it works this time as well. If it does not, of course, anyone who violates that can be subject to sanctions of the Court.97

5. President Clinton’s Conduct After His Deposition.

Early Saturday evening, following the conclusion of his deposition, President Clinton returned to the White House and called Betty Currie to ask her to come to the White House the next day to meet with him.98

When President Clinton met with Currie on Sunday, January 18, 1998, he discussed his deposition with her.99

Currie testified that President Clinton appeared “concerned,” and told her he had been asked questions about Lewinsky at the deposition.100

Currie thought his com-ments were intended to be “more like statements than questions” 101 that “he wished [her] to agree with,” 102 and, in sum and substance, were as follows:103

• You were always there when Monica was there. • We were never really alone. [33]

etcetera, etcetera, etcetera [34]

69 posted on 03/06/2002 9:54:16 AM PST by KC Burke

The New Republican Party= Spines of Jello

Indeed. This is part of the US Senate's legacy as well...

70 posted on 03/06/2002 9:55:32 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Starr's report was an utter and complete failure. It addressed nothing it was commissioned to address and devolved into a catch Clinton perjuring about sex waste of 50 million dollars because they had nothing else and needed to justify their own existence.

From the beginning of the investigation the Dems claimed it was all about sex. Who would've believed that Starr's final report would confirm their allegations? It might have helped if ANYTHING else had been raised in the Starr report.

71 posted on 03/06/2002 10:03:31 AM PST by sakic

72 posted on 03/06/2002 10:03:44 AM PST by NormsRevenge

Nothing to see here, move along.

LOL

73 posted on 03/06/2002 10:03:46 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot

Cruelty to animals? Did he hit hillary?

74 posted on 03/06/2002 10:05:38 AM PST by StarFan

To: Oldeconomybuyer

In the FWIW department, I just heard this story mentioned on the radio news at the top of the hour. Naturally, it was spun as "being mainly of historical interest" but it was read on-air.

75 posted on 03/06/2002 10:10:46 AM PST by backhoe

To: Oldeconomybuyer

DUers are going bananas!

76 posted on 03/06/2002 10:12:37 AM PST by finnman69

...Laundry List...

You forgot ---Poor taste in Women.

77 posted on 03/06/2002 10:39:42 AM PST by AndrewC

Cruelty to animals? Did he hit hillary?

Good one. But, I think I remember reading that someone who does
not take care of their pet can be charged with Cruelty to Animals.

78 posted on 03/06/2002 10:40:28 AM PST by Slyfox

Over the course of this investigation, this Office faced numerous challenges to its professional integrity and the lawful exercise of its authority. These allegations of professional and other misconduct and the claims of a right to withhold evidence ultimately were rejected. These allegations and other tactics had a substantial impact on the prompt completion of this Office's work, delaying in some cases for months access to available evidence. Responding to these allegations and claims also increased substantially the expense of this investigation,(1) but it was essential to do so in order for the Independent Counsel to fulfill the mandates sought by the Attorney General and conferred by the Special Division.

Should all Americans enmeshed in the "legal system" now be provided with unlimited government resources (i.e., your tax dollars) to attack unfriendly prosecutors and judges?

If not, why not? ;-)

79 posted on 03/06/2002 11:03:22 AM PST by an amused spectator

To: an amused spectator

A facetious question, of course. Curiously this behavior by the lying president was calculated from the onset to delay and be expensive. His special priviledge to pursue as we now see the framework sketch of the behind the scenes deal making to keep him from being publicly indicted.

On the other hand I am hearing little about tort reform, you too?

80 posted on 03/06/2002 11:21:27 AM PST by flamefront

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794