Did President Clinton perjure himself?

I wish to present to you my assessment of the truthfulness of President Bill Clinton in reference to his statements under oath in his Jones deposition and his Grand Jury testimony with respect to his alleged sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky as they pertain only to the oral sex allegations of Monica Lewinsky

On May 6, 1994, former Arkansas state employee Paula Corbin Jones filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against President Clinton claiming that he had sexually harassed her on May 8, 1991, by requesting her to perform oral sex on him in a suite at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock. Throughout the pretrial discovery process in Jones v. Clinton, United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled, over the President's objections, that Ms. Jones's lawyers could seek various categories of information, including information about women who had worked as government employees under Governor or President Clinton and allegedly had sexual activity with him. Judge Wright's rulings followed the prevailing law in sexual harassment cases when she said;

“The defendant's sexual relationships with others in the workplace, including consensual relationships, are a standard subject of inquiry during the discovery process.”

Judge Wright recognized the commonplace nature of her discovery rulings and stated that she was following a "meticulous standard of materiality" in allowing such questioning.”

At a hearing on January 12, 1998, Judge Webber Wright required Ms. Jones to list potential trial witnesses. Ms. Jones's list included several “Jane Does.” Ms. Jones's attorneys said they intended to call a Jane Doe named Monica Lewinsky as a witness to support Ms. Jones's claims. Under Ms. Jones's legal theory, women who had sexual relationships with the President received job benefits because of the sexual relationship, but women who resisted the President's sexual advances were denied such benefits.

Based on the witness list received in December 1997 (which included Ms. Lewinsky) and the January 12, 1998, hearing, the President and his attorneys were aware that Ms. Jones's attorneys likely would question the President at his deposition about Ms. Lewinsky and the other "Jane Does." In fact, the attorneys for Ms. Jones did ask numerous questions about "Jane Does," including Ms. Lewinsky.

On January 17, 1998, Ms. Jones's lawyers deposed President Clinton under oath with Judge Wright present and presiding over the deposition. Laws everywhere requires a witness testifying under oath to provide truthful answers. The intentional failure to provide truthful answers is a crime punishable by imprisonment and/or a fine.

At the outset of his deposition, the President took an oath administered by Judge Wright: "Do you swear or affirm . . . that the testimony you are about to give in the matter before the court is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" The President replied: "I do." At the beginning of their questioning, Ms. Jones's attorneys asked the President: "And your testimony is subject to the penalty of perjury; do you understand that, sir?" The President responded, "I do."

During pretrial discovery, Paula Jones's attorneys served the President with written interrogatories. One relevant part demanded:

Please state the name, address, and telephone number of each and every [federal employee] with whom you had sexual relations when you were . . . President of the United States.

On December 23, 1997, under penalty of perjury, President Clinton answered, "None."

Unfortunately, the interrogatory did not define the term "sexual relations." If having oral sex with someone else constitutes sexual relations, then the president lied under oath. Of course that is contingent on whether or not oral sex took place between himself and Monica Lewinsky. It’s also contingent on whether or not sexual relations encompasses oral sex.

Did Clinton and Lewinsky indulge in oral sex?

It’s true that during the times in which Lewinsky alleges that she performed oral sex on the president, only she and he were together at that time so we have only four ways to make a determination as to whether she told the truth when she said she performed oral sex on the president. They are;

1. She swore under oath that she did.
2. He never denied it outright.
3. His semen found on her dress could have dropped from her mouth while servicing him while she knelt in front of him.
4. He inadvertently admitted it while answering a question.

Near the end of the questioning by the Grand Jury counsel, a question was asked and Clinton’s response was as such that he may have inadvertently admitted to having oral sex with Lewinsky when the questioner was talking about the term ‘sexual relations’ and asked,

Q. …..is oral sex performed on you within that definition as you understand it?

WJC As I understood it, it was not, no….

Had the president replied with, “….it is not….” then he would have been speaking rhetorically but when he used the past tense of ‘is’ that being ‘was’, he was talking about something that had previously occurred between himself and Lewinsky.

This is only my personal opinion but it is my belief that Lewinsky was telling the truth when she stated under oath before the Grand Jury that she did perform oral sex on the president while they were alone. If the president thought that was an outright lie, he could have flatly denied it instead of pussyfooting around the question.

Jones Deposition:

At the January 17, 1998, deposition of the President, Ms. Jones's attorneys asked the President specific questions about possible sexual activity with Monica Lewinsky. As explained earlier in this piece, the attorneys used various terms in their questions, including "sexual affair," "sexual relationship," and "sexual relations." Again the terms "sexual affair" and "sexual relationship" were not specially defined by Ms. Jones's attorneys.

President Clinton answered a series of questions about Ms. Lewinsky, including:

Q: Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?

WJC: No.

Q: If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie?

WJC: 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?

WJC: I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her.

President Clinton reiterated his denial under questioning by his own attorney:

Q: In paragraph eight of Ms. Lewinskys affidavit, she says this, "I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship." Is that a true and accurate statement as far as you know it?

WJC: "That is absolutely true."

During the Jones deposition on January 17, 1998, the President denied having had “a sexual affair,” “sexual relations,” or “a sexual relationship” with Ms. Lewinsky. The President’s attorney, Robert Bennett, sought to limit questioning about Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Bennett told Judge Susan Wright that Ms. Lewinsky had signed a sworn affidavit (which Ms. Jones’s lawyers were in possession of) saying that there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton.” In a subsequent colloquy with Judge Wright, Mr. Bennett declared that as a result of the “preparation of President Clinton for his deposition, the president was fully aware of Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit. The President did not dispute his legal representative’s assertion that the President and Ms. Lewinsky had “absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form,” nor did he dispute the implication that Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit, in denying “a sexual relationship,” meant that there was “absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form.” In subsequent questioning by his attorney, President Clinton testified under oath that Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit was “absolutely true. Ms. Lewinsky has since admitted that she lied when she said that there had been no sex between herself and President Clinton.

Sexual Affair-Sexual Relations-Sexual Relationship

According to the president’s statements, having oral sex with someone, either as the active partner or the passive partner doesn’t constitute having a sexual affair, sexual relations or having a sexual relationship with his partner.

The dictionary definitions of ‘sexual affair’ cannot be found in normal or legal dictionaries nor in case law so you have to break down the words into their two separate meanings.

The word ‘sexual’ as defined by Collin Colbuild English Language Dictionary is, “used to describe feelings or activities that are connected with the ‘act of sex’ or with people’s desire for sex” That same dictionary defines ‘sex’ by saying “If two people have sex, they perform the ‘act of sex’ or a ‘similar activity’ that involves contact with each other’s sex organs.”

The question is, what is meant by the term, ‘act of sex’? Since the dictionary used the words ‘similar activity’ it means that the ‘act of sex’ involves both persons being in contact in some manner or other during the ‘sex act’ with each other’s genitals. It follows that since Lewinski was the passive partner in the mouth-to-genital sex act between herself and the president, she was the person indulging in the sex act and not the president, therefore during those times that she was in oral contact with his genitals, he was not indulging in a sex act as defined in a dictionary.

This does not mean that he wasn’t in ‘sexual contact’ with Ms. Lewinsky. Sexual contact between two persons can include one of the partners having some form of physical sexual contact with the other. For example, a sexual predator could digitally molest his victim by inserting his fingers into her vagina and he couldn’t later say that he didn’t have sexual contact with his victim. Clinton cannot therefore say that he didn’t have any sexual physical contact with Lewinski after his penis was in her mouth. In any case, he wasn’t asked that question.

Was President Clinton having a ‘sexual affair’ with Lewinsky while she was giving him oral sex?

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the word ‘affair’ as to include; “A romantic or passionate attachment typically of limited duration.”

All of the passionate and romantic feelings were Lewinsky’s and even though the president admitted to acting improperly with Lewinsky, I don’t believe that means that he was having a romantic or passionate affair with her while he was having sex with her. Admittedly, one who is physically intimate with a lover can be emotionally intimate with a lover but not in the true sense in which love is the predominant factor. Neither does the fact that the president gave Lewinsky gifts automatically mean that he was passionately or emotionally in love with her.

Was the president having sexual relations with Lewinsky?

During the Jones deposition, Judge Wright accepted the following definition of the term "sexual relations:"

“For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in ‘sexual relations’ when the person knowingly engages in or causes . . . 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 . . . . "Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.”

This could be interpreted in two ways. The first being that Clinton engaged in sexual relations with Lewinsky when he had physical contact with her via his penis in her mouth since the term ‘any person’ can include the president. The second being that the term ‘any person’ means someone other than the president himself. However, if the framers of the description intended that the term ‘sexual relations’ was to exclude the president, then they could have used the term ‘any other person’ but because the framers didn’t include the word ‘other’, it is my belief that the term ‘any person’ would include the president.

But in fairness to the president, I don’t think his denial would constitute perjury because the wording of the definition is vague and could be mistakenly interpreted by the president in his favour based on the contra proferentum Rule that permits the party who didn’t prepare the document to have the final say on its interpretation.

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines ‘sexual relations’ with one simple word, ‘coitus’ and that word is defined by Webster’s as:

“physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements usually leading to ejaculation of semen from the penis into the female reproductive tract.”

When the president gave his answer under oath during the pretrial discoveries on December 23, 1997 and wrote in the word, “None” in response to the demand that he give the names of every federal employee he had sexual relations with, he was truthful since no-one has accused him of participating in coitus or having intercourse with any one other than his wife.

Was the president involved in a sexual relationship with Lewinsky?

The common understanding of the term ‘sexual relationship’ is that one or both parties are indulging in some sex act either as the passive or active partner in which either both or one partner is getting sexual gratification from the act.

Clinton on the other hand used the Jones definition as his guide and he interpreted the relationship as being one-sided on Lewinsky’s part. Since he stuck to that interpretation, that is, that the term ‘any person’ excluded him, then he didn’t perjure himself although he certainly played loose with the term ‘any person’ and of course the word ‘relations’ is the root word for ‘relationship’ so he didn’t lie when referring to that word either.

During his questioning at the Grand Jury, the president refused to answer questions about the precise nature of his intimate contacts with Ms. Lewinsky, but he did explain his earlier denials. As to his denial in the Jones deposition that he and Ms. Lewinsky had a "sexual relationship," the President maintained that there can be no sexual relationship without sexual intercourse, regardless of what other sexual activities may transpire. He stated that "most ordinary Americans" would embrace this distinction. I concur on both points.

The president also maintained that none of his sexual contacts with Ms. Lewinsky constituted "sexual relations" within a specific definition used in the Jones deposition. Under that definition, ‘sexual relations’ were defined thusly:

“A person engages in ‘sexual relations’ when the person knowingly engages in or causes -- 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 . . . "Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.

According to the president’s testimony, it clearly was his understanding, that that definition "covers contact by the person being deposed with the enumerated areas if the contact is done with an intent to arouse or gratify," but it does not cover oral sex performed on the person being deposed. He testified:

“If the deponent is the person who has oral sex performed on him, then the contact is with -- not with anything on that list, but with the lips of another person. It seems to be self-evident that that's what it is.”

In the president's view, "any person, reasonable person" would recognize that oral sex performed on the deponent falls outside the definition.”

If it does, it is because the use of the words “any person’ is vague since it may or may not include the president. He interpreted it to exclude the president. He wasn’t pinned to the mat and asked to say whether the definition included himself.

If Ms. Lewinsky performed oral sex on the President, then -- under his interpretation -- she had engaged in some sex act with him but he did not engage in some sex with her. The President actually refused to answer whether Ms. Lewinsky in fact had performed oral sex on him. To muddy up the waters so that the question would be lost from sight, he added that direct contact with Ms. Lewinsky's breasts or genitalia would fall within the Jones definition, and he denied having had any such contact.

Ken Starr, in questioning Clinton during the Grand Jury hearing really missed the opportunity of not following up on Clinton’s answer by then specifically asking the president if he permitted Lewinsky to place his penis in her mouth or alternatively, whether or not he placed his penis in her mouth as a direct result of his own efforts.

Clinton, by pussyfooting around the question in so many words by vaguely denying having oral sex with Lewinsky, as much as admitted it by not directly stating that he didn’t permit Lewinsky to place his penis in her mouth. I think at that moment, millions of people smirked when they watched him on TV denying it. President Lincoln said it best when he said that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Clinton seemed to be fooling his inquisitors all of the time and the general public none of the time.

I would be remiss if I didn’t add at this point that Paula Jone’s lawyers didn’t do any better in their case when they submitted to the president their definition of sexual relations. They gave the president a complete out because all he had to do was stick to the dictionary interpretation of the words they chose to put in the questions and he could then deny everything and not perjure himself in making his denials.

During pretrial discovery, Paula Jones's attorneys should have submitted the following to the president;

"Please state the name, address, and telephone number of each and every federal employee with whom you had some form of intimate physical contact of a sexual nature in which your genitals were in intimate physical contact with the other person’s genitals or other part of the person’s body while you were the President of the United States."

It would seem to me that with his penis in Lewinski’s mouth, earlier, he would have a hard time denying later that that particular genital of his wasn’t in intimate physical contact of a sexual nature with a part of Lewinsky’s body while he was the president of the United States.

Grand Jury Testimony:

He was asked about physical contact between himself and Ms. Lewinsky by Mr. Bittman during the Grand Jury questioning;

Q. …..did it involve any sexual contact in any way, shape or form?

WJC ….I think it’s clear what inappropriately intimate is. I have said it did not include sexual intercourse, and I did not believe that it included conduct which falls within the definition I was given in the Jones deposition.

He didn’t really lie when he gave that reply even when he said that ‘it’s clear what ‘inappropriately intimate’ is. He admitted that he was inappropriately intimate with Lewinsky albeit the inappropriateness he spoke of was actually the oral sex---a sexual act he wasn’t being properly pressed to deal with in his answers.

The dictionary definition of ‘intimate’ is described by Collins Colbuild English Language Dictionary as “If you are intimate with someone, you have a sexual relationship with them.” But we already know that sexual relationships only involve coitus in which no one is accusing Clinton of that kind of sex act. That dictionary also describes ‘intimate’ thusly; “If two people are intimate, they know and like each other very well.” There was nothing wrong in having that kind of relationship with an employee as that kind of intimacy isn’t inappropriate if the employee doesn't have a benefit bestowed on him or her in return.

The questioner clearly bungled when he settled for Clinton’s answer. The questioner didn’t want to know if Clinton had sexual intercourse with Lewinsky, (because he knew Clinton hadn’t) he wanted to know if Clinton was involved in any ‘sexual contact’ in any manner, shape or form with Lewinsky but when questioning the president, he didn’t ask the right questions.

Unfortunately, Judge Wright bungled also because she permitted in the Jones proceedings the lawyers for Jones to specifically deal with contact with genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks as part of sexual relations. As said earlier, sexual relations only encompasses coitus and couples having sexual intercourse can and do have their hands touching the aforementioned erogenous areas of their sexual partner. When the question was put to him, Clinton cleverly switched the topic to oral sex, saying that that oral sex doesn’t come under that heading. He was right because one cannot have oral sex at the same time one is having intercourse. His questioner didn’t press it further.

Bittman should have pressed on with his query about Clinton being in sexual contact with Lewinsky and instead he let his question and the answer he was seeking slip right through his fingers. He should have asked;

“Did any part of your genitalia touch any part of Ms. Lewinsky’s body in any manner?”

If he denied that, then he would have perjured himself.

Conclusions arrived at in the Starr Report:

Special Prosecutor, Ken Starr had plenty of opportunity to see that the questioning of the president was better prepared and conducted than that which took place in the Jones matter. He didn’t take the time to learn from the mistakes of the lawyers in the Jones case.

According to his Report, he said that there is substantial and credible information that President Clinton lied under oath as a defendant in Jones v. Clinton regarding his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky in that….

(1) He denied that he had a "sexual relationship" with Monica Lewinsky.

(2) He denied that he had a "sexual affair" with Monica Lewinsky.

(3) He denied that he had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky.

(4) He denied that he engaged in or caused contact with the genitalia of "any person" with an intent to arouse or gratify.

(5) He denied that he made contact with Monica Lewinsky's breasts or genitalia with an intent to arouse or gratify.

I do not believe that the president lied with reference to Starr’s allegations 1 through 3 based on what I have theorized earlier in this piece.

With reference to allegations 4 and 5, as I said earlier, Clinton likened the physical contact to sexual intercourse and he denied having sexual intercourse with Lewinsky. Unfortunately, Starr could not have hoped to have the president convicted of perjury on Lewinsky’s word alone as it related to her allegation about him being in contact with her breasts or her genitalia so those two allegation are academic in any case.

The Starr Report also says….

The ten incidents are recounted here because they are necessary to assess whether the President lied under oath, both in his civil deposition, where he denied any sexual relationship at all, and in his grand jury testimony, where he acknowledged an "inappropriate intimate contact" but denied any sexual contact with Ms. Lewinsky's breasts or genitalia

In the Starr Report, it is alleged that there is substantial and credible information that President Clinton lied under oath in answering those questions. The Report goes on to say that there is;

1. Evidence that President Clinton lied under oath during the Civil Case

2. President Clinton's statements under oath about Monica Lewinsky are also untruths.

My own Conclusions:

I ask my readers to keep in mind that for the purposes of this piece, I am only dealing with Clinton’s deposition and testimony as they relate to Lewinsky’s allegation that the president permitted her to place his penis in her mouth, because in my opinion, it is the only sexual act that could be proved. Unfortunately, it is the only sexual act that wasn’t properly dealt with in both his deposition and his testimony before the Grand Jury.

Based on what I have written thus far, I am convinced that President Clinton cannot be convicted of perjury as it relates to Lewinsky’s allegation that she permitted the president to place his penis in her mouth.

It is my opinion that the manner in which the questions were prepared in the interrogatories in the Jones matter and asked during the Grand Jury hearing were ill-prepared and his inquisitors were careless in the manner in which they put their questions to the president. If they had simply looked in any dictionary to find out the meanings of the various words they used in the questions in the interrogatories and verbal questions asked at the hearing or even the Criminal Code in Washington D.C., they might have re-worded the questions and got the desired results they were seeking. As it turned out, they got nothing. Watching it from afar was like watching a seal skirting a hole in the ice and slipping away while a polar bear raises its head out of the hole trying to figure what went wrong. The reason is obvious-- Clinton’s definition of sex is narrower that the spaces between three cars parked in a two-car garage.

NOTE: President Clinton was later tried in the first part of 1999 by the US Senate and acquitted of perjury.