-Caveat Lector- ##This was posted on another list. If someone asked me if I had sex with someone, I would understand what they meant. If someone asked me if I had a sexual relationship with someone, I would know what they meant. Until this whole fiasco, I had never heard the term 'sexual relations.' Why was that phrase chosen instead of one more familiar? One could argue that it was an elaborate scheme to let the president off the hook by giving him something he could weasel out of. One could also argue that it was a perjury trap. I guess it all depends on your perspective. Hi Gang, At the deposition, the Paula Jones Inc. attorneys presented a broad, three-part definition of the term "sexual relations" to be used by them in the questioning. Judge Wright ruled that two parts of the definition were "too broad" and eliminated them. (2 & 3, as well as the definition of "Contact" were struck. Only Number 1 was used. The definitions still appeared on the document, but they had a line drawn through them. Clinton could see what had been struck.) The President, therefore, was presented with the following definition (as he understood it to have been amended by the Court): Definition of Sexual Relations For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person 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 and 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. ________________________________________________ This is what is know as a Perjury Trap. If the President would have referred to sexual relations outside of this definition, he would have been guilty of perjury before the court, but seen as honest before the public. By staying within this definition, he was honest before the court, but seen as guilty before the public. What pisses off the GOFP is that by the phrase in Number 1, "with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person", the lawyerly wordsmith Clinton saw a way to deny even this. He could say, "I didn't intend to gratify her. I was merely holding her breast for balance." (c; Ok, maybe he wouldn't use the balance part, but you get the idea. Regardless, by this definition, he did not commit Perjury. Legally, he beat them with their own definition. But with this "testimony", the GOFP was free to run before any and every camera to show "Proof" that the President lied and committed Perjury. And did they ever. The GOFP was not originally concerned with an actual conviction. They were quite happy to keep Clinton hamstrung from actually implementing any of his policies, while lining their own pockets, and the pockets of their contributors, without the watchful eye of a scandal-crazed media paying much attention to anything else. The Rich were getting Richer quickly. In fact Newt would have never allowed this to go this far. Kind of hard to say you "miss Newt", isn't it? Newt may be many things, but he is not a political fool. The GOFP, now running a wild Jihad without an Ayatollah, has actually convinced itself it can and should convict. Thankfully, the public knows better. And with the actions of the Taliban-prosecutors interrogating Lewinsky today, now so do many members of the Senate. Hopefully enough of them to dismiss these charges tomorrow. Bongo BTW, the entire Senate Trial Memoranda can be seen at http://www.american- politics.com/011399Clinton.html DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om