I agree he was a good President as far as the economy is concerned.
Originally Posted by DSK
Except for that "Little Problem" of the economic boom being based on the "Dot Com" and "Pharmaceutical" Bubble that destroyed a lot of retirement plans and the Economic Collapse of the Spring of 2000, which was "pushed under the rug" until 2001 .... AFTER THE ELECTIONS .....
WHICH HillariousNoMore COULD NOT FIX!!!!
The CHANGE MAKER at work!!!!
1993 First bombing World Trade Center, New York City, 7 Killed, 1,042 wounded (Feb 26, 1993)
1993 Foiled NY Landmarks plot by Omar Abdel Rahman to blow up the Holland and Lincoln tunnels
and other New York City landmarks
1993 Attempted Assassination of Pres. Bush Sr. during visit to Kuwait (April 14, 1993)
1993 Black Hawk Down: shot down US helicopters in Mogadishu, Somalia,
during Operation Restore Hope (Oct 3-4, 1993)
1994 Plot to assassinate President Clinton during visit to the Philippines
1995 Failed Project Bojinka by Ramzi Yousef to blow up a dozen US airliners over the Pacific (end in Jan 1995)
1995 Bombing US military headquarters, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (Nov 13, 1995)
1996 Bombing Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, housing U.S. foreign military personnel (Jun 25, 1996)
1998 Bombing U.S. Nairobi Embassy, Kenya, Africa (Aug 7, 1998)
1998 Bombing U.S. Dar es Salaam Embassy, Tanzania, Africa (Aug 7, 1998)
1999 Foiled LAX Millennium plot by Ahmed Ressam to bomb Los Angeles International Airport (Ressam was arrested at US Canadian border)
2000 Failed USS The Sullivans bombing that was refueling in the port of Aden, Yemen. (Jan 3, 2000)
2000 Bombing USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, 17 U.S. Navy sailors murdered (Oct 12, 2000) (The USS Cole was not engaged in any combat during this period)
2000 Bombing plaza across from US Manila Embassy (Dec 30, 2000)
The continued plotting of the destruction of the WTC Towers and Expansion of Al Qaeda!
Bill Clinton's Credibility:
36 F.Supp.2d 1118 (1999)Paula Corbin JONES, Plaintiff, v. William Jefferson CLINTON and Danny Ferguson, Defendants.United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division.
Order dated April 12, 1999.
"....this Court overruled objections during the deposition from the President's attorney, Robert S. Bennett, that questions concerning Ms. Lewinsky were inappropriate areas of inquiry and required that such questions be answered by the President. See Pres. Depo. at 53-55, 66, 78. Having been so ordered, the President testified in response to questioning from plaintiff's counsel and his own attorney that he had no recollection of having ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky and he denied that he had engaged in an "extramarital sexual affair," in "sexual relations," or in a "sexual relationship" with Ms. Lewinsky.5 Id. at 52-53, 56-59, 78, 204. An affidavit submitted by Ms. Lewinsky in support of her motion to quash a subpoena for her testimony and made a part of the record of the President's deposition likewise denied that she and the President had engaged in a sexual relationship. [36 F.Supp.2d 1122] When asked by Mr. Bennett whether Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit denying a sexual relationship with the President was a "true and accurate statement," the President answered, "That is absolutely true." Pres. Depo. at 204.
The President's denial of a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky at his deposition was consistent with his answer of "None" in response to plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 10, which requested the name of each and every federal employee with whom he had sexual relations when he was President of the United States. See Pres. Clinton's Resp. to Pl.'s Second Set of Int. at 5; Pres. Clinton's Supp. Resp. to Pl.'s Second Set of Int. at 2. This interrogatory was answered on December 23, 1997, after this Court had entered its December 11th Order ruling on plaintiff's motion to compel responses to her second set of interrogatories and finding that plaintiff was entitled to such information. See December 11, 1997 Order, at 3, 6.6
"....The President acknowledged misleading people, in part because the questions posed to him "were being asked in a politically inspired lawsuit which has since been dismissed," and because he "had real and serious concerns about an Independent Counsel investigation that began with private business dealings 20 years ago...." Id. It was during the President's televised address that the Court first learned the President may be in contempt. See Jones v. Clinton, 12 F.Supp.2d at 938 n. 5.8
Following the acquittal of the President, this Court held a telephone conference on February 16, 1999, to address the remaining issues before this Court, including the issue of attorney's fees and the issue of whether the President should be subject to contempt proceedings. See February 16, 1999 Order, at 2.9 The Court explained to the parties that it had previously declined to address the issue of the President's contempt due to the fact that this case was on appeal at the time and Congress was conducting impeachment proceedings against the President. See id. at 3.10 The Court explained that had this
[36 F.Supp.2d 1124]
"The Court further explained that even though this litigation begat the controversy that was the subject of the President's impeachment trial in the Senate, the interests protected by the contempt authority of the Court are significantly different from the interests protected by the impeachment process. Id. In essence, stated the Court, the contempt authority protects the integrity of a court's proceedings and provides a means of enforcement of its orders, while impeachment is a constitutional process in which the proper inquiry is the President's fitness to serve in office. Id. Given this distinction, the Court determined that it should defer to Congress and its constitutional duties prior to this Court addressing the President's conduct in this civil case.
As the Court explained to the parties, however, it is now time to address the issue of the President's contempt as all other proceedings that heretofore have precluded this Court from addressing the issue have concluded. Id.11 Accordingly, it is that issue to which the Court now turns.
II.
"On two separate occasions, this Court ruled in clear and reasonably specific terms that plaintiff was entitled to information regarding any individuals with whom the President had sexual relations or proposed or sought to have sexual relations and who were during the relevant time frame state or federal employees. See December 11, 1997 Order, at 3; Pres. Depo. at 53-55, 66, 78.13 Notwithstanding these Orders, the record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the President responded to plaintiff's questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process. The President acknowledged as much in his public admission that he misled people because, among other things, the questions posed to him were being asked in a politically inspired lawsuit, which has since been dismissed. Although there are a number of aspects of the President's conduct in this case that might be characterized as contemptuous, the Court addresses at this time only those matters which no reasonable person would seriously dispute were in violation of this Court's discovery Orders and which do not require a hearing, namely the President's sworn statements concerning whether he and Ms. Lewinsky had ever been alone together and whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky.14 i. At his January 17th deposition, the President responded to a series of questions regarding whether he and Ms. Lewinsky had ever been alone together by maintaining that he could not recall being alone with her. The President testified as follows: Q. Mr. President, before the break, we were talking about Monica Lewinsky. At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky together alone in the Oval Office? A. I don't recall, but as I said, when she worked at the legislative affairs office, they always had somebody there on the weekends. I typically worked some on the weekends. Sometimes they'd bring me things on the weekends. She — it seems to me she brought things to me once or twice on the weekends. In that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop it off, exchange a few words and go, she was there. I don't have any specific recollections of what the issues were, what was going on, but when the Congress is there, we're working all the time, and typically I would do some work on one of the days of the weekends in the afternoon. Q. So I understand, your testimony is that it was possible, then, that you were alone with her, but you have no specific recollection of that ever happening? A. Yes, that's correct. It's possible that she, in, while she was working there, brought something to me and that at the time she brought it to me, she was the only person there. That's possible. * * * * * * Q. Do you ever recall walking with Monica Lewinsky down the hallway from the Oval Office to your private kitchen there in the White House? A.... [M]y recollection is that, that at some point during the government shutdown, when Ms. Lewinsky was still an intern but was working the chief staff's office because all the employees had to go home, that she was back there with a pizza that she brought to me and to others. I do not believe she was there alone, however. I don't think she was. And my recollection is that on a couple of occasions after that she was there but my secretary, Betty Currie, was there with her. She and Betty are friends. That's my, that's my recollection. And I have no other recollection of that. * * * * * * Q. At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone in the hallway between the Oval office and this kitchen area? A. I don't believe so, unless we were walking back to the back dining room with the pizza. I just, I don't remember. I don't believe we were alone in the hallway, no. * * * * * * Q. At any time have you and Monica Lewinsky ever been alone together in any room in the White House? A. I think I testified to that earlier. I think that there is a, it is — I have no specific recollection, but it seems to me that she was on duty on a couple of occasions working for the legislative affairs office and brought me some things to sign, something on the weekend. That's — I have a general memory of that. Pres. Depo. at 52-53, 56-59. At his August 17th appearance before the grand jury, the President directly contradicted his deposition testimony by acknowledging that he had indeed been alone with Ms. Lewinsky on a number of occasions during which they engaged in inappropriate intimate contact. Pres. GJ Test. at 9-10. He stated he also was alone with her from time to time when there was no improper contact occurring. Id. at 134. The President began his testimony by reading a statement which reads in part as follows: When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong. These encounters did not consist of sexual intercourse. They did not constitute sexual relations as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition. But they did involve inappropriate intimate contact. These inappropriate encounters ended, at my insistence, in early 1997. Id. at 9-10. The President then testified as follows in response to questions regarding whether he and Ms. Lewinsky had ever been alone together: Q. Let me ask you, Mr. President, you indicate in your statement that you were alone with Ms. Lewinsky. Is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many times were you alone with Ms. Lewinsky? A. Let me begin with the correct answer. I don't know for sure. But if you would like me to give an educated guess, I will do that, but I do not know for sure. And I will tell you what I think, based on what I remember. But I can't be held to a specific time, because I don't have records of all of it. Q. How many times do you think? A. Well, there are two different periods here. There's the period when she worked in the White House until April of '96. And then there's the period when she came back to visit me from February of '97 until late December '97. Based on our records — let's start with the records, where we have the best records and the closest in time. Based on our records, between February and December, it appears to me that at least I could have seen her approximately nine times. Although I do not believe I saw her quite that many times, at least it could have happened. There were — we think there were nine or 10 times when she was in, in the White House when I was in the Oval Office when I could have seen her. I do not believe I saw her that many times, but I could have. * * * I remember specifically, I have a specific recollection of two times. I don't remember when they were, but I remember twice when, on Sunday afternoon, she brought papers down to me, stayed, and we were alone. And I am frankly quite sure — although I have no specific memory, I am quite sure there were a couple of more times, probably two times more, three times more. That's what I would say. That's what I can remember. But I do not remember when they were, or at what time of day they were, or what the facts were. But I have a general memory that would say I certainly saw her more than twice during that period between January and April of 1996, when she worked there. Id. at 30-32. In addition, the President recalled a specific meeting on December 28, 1997, less than three weeks prior to his January 17th deposition, at which he and Ms. Lewinsky were alone together. Id. at 34. The President went on to acknowledge that he tried to conceal his inappropriate intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky by not telling anyone about the relationship and by do[ing] it where nobody else was looking at it, stating that he would have to be an exhibitionist not to have tried to exclude everyone else. Id. at 38, 54. The President testified as follows in response to a question regarding how many times that occurred: Well, if you go back to my statement, I remember there were a few times in '96, I can't say with any certainty. There was once in early '97. After she left the White House, I do not believe I ever had any inappropriate contact with her in the rest of '96. There was one occasion in '97 when, regrettably, that we were alone together for a few minutes, I think about 20 minutes, and there was inappropriate contact. And after that, to the best of my memory and belief, it did not occur again. Id. at 38-39. ii. With respect to whether he and Ms. Lewinsky had engaged in sexual relations, the President testified at his January 17th deposition as follows: Q. Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky? A. No. Q. If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie? A. 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? Mr. Bennett: I object because I don't know that he can remember - The Court: Well, it's real short. He can — I will permit the question and you may show the witness definition number one. A. I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her. Pres. Depo. at 78. The President confirmed these denials in response to questioning from his attorney regarding Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit and whether he and Ms. Lewinsky ever had a sexual relationship: Q. In paragraph eight of her 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? A. That is absolutely true. Id. at 204. Consistent with his denial at his deposition of a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the President had earlier answered None in response to plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 10, which stated as follows: 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. See Pres. Clinton's Resp. to Pl.'s Second Set of Int. at 5; Pres. Clinton's Supp. Resp. to Pl.'s Second Set of Int. at 2. As previously noted, this interrogatory was answered without regard to a formal definition of the term sexual relations after this Court had entered its December 11th Order ruling that plaintiff was entitled to such information. At his August 17th grand jury appearance, the President directly contradicted his deposition testimony by acknowledging inappropriate intimate contact with Ms. Lewinsky on numerous occasions. Pres. GJ Test. at 9-10, 38-39, 54. When asked by a grand juror what he meant by inappropriate contact, the President stated, What I meant was, and what they can infer that I meant was, that I did things that were — when I was alone with her, that were inappropriate and wrong. Id. at 92-93. The President repeatedly refused to provide answers to questions regarding specific sexual activity between himself and Ms. Lewinsky, instead referring to his statement acknowledging inappropriate intimate contact and stating that sexual relations as defined by himself and most ordinary Americans means, for the most part, only intercourse. Id. at 12, 22-24, 92-94, 102-03, 110-11, 139, 168. Nevertheless, the President, while claiming that he did not engage in intercourse with Ms. Lewinsky and did not engage in any other contact with her that would fall within the definition of sexual relations used at his deposition, acknowledged that the nature of his inappropriate intimate contact with Ms. Lewinsky was such that he would have been an exhibitionist had it been viewed by others. Id. at 10, 12, 54, 96. The President went on to state that he did not believe he violated the definition of sexual relations he was given by directly touching those parts of her body with the intent to arouse or gratify. Id. at 139, 168. b. It is difficult to construe the President's sworn statements in this civil lawsuit concerning his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky as anything other than a willful refusal to obey this Court's discovery Orders.
Given the President's admission that he was misleading with regard to the questions being posed to him and the clarity with which his falsehoods are revealed by the record,15 there is no need to engage in an extended analysis of the President's sworn statements in this lawsuit. Simply put, the President's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false, notwithstanding tortured definitions and interpretations of the term sexual relations.16
"..... the President's contumacious conduct in this case, coming as it did from a member of the bar and the chief law enforcement officer of this Nation, was without justification and undermined the integrity of the judicial system. [O]ur adversary system depends on a most jealous safeguarding of truth and candor, United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 463 (4th Cir.1993), and [t]he system can provide no harbor for clever devises to divert the search, mislead opposing counsel or the court, or cover up that which is necessary for justice in the end. Id. at 457-58. Sanctions must be imposed, not only to redress the misconduct of the President in this case, but to deter others who, having observed the President's televised address to the Nation in which his defiance of this Court's discovery Orders was revealed, might themselves consider emulating the President of the United States by willfully violating discovery orders of this and other courts, thereby engaging in conduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial system."
Judge.
