More
HenchPAC NewsNeil A. Lewis of the New York Times reported yesterday that President Clinton has asked an "Arkansas disciplinary panel not to take away his law license, arguing that he has been a good public servant and insisting again that he did not technically lie before a federal judge, according to court papers filed by his opponents."
Clinton argues in an 80-page brief that "he is still fit to practice law even though he was found in contempt of court. In the brief, Mr. Clinton maintains that his answers under oath in the presence of a federal judge denying a sexual relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky were technically accurate. Much of the brief, in fact, is an effort to again press his claim that he was truthful in saying he had not engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky because the oral sex in which they engaged did not fit the definition of "sexual relations" that had been approved by the judge in the case."
Here we go again for another sex lesson from the White House. At issue was whether or not Clinton lied to the court presided over by Judge Susan Webber Wright, in the following exchange while under oath on January 17, 1999:
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. . . .
A. I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her.
So, Clinton denied having either sexual relations or a sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky. When pinned down finally he admitted he had oral sex with Lewinsky, but said last year and maintains his stance now that oral sex is not "sexual relations" or evidently, a "sexual affair."
Since then, it has been reported, many teens and even pre-teens, following the lead of their President, have adopted the view that oral sex and other types of "playing around" are not sex and therefore it’s perfectly OK to engage in such behavior. There have been a flood of new websites established that have taught the kids how to perform oral sex, since it seems to be a skill their parents won’t teach them, many of them so old-fashioned as to believe it IS sex and shouldn’t be engaged in by children.
In his brief, Clinton said that his more than "20 years of public service should persuade the panel to be lenient and not impose any sanction more harsh than a reprimand. The Committee on Professional Conduct of the Arkansas Supreme Court is set to decide as early as this month whether to discipline Clinton by revoking or suspending his license or imposing a lesser penalty, such as issuing a letter of reprimand.
Clinton thinks he should be treated leniently because he has been in "public service" for 20 years? In other words, for twenty years the public has trusted him and given him many honors. Wouldn’t that work the other way around? "Unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required" Jesus taught, (Luke 12:48) and most of our law supports. We’ve all been told that Clinton has a very superior brain and education. He has been given the trust and the wealth of the American taxpayer. He has been given much. The public has every right to require much of him, and they sure haven’t gotten much.
The Southeastern Legal Foundation has been pressing Arkansas to revoke Clinton's license to practice law. After Clinton acknowledged in August 1998 an "improper physical relationship" with Ms. Lewinsky, Judge Wright ruled that his behavior constituted contempt of court. She said that, "the President deliberately violated this Court's discovery orders, thereby undermining the integrity of the judicial system, and that sanctions must be imposed to redress the President's misconduct and to deter others who might consider emulating the President's misconduct."
In spite of those strong words, Clinton and his lawyers have tried to treat the issue as "inconsequential" and it seems to have faded from public view. At this point the lawyers are arguing over whether or not Clinton "lied" or merely was "misleading" the public. David E. Kendall, Clinton’s attorney, asked in March that the disciplinary committee postpone its consideration of the case until after Clinton leaves office. The committee rejected that proposal.
Matthew Glavin, the director of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, said that the bar's disciplinary rules do not require that Clinton lied, only that he was purposely deceptive. He said that the President has already admitted to that by saying that he misled the public and authorities with his comments about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
Millions of dollars of legal fees are being raised and spent to determine whether or not a powerful, wealthy man like Clinton can get away with creating his own definition of "sexual" which appears to eliminate all forms of sexual deviancy in order to avoid the consequences of his own behavior. Would this work if Clinton were, for example, a truck driver or a high school teacher? I don’t think so.
Meanwhile, one of Clinton’s major legacies will remain that he taught the young new definitions of "sex" and encouraged them, by what Judge Susan Webber Wright called "the President's misconduct" to adopt deception and redefining the meaning of words to get away with their misconduct.
Re-establishing integrity in high office should become the goal of all concerned Americans in the year 2000 elections.
HENCH adds: Wheels are still grinding on Klink's license. Should be gone by the end of June.
More
HenchPAC News
[ Home ] [ News ] [ Products ]
To leave HENCH a message,
comment, or link:
CompanyEmail