June 22, 2004
WHICH LIE WAS I STICKING WITH?:
Clinton Book Weighs Failures and Successes: Memoir Contradicts Testimony on Lewinsky (John F. Harris and Linton Weeks, June 22, 2004, Washington Post)
Clinton's own legal battle with independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr accounts for one of the book's more peculiar revelations. In his August 1998 grand jury testimony, Clinton said he began an inappropriate sexual relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky in "early 1996." His testimony, as was widely noted at the time, was in conflict with Lewinsky's story: She testified the relationship began on Nov. 15, 1995, in the midst of a government shutdown.Starr's prosecutors, in their report to Congress, accused Clinton of lying about the date of their relationship in order to avoid admitting that he had sexual relations with an intern, as Lewinsky still was in the fall of 1995 before being hired for a paying job in the winter.
Without explanation, in his memoir Clinton departs from his grand jury testimony and corroborates her version: "During the government shutdown in late 1995, when very few people were allowed to come to work in the White House, and those who were there were working late, I'd had an inappropriate encounter with Monica Lewinsky and would do so again on other occasions between November and April, when she left the White House for the Pentagon."
Clinton aides yesterday said they could not explain the discrepancy, and his attorney, David Kendall, was traveling and did not return a call.
Hard to keep all your different versions of a story straight sometimes... Posted by Orrin Judd at June 22, 2004 5:15 PM
Obviously, some editor at Random House and/or unscrupulous page layout people at the company's layout and printing division are part of the VRWC. Why, one could even imagine Ken Starr himself infiltrating the printing plant to insert the incorrect date into the narritive.
Posted by: John at June 22, 2004 6:18 PMThe day will soon arrive when some Clinton flack (Begala, Carville, Ann Lewis, etc.) will toss the hands in the air and just say "the hell with it". And we will hear about it on the Internet, because daffy Dan, prissy Peter, and tendentious Tom won't report it.
Maybe when Hill dumps Bill for good, because then the adoring will have to make a choice.
Posted by: jim hamlen at June 22, 2004 9:37 PMDear Penthouse Forum, During the government shutdown in late 1995, when very few people were allowed to come to work in the White House, and those who were there were working late, I'd had an inappropriate encounter with Monica Lewinsky and would do so again on other occasions between November and April, when she left the White House for the Pentagon.
Posted by: Carter at June 22, 2004 11:42 PMWhatever positive legacy Clinton had left, he is now in the process of shredding completely. I never hated the man, I despised his lies and direspected him for them; but now he is sinking to pitiful in my opinion. Maybe that's what he wants from us ... and of course the attention, and oh yes, the money. How itntelligent people voted for him twice escapes me.
Posted by: genecis at June 23, 2004 9:22 AMAnd they still love him. Read some of the book reviews on Amazon. True believers still.
Posted by: jefferson park at June 23, 2004 11:10 AMLove trumps intelligence and politics trumps love.
Just ask HRC.
Posted by: Uncle Bill at June 23, 2004 5:06 PMOn Monday I was walking past the Borders at 14th and F with my brother and his family. There was a huge blowup of Clinton's book cover in the store window.
I remarked that it was a perfect example of one picture being worth one thousand words.
My brother summed it up better in two words: smug bastard.
Posted by: George at June 23, 2004 5:07 PMPerhaps one of Clinton's interviewers will ask him about Juanita Broadderick. Will he walk off the set again?
Dan Rather missed his Sister Souljah moment.
Posted by: jim hamlen at June 23, 2004 10:13 PM