Lewinsky Affair

When you get right down to it, Clinton's perjury was strictly penny ante. He lied in court about cheating on his wife. Then he got caught. End of story. There was no constitutional crisis, no threat to the rule of the law, nada.

Most people who decry Clinton's lying under oath about adultery are, by and large, complete and utter hypocrites. "If our President is willing to lie to a court of law, that undermines confidence in the entire justice system." Yeah, yeah, yeah. The next time you hear somebody spouting that bullshit, here are two words for them: Water and Gate.

Compared to Watergate, Clinton's activities were practically saintly. But the diehard Clinton haters cannot bring themselves to admit it.

As the investigation got closer to the White House, Nixon instructed his men to cover up the crime. When special prosecutor Archibald Cox demanded that the President hand over his audiotapes, Nixon instructed the Attorney General to fire Cox. Instead, the AG resigned. Nixon then had to fire the Assistant Attorney General when he also refused to do it. Finally the Solicitor General, Robert Bork, fired Cox. And when the Supreme Court finally forced Nixon to hand them over, there were 18.5 minutes missing on tape 342 -- intentionally obliterated by at least five separate passes of recorded noise.

Let's see, that's at least conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and destruction of evidence. Now there's a President who really understands what it means to be above the law.

If your friend counters that Watergate is old news, try Iran-Contra. There's another actual Constitutional crisis for you.

But the Lewinsky scandal had something going for it: namely, the President's hot, steaming manchowder. The American public couldn't get enough of it, and the nation's news media quickly became supersaturated with Lewinsky coverage. Daily Show anchor Craig Kilborn set the tone when he announced:

We now continue our endless, ceaseless, won't-stop-if-you-beg-us coverage of
"Make it Stop '98: To Dream the Impeachable Dream."

Another hilarious fake news outfit, the Washington Times, decided to go after Clinton with gusto. Why? Because their owner, ultraconservative cult leader Sun Myung Moon, demanded it. As he announced to his followers in 1997:

Are you really truly American citizens? (Yes.) Do you really love your President? (No.) (Laughter.) This is not a laughing matter. If you are given a choice to love Reverend Moon or President Clinton, whom do you have to love first? (Father.) You say that because you are Unification Church members. (Laughter.) Thinking people in the society also consider Reverend Moon more valuable than President Clinton.

Isn't the Washington Times becoming more famous every day? The Washington Times exercised its power properly by chasing 70 congressmen who were involved in immoral behavior and causing them to step down. At this time the Washington Times is digging into President Clinton's past, mistakes that have been covered up. When American people in general look at the situation, do they think that Reverend Moon is doing too much or would they encourage Father to go ahead and find out the truth?

They all know that Reverend Moon is not an American citizen so, in a way, you should feel that a non-American is here, digging into these bad situations and coming up with the truth. There is no other choice because right now there is nobody else who is righteous enough or brave enough to do this except Father. What do you gain by opposing and judging your President? You may find yourself in all kinds of life threatening situations by doing so. Reverend Moon is labeled as a person who goes up against anyone who is unrighteous, so the entire population of 240 million American people have been judged at one time or another by Father. Therefore, even if he goes against President Clinton, they consider that normal behavior for Father. Father has the label that, even though he is Korean, he is here to save the entire world.

In September 1998, independent counsel Ken Starr submitted his report to Congress. Here's the summary of events that most people were looking for:

The sexual encounters generally occurred in or near the private study off the Oval Office -- most often in the windowless hallway outside the study. During many of their sexual encounters, the President stood leaning against the doorway of the bathroom across from the study, which, he told Ms. Lewinsky, eased his sore back.

Ms. Lewinsky testified that her physical relationship with the President included oral sex but not sexual intercourse. According to Ms. Lewinsky, she performed oral sex on the President; he never performed oral sex on her. Initially, according to Ms. Lewinsky, the President would not let her perform oral sex to completion. In Ms. Lewinsky's understanding, his refusal was related to "trust and not knowing me well enough." During their last two sexual encounters, both in 1997, he did ejaculate.

According to Ms. Lewinsky, she performed oral sex on the President on nine occasions. On all nine of those occasions, the President fondled and kissed her bare breasts. He touched her genitals, both through her underwear and directly, bringing her to orgasm on two occasions. On one occasion, the President inserted a cigar into her vagina. On another occasion, she and the President had brief genital-to-genital contact.

Of course, there was more. Much more. The report describes a sexual encounter in the bathroom adjoining the Oval Office:

[S]he and the President kissed, and he touched her bare breasts with his hands and his mouth. The President "was talking about performing oral sex on me," according to Ms. Lewinsky. But she stopped him because she was menstruating and he did not. Ms. Lewinsky did perform oral sex on him.

Suddenly this tantalizing footnote appears, referring to some of Lewinsky's videotaped testimony:

They engaged in oral-anal contact as well.

After the Starr report was released to the general public, the House Judiciary Committee fought over releasing the source materials. The question was how much should be redacted from the raw testimony and supporting documentation that served as the basis for the final report. The Democrats argued that the sexually explicit portions were not strictly necessary to serve the public necessity. But they were outnumbered by Republicans 21 to 16.

That cigar stuff was released only at the insistence of Bob Barr (R-Georgia). Everyone else on the committee had already agreed that it was gratuitous. But Barr demanded that the hot cigar action be revealed to the public.

In January 1999, the tables were turned when Barr's ex-wife Gail accused him of personal indiscretions, including an extramarital affair. It was in a sworn affadavit made at the request of HUSTLER magazine. Her affadavit further indicated that Barr had perjured himself during the course of their divorce proceedings. The pro-life congressman had paid $300 for her 1983 abortion and even driven her to the clinic. In 1986, Barr testified under oath that he had opposed the abortion, and that it had occurred "against my wishes."

After news of the affadavit broke, Barr reiterated his position: "I have never perjured myself... I have never suggested, urged, forced or encouraged anyone to have an abortion." Then in 2002, Barr filed a $30 million lawsuit against HUSTLER publisher Larry Flynt, former President Clinton, and Clinton strategist James Carville over the allegations.

Timeline

Starr Report