Lights, camera… will Clinton cling on to semantics?

The question facing President Bill Clinton as he testifies before the grand jury on Monday: How can he reconcile his earlier statement under oath that he did not have any sexual relations with Monica with any evidence to the contrary that may be in possession of prosecuting authorities, particularly if the Monica’s stained blue cocktail dress with the FBI has been found to have the President’s“genetic material” on it? The answer may lie in a particularly legalistic definition of sex that the President went by when he made the statement denying sexual relations with Monica. According to a trial balloon floated by Clinton’s lawyers, the judge in the Paula Jones case where the President was asked of he had sexual relations with Monica approved the following definition of sex:
“For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in `sexual relations’ when the person knowingly engages in or causes 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.”

Going by this definition, Clinton said no, he did not have sexual relations with Monica. But the narrow definition noticeably excludes any mention of oral sex, and some Clinton advisers are suggesting that it provides a lawyerly escape clause for the President. He can implicitly acknowledge a specific type of sexual behavior (i.e. oral sex)while still maintaining that he was telling the truth when he testified that he did not have any “sexual relations” with the intern.

The semantic legerdemain has left even the normally glib Washington pols and talking heads agape. The White House has been quick to say the President has still not decided what he will say but the very fact that he and his lawyers are even considering treading such a fine line between truth and perjury has outraged many commentators.

Clinton’s testimony – dubbed the hottest telecast in history will be beamed from the White House Map Room to the grand jurors at a federal courthouse a mile away through a `one-way live feed’ starting 1 pm on Monday, White House spokesman Mike McCurry said. The President will be accompanied by his three lawyers two personal attorneys and the White House Counsel. An extraordinary communications security blanket has been thrown around the event. The feed will be scrambled with the latest encryption technology and put on a special fiber-opticline from the White House to the courtroom to discourage hackers from eavesdropping.

Clinton, whose 52nd birthday falls on Wednesday, has spend hours strategising with his lawyers although White House officials said he had been devoting more time to the bombing crisis in Africa and the meltdown of the Russian economy. The weekend is expected to comprise entirely of discussions on sex and semantics for the beleaguered President.

In public appearances though, Clinton has looked calm (though the bags under his eyes are getting more prominent), displaying yet again his famous ability to compartmentalise his preoccupations. More than even Clinton, First Lady Hillary Clinton has been earning rave reviews for the stoic dignity with which she is handling the situation. Out there on Main Street, USA, the bizarre dichotomy of public opinion on Clinton continues. More people than ever believe he has had sexual relations with Monica (74 per cent), but his job approval rating still remains high (63 per cent).

Whilepolls still show that Americans do not care if Clinton had sex with Monica, 87 per cent said they would disagree about Clinton and his lawyers tortured and creative definition of sex if he had oral sex with her, it should be considered sexual relations. But many commentators have begun to question the polls saying the tide is turning against Clinton. “I think that because I notice a very negative attitude creeping into my own thoughts about him, and if I’m as normal and average an American as I think I am and have that feeling, then a lot of people are having it… The word `sleazebag’ keeps coming to mind when I look at him,” veteran columnist Andy Rooney wrote.

Others are raving about the decline of values in America. Conservative writer Cal Thomas fumed: “Bill Clinton… accurately reflects the valueless society that twice elected him. If we care only about material things and not moral things; if we’re carrying on in our personal lives as if judgment day will never come; if we think we can do as weplease, why shouldn’t we expect a President who reflects the majority behavior and opinion?… The fault is in ourselves. To hold him accountable means we would have to hold ourselves accountable. So we lie and we’ll tolerate the lies of Bill Clinton.”