<BretCahill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:74b0db65-d636-4db1-9b24-8e9b03c231a6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Admitting you are too dumb to know the definitions of terms means you
> are dumb, per se.
> The discrediting process is over.
You are correct:
As to his denial in the Jones deposition that he and Ms. Lewinsky had not
had a "***ual relation****p," the President maintained that there can be no
***ual relation****p without ***ual intercourse, regardless of what other
***ual activities may transpire. He stated that "most ordinary Americans"
would embrace this distinction.
The President also maintained that none of his ***ual contacts with Ms.
Lewinsky constituted "***ual relations" within a specific definition used
in
the Jones deposition. Under that definition: (Definition in Exhibit 1)
[A] person engages in "***ual 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
***ual desire of any person . . . . "Contact" means intentional touching,
either directly or through clothing.
Mr. Clinton is a smart man - are we really supposed to believe that he
does
not consider his actions with Lewinsky as ***, as described in Exhibit 1?!
COME ON! I am not repeating the ***ual details here - people can read the
re****t themselves, but can anyone honestly say, after reading the re****t
and
the details of Lewinsky and Clinton's relation****p that the President's
actions with Lewinsky were not *** under Definition 1? Clinton also
testified that he didn't remember being alone with Lewsinsky - are we to
really believe that? He stated that Monica's original testimony, in which
she stated there was no ***ual contact, was accurate. Can people honestly
say that isn't a lie?
http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/starr1.html
|
