We now move on to the next, obviously very carefully-crafted and complex denial, that of Article II, the indictment for suborning of perjury (obstruction of justice) and what bears a very clear resemblance to bribery. Let's hit the weak points (this may take a while; there are so many):

"President Clinton denies" blah blah blah again...he didn't help Lewinsky file a false affidavit and didn't get her a job after she filed it. And the Maraud Squad continue that even Lewinsky denies it. To begin with, read their actual quote of Lewinsky, using my emphasis: "[N]o one ever *asked* me to lie and I was never *promised* a job for my silence." Try that one on for size. Now let me add a couple of things to it: "[N]o one ever asked me to lie [but I was given the impression that I should and that I would be protected if I did] and I was never promised a job for my silence [but I got one through the recommendation of one of the President's closest advisors]." Any questions?

Following this are two unattributed quotes that are termed 'proffered statements' on Lewinsky's behalf, used to support the contention that she denied these indictments. Don't you lawyers think that it might be germane to indicate exactly who proffered those statements, when, and where? Or perhaps you have something to hide on that score as well?

Now, call me crazy, but why should we believe a woman who filed a false affidavit and who possibly still loves the President when she offers testimony on things that cannot be corroborated, except by Clinton? That's sort of like the rat guarding the cheese, isn't it? Oh, yeah, if she lies she'll lose her amnesty for filing the false affidavit. Sure. And no one would ever be able to prove it, or so Clinton and Lewinsky might think.

Next comes the 'cover story.' First, to addle the reader's mind enough for their story, the Maraud Squad throws in some completely irrelevant contentions: that Clinton says Lewinsky asked him if she could avoid testifying in the Jones case by filing an affidavit, and that Clinton told her he thought other witnesses had filed and that they might not have to testify. So what? What, exactly, does this have to do with the indictments in Article II?

Following this is another Presidential denial. Then the Cream Team hit you with the zinger: "The President states that he believed that Ms. Lewinsky could have filed a *limited but truthful* affidavit that might have enabled her to avoid having to testify in the Jones case." (my emphasis) Sorry, folks, there ain't no such thing as 'limited but truthful.' It's either completely true or it's false. Clinton was under oath to tell 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,' so help him God. But aside from that, doesn't this tend to echo the pattern of 'limited truthfulness' (AKA lying by omission) shown by Clinton himself during the time of this scandal? If that statement was supposed to inspire trust in Clinton, it fell far short of the mark. If it's supposed to exonerate Clinton, it pretty much went in a completely opposite direction.

Then "The President denies"...twice, yet...that he didn't ask her to lie if she testified in the Jones case. Was that for the 'hard of reading?' We understood the first 14 times you denied things. Get on with it.

Next, Clinton says that the two of them may have discussed how to conceal their relationship, and that she wasn't a witness at the time. The latter part of that contention is a plain vanilla obfuscation; Lewinsky didn't have to be a witness at the time for the two of them to be committing crimes. And he admits that he and Lewinsky had already participated in a conspiracy to keep things from 'getting out.' So who is to say that they aren't conspiring again, right now? Does anyone remember a comment by one of Lewinsky's friends and associates (I don't remember who said it in particular) that Lewinsky would wear certain hats when she was caught on film as a signal that she's still 'with' Clinton?

Lewinsky is then quoted that she " 'pretty much can' exclude the possibility that she and Clinton ever had discussions" about hiding their relationship after she became a witness in the Jones case. That quote leaves more than a little doubt in my mind as to its truth. But, again, it's beside the point. All that was necessary was for Clinton to know that Lewinsky *could be* a witness in the Jones case. The fact that they never discussed it after she was officially a witness is immaterial, whether true or not. She is then quoted as saying that she and Clinton never discussed anything specifically regarding the Jones case and that "she does not believe they discussed the content of any deposition that [she] might be involved in at a later date." Why does that quote sound even less affirmative than the rest? Ah, what a tangled web we weave...

Next comes another redundant denial, that "he 'corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence' in the Jones case." Except for his own deposition, of course. Now we come to the question of the 'returned' gifts. The heart of this latest denial is this: "The President denies that he ever asked his secretary, Ms. Betty Currie, to retrieve gifts he had given Ms. Lewinsky, or that he ever asked, encouraged, or suggested that Ms. Lewinsky conceal the gifts. Ms. Currie told prosecutors as early as January 1998 and repeatedly thereafter that it was Ms. Lewinsky who had contacted her about retrieving gifts." Well, Ms. Currie was proven wrong. Cell phone records indicate it was Currie who called Lewinsky. So, either Currie was acting on her own or Clinton had asked her to get the gifts from Lewinsky. Let the obstruction continue...

And the denials just keep on coming... The Vernon Jordan problem is addressed next. According to Clinton's testimony (and the claims of the Maraud Squad in this so-called 'document'), and even other witnesses, Lewinsky had initiated the idea of Jordan getting her a job, but nothing was done about it until after she and Clinton had their conversations regarding the upcoming Jones case. Are we then supposed to believe that, all of a sudden, out of the kindness of his heart and for no other reason, Clinton asked Jordan to help Lewinsky find a job, when Lewinsky's request had lain languishing since she had advanced it? Exactly why would or should *anyone* believe this? What evidence have the apologists provided in support of this contention? None, as usual. "Indeed, Ms. Lewinsky was offered a job in New York at the United Nations more than a month before she was identified as a possible witness." Again, so what? Which job did she end up taking?

Next, Clinton denies the Bennett allegations, and claims he wasn't paying attention during the exchanges between Bennett and Judge Wright. That's already been covered in my rebuttal of Article I. Following that is the Currie problem (Clinton sure has a lot of problems, doesn't he?)...again Clinton denies that he tried to influence Currie's testimony, and claims that Currie felt no pressure from Clinton to cover up for him. Only that's not exactly what Currie said in her testimony, after she was pressed. Read the House managers' case brief on that score (it's on the bottom of page 13 and the top of page 14 in my copy of the brief). And read some more of it to find the complete refutation of the Maraud Squad's assertion. "Clinton states that, after the Independent Counsel investigation became public, when Ms. Currie was scheduled to testify, he told Ms. Currie to 'tell the truth.' " This was after he had made some plainly false statements to her in their previous meeting, including: "I was never really alone with Monica, right?", "You were always there when Monica was there, right?", and "Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?". Exactly what signal was that 'tell the truth' line meant to convey?

For our final negative denial (as opposed to the 'affirmative' ones which follow), we have the lying to staff, aides, and family problem. Here is the most telling part of the argument in favor of Clinton on this: "He sought to avoid disclosing his personal wrongdoing to protect his family and himself from hurt and public embarrassment." So he chose his own interests over those of the country. Sound familiar?

Then come the 'Affirmative Defenses'. They are the same as for Article I. No comment is neccessary on the first or second affirmative misfire by the Maraud Squad; they've already been dealt with. As to the third one: "For the reasons set forth in the THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ARTICLE I, Article II is constitutionally defective because it charges multiple instances of alleged acts of obstruction in one article, which makes it impossible for the Senate to comply with the Constitutional mandate that any conviction be by the concurrence of the two-thirds of the members. Accordingly, Article II should fail." Sorry folks, you missed again. Reread Article II. The indictment has to do with a *pattern* of obstruction of justice, as it clearly states, and the parts of that pattern are delineated. It isn't necessary for Senators to find that Clinton committed all of them to indicate a pattern. However, Senators in their judgment could find Clinton guilty of obstruction of justice even if they feel that only one of the acts mentioned had been proven. There is no similarity between this argument's application to Article I and that to Article II. Part of finding perjury is a requirement that specific, discrete statements be found to be untruthful, and that is why Article I could be threatened by this argument. But obstruction of justice as it fits into an alleged pattern is a whole different kettle of fish.

This piece of trash is then signed by the Dirty Dozen minus one (Clinton, of course; where is his signature?). Following is the list of these lawyers: David E. Kendall, Nicole K. Seligman, Emmet T. Flood, Max Stier, Glen Donath, Alicia Marti, Charles F.C. Ruff, Gregory B. Craig, Bruce R. Lindsey, Cheryl D. Mills, and Lanny A. Breuer. Remember those names if you're ever the defendant in the trial of a capital crime (if you've got the money to be able to afford them and, believe me, their price just skyrocketed). They'll do whatever they can to get you off, whether or not it bears any relation to the truth.

- The Watcher (Secondhand denials don't make 'em any more true. Scorecard: not even half a technicality, and an amazing number of lies and half-truths. I have 'three little words' for him: 'Clinton, you're fired!')