Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KeepMovingForward" data-source="post: 1241795" data-attributes="member: 4815">McClish devotes a full chapter to studying the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal.&nbsp; Clinton never outright denies his involvement with Lewinsky, instead using evasive/slipperly language to avoid having to tell a lie.&nbsp; Some examples:&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;I did not have sexual relations with that woman.&quot;- The most famous quote, looks like a strong denial on the surface.&nbsp; However, Clinton equates sexual relations with vaginal penetration, so when he denies having sexual relations, for him he's telling the truth.&nbsp; Even when the courts explicitly defined what constituted &quot;sexual relations,&quot; Clinton was able to claim innocence because the courts neglected to include receiving oral sex(what actually happened) in their definition of &quot;sexual relations.&quot;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; During an interview on News Hour with Jim Lehrer:Lehrer:&nbsp; &quot;You had no sexual relationship with this young woman?&quot;Clinton:&nbsp; &quot;There is not a sexual relationship- that is accurate.&quot;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The question is asked in past tense, Clinton answers in the present.&nbsp; Clinton can't answer in the past tense because he would have to lie about having HAD a sexual relationship with Lewinsky, so he instead states his answer in the present; at the time of the interview, the investigation was under way, so it's safe to assume he was no longer involved with Lewinsky.&nbsp; Therefore Clinton can answer truthfully that he's not currently in a sexual relationship with Lewinsky while avoiding addressing the past.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; It may seem petty to micro-analyze such small details, but they're the backbone of statement analysis.&nbsp; There's endless examples of Clinton using deceptive language throughout the investigation to avoid having to lie about his involvement with Lewinsky.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KeepMovingForward, post: 1241795, member: 4815"] McClish devotes a full chapter to studying the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal. Clinton never outright denies his involvement with Lewinsky, instead using evasive/slipperly language to avoid having to tell a lie. Some examples: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."- The most famous quote, looks like a strong denial on the surface. However, Clinton equates sexual relations with vaginal penetration, so when he denies having sexual relations, for him he's telling the truth. Even when the courts explicitly defined what constituted "sexual relations," Clinton was able to claim innocence because the courts neglected to include receiving oral sex(what actually happened) in their definition of "sexual relations." During an interview on News Hour with Jim Lehrer: Lehrer: "You had no sexual relationship with this young woman?" Clinton: "There is not a sexual relationship- that is accurate." The question is asked in past tense, Clinton answers in the present. Clinton can't answer in the past tense because he would have to lie about having HAD a sexual relationship with Lewinsky, so he instead states his answer in the present; at the time of the interview, the investigation was under way, so it's safe to assume he was no longer involved with Lewinsky. Therefore Clinton can answer truthfully that he's not currently in a sexual relationship with Lewinsky while avoiding addressing the past. It may seem petty to micro-analyze such small details, but they're the backbone of statement analysis. There's endless examples of Clinton using deceptive language throughout the investigation to avoid having to lie about his involvement with Lewinsky. [/QUOTE]

Verification