Salon Newsreal | That wasn't foreplay, that was a four-poster!

A L S O+T O D A Y

The culture of prosecution
By Bruce Shapiro
President Clinton is the victim of a tough-on-crime mentality that has trivialized the rights of the accused
(01/08/99)
Back from the brink
By Joshua Micah Marshall
A Senate compromise on the impeachment trial ends the partisan bickering, for now
(01/08/99)

T A B L E+T A L K
Speaker Howdy Doody? What do you think of Livingston replacement Dennis Hastert? Get partisan in the Politics area of Table Talk

Portrait of a political "pit bull"
By Russ Baker
Rep. Dan Burton, who called President Clinton a "scumbag," has a few questions to answer about his own behavior
(12/22/98)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

R E C E N T L Y
Impeachment diary
By Anonymous
A senior Senate aide keeps busy by dishing the dirt on dealmaking, perjury and free food
(01/07/99)
Lott's losing control
By Joshua Micah Marshall
Impeachment proceedings in the Senate could get as ugly as in the House
(01/06/99)
The man Clinton could have been
By Jeff Stein
Sen. Tom Daschle, the Democrats' point man on impeachment, is a tough negotiator who could save Clinton from himself
(01/06/99)
My dinner with Jerry
By Joan Walsh
A reporter reflects that Jerry Brown's idiot-savant approach to race may carry Oakland into a multicultural future without rancor
(01/05/99)
Letter from Havana
By Frank Smyth
Gays, Catholics and transvestites find their place in the new Cuba
(01/04/99)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

spacer

THAT WASN'T FOREPLAY, THAT WAS A FOUR-POSTER! | PAGE 1, 2
- - - - - - - - - -
Let's do a role play. How would you question Monica Lewinsky if you were the president's attorney?
You would have to suggest that she was not in a position to observe the president's hand while she was fellating him. Well, that's probably true -- her eyes were presumably elsewhere. Maybe she could have mistaken a moving piece of furniture for a hand?
You're joking. You would suggest that?
The line of cross-examination would be something like this:

Lawyer: Miss Lewinsky, isn't it true that when you claim the president touched your breast, you did not actually see his hands?
Lewinsky: Yes, I didn't see them, but I felt them.
Lawyer: You didn't see them, because your eyes were focused elsewhere, isn't that right?
Lewinsky: Yes, that's right.
Lawyer: In fact your eyes were focused on Mr. Clinton's groin.
Lewinsky: Yes, they were and occasionally I looked up into his eyes.
Lawyer: You didn't see his hands. Is it fair to say you felt something touch your breasts and to you it felt like a hand?
Lewinsky: Yes, it did.
Lawyer: In truth, since you didn't see it, couldn't it just as easily have been a chair, a piece of furniture or something else?
Lewinsky: Well, no. To me it felt like a hand.
Lawyer: But you wanted his hand to be on your breast.
Lewinsky: Yes, I did.
Lawyer: In fact -- you said that you loved him.
Lewinsky: Yes, I did.
Lawyer: You wanted to reciprocate the affections that were being bestowed upon him by you.
Lewinsky: Yes, I did.
Lawyer: In fact, at one point you talked about marrying him, isn't that right?
Lewinsky: Yes, that's right.
Lawyer: So you desperately wanted him to be engaging in reciprocal sex?
Lewinsky: Yes, I did.
Lawyer: No further questions.

With that, a lawyer has possibly, if not probably, cast a real doubt on whether or not the president's hands have caressed the ample breasts of the intern. But the lawyer has also made himself and his client out to be a total louse. It's -- excuse the pun -- a touchy situation for a defense lawyer.
How would you question other potential witnesses, such as Vernon Jordan?
Well, the others are a lot easier because they are friendly to the president. Vernon Jordan adamantly denies he promised Monica Lewinsky a job for her silence. And Bettie Currie adamantly denies the president told her to get the gifts when he knew he was going to be subpoenaed. Those witnesses are easy. Monica Lewinsky poses tremendous dangers to both the defense and the prosecution. A lot of people on both sides of the aisle originally wanted to not call her at all.
Won't questioning Monica Lewinsky in such graphic detail make the lawyers look bad?
The truth is, in courtrooms large and small around America you have rape trials, sexual harassment trials and sexual abuse trials where the testimony is often quite graphic -- "When were you touched? Where were you touched? Was there ejaculation? Was there penetration?" You need to get specific. But when you cross-examine someone like Monica Lewinsky, that specificity can backfire on the defense counsel. Trials are not plays. You can't see the script in advance and make changes and corrections. You have to gauge if she is credible, is she sympathetic, is she believable, is this the kind of testimony on which the Senate of the United States would vote to impeach a president? If the answer is yes, you have to cross-examine her. If the answer is no, then you don't.
So if you could give one piece of advice to the president's lawyers, what would it be?
Don't act like a bully. The president -- although he frequently forgets this -- must remember that he is the president of the United States. And as such, is a figure who is perceived -- correctly -- to wield great power. He can blow up the world, for example. To have him and his lawyers beating up on witnesses is a very dangerous thing to do. At the end of the day the ultimate argument is going to be that these statements were false statements about private sexual conduct and they don't constitute impeachable offenses.
SALON | Jan. 8, 1999

A L S O+T O D A Y The culture of prosecution By Bruce Shapiro President Clinton is the victim of a tough-on-crime mentality that has trivialized the rights of the accused (01/08/99) Back from the brink By Joshua Micah Marshall A Senate compromise on the impeachment trial ends the partisan bickering, for now (01/08/99) T A B L E+T A L K Speaker Howdy Doody? What do you think of Livingston replacement Dennis Hastert? Get partisan in the Politics area of Table Talk Portrait of a political "pit bull" By Russ Baker Rep. Dan Burton, who called President Clinton a "scumbag," has a few questions to answer about his own behavior (12/22/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R E C E N T L Y Impeachment diary By Anonymous A senior Senate aide keeps busy by dishing the dirt on dealmaking, perjury and free food (01/07/99) Lott's losing control By Joshua Micah Marshall Impeachment proceedings in the Senate could get as ugly as in the House (01/06/99) The man Clinton could have been By Jeff Stein Sen. Tom Daschle, the Democrats' point man on impeachment, is a tough negotiator who could save Clinton from himself (01/06/99) My dinner with Jerry By Joan Walsh A reporter reflects that Jerry Brown's idiot-savant approach to race may carry Oakland into a multicultural future without rancor (01/05/99) Letter from Havana By Frank Smyth Gays, Catholics and transvestites find their place in the new Cuba (01/04/99) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		THAT WASN'T FOREPLAY, THAT WAS A FOUR-POSTER! \| PAGE 1, 2 - - - - - - - - - - Let's do a role play. How would you question Monica Lewinsky if you were the president's attorney? You would have to suggest that she was not in a position to observe the president's hand while she was fellating him. Well, that's probably true -- her eyes were presumably elsewhere. Maybe she could have mistaken a moving piece of furniture for a hand? You're joking. You would suggest that? The line of cross-examination would be something like this: Lawyer: Miss Lewinsky, isn't it true that when you claim the president touched your breast, you did not actually see his hands? Lewinsky: Yes, I didn't see them, but I felt them. Lawyer: You didn't see them, because your eyes were focused elsewhere, isn't that right? Lewinsky: Yes, that's right. Lawyer: In fact your eyes were focused on Mr. Clinton's groin. Lewinsky: Yes, they were and occasionally I looked up into his eyes. Lawyer: You didn't see his hands. Is it fair to say you felt something touch your breasts and to you it felt like a hand? Lewinsky: Yes, it did. Lawyer: In truth, since you didn't see it, couldn't it just as easily have been a chair, a piece of furniture or something else? Lewinsky: Well, no. To me it felt like a hand. Lawyer: But you wanted his hand to be on your breast. Lewinsky: Yes, I did. Lawyer: In fact -- you said that you loved him. Lewinsky: Yes, I did. Lawyer: You wanted to reciprocate the affections that were being bestowed upon him by you. Lewinsky: Yes, I did. Lawyer: In fact, at one point you talked about marrying him, isn't that right? Lewinsky: Yes, that's right. Lawyer: So you desperately wanted him to be engaging in reciprocal sex? Lewinsky: Yes, I did. Lawyer: No further questions. With that, a lawyer has possibly, if not probably, cast a real doubt on whether or not the president's hands have caressed the ample breasts of the intern. But the lawyer has also made himself and his client out to be a total louse. It's -- excuse the pun -- a touchy situation for a defense lawyer. How would you question other potential witnesses, such as Vernon Jordan? Well, the others are a lot easier because they are friendly to the president. Vernon Jordan adamantly denies he promised Monica Lewinsky a job for her silence. And Bettie Currie adamantly denies the president told her to get the gifts when he knew he was going to be subpoenaed. Those witnesses are easy. Monica Lewinsky poses tremendous dangers to both the defense and the prosecution. A lot of people on both sides of the aisle originally wanted to not call her at all. Won't questioning Monica Lewinsky in such graphic detail make the lawyers look bad? The truth is, in courtrooms large and small around America you have rape trials, sexual harassment trials and sexual abuse trials where the testimony is often quite graphic -- "When were you touched? Where were you touched? Was there ejaculation? Was there penetration?" You need to get specific. But when you cross-examine someone like Monica Lewinsky, that specificity can backfire on the defense counsel. Trials are not plays. You can't see the script in advance and make changes and corrections. You have to gauge if she is credible, is she sympathetic, is she believable, is this the kind of testimony on which the Senate of the United States would vote to impeach a president? If the answer is yes, you have to cross-examine her. If the answer is no, then you don't. So if you could give one piece of advice to the president's lawyers, what would it be? Don't act like a bully. The president -- although he frequently forgets this -- must remember that he is the president of the United States. And as such, is a figure who is perceived -- correctly -- to wield great power. He can blow up the world, for example. To have him and his lawyers beating up on witnesses is a very dangerous thing to do. At the end of the day the ultimate argument is going to be that these statements were false statements about private sexual conduct and they don't constitute impeachable offenses. SALON \| Jan. 8, 1999