Parsing Bill -- Again

By Rick Horowitz

Just a coincidence? Of course it's just a coincidence! You know how unpredictable your schedule can be; imagine you're busy defending some high-profile client -- the Leader of the Free World, say -- against some messy lawsuit he'd love to see buried somewhere far from the spotlight. Some sexual harassment thing, say, from some woman named Paula.

There's no telling how long that kind of thing can take. So if the time comes to file your first official response to all those embarrassing allegations, and it just so happens that it's the day before a big holiday weekend -- the Fourth of July weekend, no less -- and everybody's way too busy loading beach chairs and potato salad to pay any attention to lawsuits (even the messy kind), and the only people with even a chance of catching the nightly news or noticing the next day's papers are shut-ins and obsessives...

These things happen. Just a coincidence.

Right.

Just because the spinners want the Paula Jones suit out of sight doesn't mean we have to play along, does it? So let's take a moment here -- we'll have all summer to catch up with John Huang & Friends -- to check out the latest maneuvers on the lust front. Call me suspicious, but I can't help thinking there's less (or is it more?) here than meets the eye.

It certainly sounds clear enough, at least the parts of the Clinton response that made it into print: "The president adamantly denies the false allegations advanced in the complaint. Specifically, at no time did the president make sexual advances toward the plaintiff, or otherwise act improperly in her presence. At no time did the president conspire to or sexually harass the plaintiff. At no time did the president deprive plaintiff of her constitutional rights. At no time did the president act in a manner intended to, or which could, inflict emotional distress upon the plaintiff. At no time did the president act in a manner intended to or which could defame the plaintiff."

And I say, "Fine, the president didn't do any of these things. What about the governor?"

See, whatever did or didn't happen between Bill Clinton and Paula Jones happened back in 1991. Bill Clinton wasn't the president back in 1991; he was the governor of Arkansas -- so claiming "the president" didn't get down and dirty doesn't quite dispose of the matter. I mean, is anyone suggesting that George Bush put the moves on Paula Jones in that hotel room?

There's just something about the phrasing...

There's something familiar about the phrasing. In fact, Bill Clinton's attorney, Bob Bennett, paid a visit to "Meet the Press" only a few weeks ago, and the conversation went this way:

TIM RUSSERT: So the president of the United States will say categorically he never touched Paula Jones.

BOB BENNETT: The president of the United States will say he never touched Paula Jones, but more importantly, the president of the United States did not touch Paula Jones.

And I say, "Fine -- what about the governor of Arkansas? Did the governor of Arkansas touch Paula Jones?"

I'm crazy. I should be signing up for Nitpickers Anonymous. Maybe so, but with Bill Clinton, the details count. This is the guy, remember, who once upon a time answered charges that he had smoked marijuana by insisting he'd never broken his country's drug laws. Everyone focused on the "never" -- turns out the key part of the sentence was the "his country" part. Turns out he'd smoked the stuff over in England.

This is also the guy, remember, who said he'd never changed an administration policy "solely" because of a big campaign contribution. That "solely" is an interesting little modifier, don't you think? Kind of makes the rest of the sentence useless.

Of all the dozens and dozens of things Bill Clinton is good at, the not-quite-complete, hang-on-to-that-wiggle-room, if-you-want-to-read-it-that-way-that's-your-business answer is right on top of the list.

He wants us to take him at his word? I say, "Fine -- every word."

7/8/97