Monica. We Hardly Knew You

By Jeralyn, Section Off Topic
Posted on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 01:31:04 AM EST
Tags: Monica Lewinshy (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Congratulations to Monica Lewinsky, who just graduated from the London School of Economics with a master of science degree in social psychology. Her thesis topic was: In Search of the Impartial Juror: An Exploration of the Third Person Effect and Pre-Trial Publicity."

You Go. Girl. More power to you. I spent years on tv night after night sticking up for you (and trashing Linda Tripp) and I'm glad it turned out so well for you. Your mother may have gotten the rawest deal of all, getting called to a grand jury to disclose mother-daughter secrets, but she was there for you. Your parents got you good lawyers, once you got past the Ginsberg guy who wanted to be on every sunday news show every Sunday.

You ~~came out of this classy and~~ rose above it and came out in tact. If you are pondering what to do next, let me suggest law school.

I expect we'll be reading more about you in the years to come. Kudos for rising above the media nastiness and going to a better place with a stronger sense of self. Good luck to you in the future.

< The Fatuity of Frank Rich | Gov. Schwarzenegger Breaks Leg Skiing >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Monica. We Hardly Knew You | 41 comments (41 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

clinton was impeached (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by cpinva on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 11:09:07 AM EST

because a republican congress spent 40 million dollars to find................nothing. best they could come up with was l'affaire lewinsky, and that he'd lied about it. imagine that, a guy lying about an affair!

in clinton's defense, unlike his male republican counterparts, he at least had an affair with a girl. :)

Do you really want to open that subject up?? (none / 0) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 06:32:19 PM EST

try to concentrate ... (none / 0) (#34)
by Sailor on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 09:48:16 AM EST

... and stay on topic for a change.


: I assume you are talking to cpinva. (none / 0) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 10:10:28 AM EST

Something I never did understand? (none / 0) (#1)
by plumberboy on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 05:14:37 AM EST

I never did understand why Monica needed a lawyer or was even in trouble.The United States has not gotten so self-righteous that an affair is illegal right? I know the right was trying to impeach Clinton and stuff.I never really understood what exactly happened there for a few years with Monica,whitewater,and impeachment.I kinda just started ignoring the news.I hope someone can help shed a little light on these matters,well happy holidays to everyone on the site I really enjoy reading the articles and comments.

: Shades of Libby (none / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 12:36:06 PM EST

That's a good question. I never could figure what illegal act she was involved with. Perhaps she had made false statements to the DOJ?
Advice on her GJ appearances??
Anybody???

Something I don't remember (none / 0) (#2)
by DavidDvorkin on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 10:03:11 AM EST

Did Monica ever apologize to Hilary?

Never mind the sliminess and evil intentions of the rightwing. That's a separate issue. I would have been exposed if we had an independent press.

Monica's part in the affair can be somewhat excused because of her youth, but nonetheless she participated in the betrayal of the man's wife. If she did apologize, that's a good and necessary step. If not, then it's hard to applaud her now.

: She Did Apologize (none / 0) (#7)
by Jeralyn on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 11:03:39 AM EST

Monica apologized in her 20/20 interview with Barbara Walters in March, 1999:

Barbara Walters asked Lewinsky what she wanted to say first and foremost. Lewinsky said that she wanted to apologize to the country and especially to Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.
[Mulitple references available on Lexis.com]

Monica (none / 0) (#3)
by wlgriffi on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 10:14:45 AM EST

"You came out of this classy and in tact. If you are pondering what to do next, let me suggest law school. I'd hire you in heartbeat to to do criminal defense work."

ROFLMAO!!! "....'tis the season to be jolly
FA LA LA --LA LA...."

: you're right (none / 0) (#5)
by Jeralyn on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 10:50:04 AM EST

classy was a stretch. I've changed it.

plumberboy (none / 0) (#4)
by Che's Lounge on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 10:29:16 AM EST

Clinton was impeached for lying to the special prosecutor about certain aspects of their relationship. The rest of the whole mess of the Clinton investigtions was predicated upon the republican modus operandi:

Run, or ruin.

not a prosecutor (none / 0) (#6)
by eric on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 10:55:20 AM EST

Clinton was impeached for lying to the special prosecutor

No. I don't think so. It was just in a stupid deposition in a baseless civil lawsuit.


2 articles of impeachment (none / 0) (#18)
by ding7777 on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 09:11:55 AM EST

The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
Approved by House 228-206

The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case.
Approved by House 221-212


I agree that the GOP Congress was treasonous (none / 0) (#21)
by Repack Rider on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 03:34:57 PM EST

The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

That is a lie, of course, since the matter to which he gave an untruthful reply had nothing to do with the matter at trial, and that means it was not perjury. In addition, the case was settled out of court and the deposition was moot, as though it had never taken place.

The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case.

Since the Lewinsky affair was completely unrelated to the Jones case, that would be another lie, sanctioned by trhe Republican majority who, apparently, have never received any legal training.

Thank you for pointing out Republican ignorance and their criminal attempt to cancel the result of the 1992 and 1996 elections. It is hard to fathom the depth of Republican corruption, but your two examples are more than enough evidence that the Republican majority hated America, democracy, and the Constitution.

Good riddance to those traitors, and not soon enough.

When President Bush lied to Congress, THAT was a federal crime, but Bill Clinton's lie was not. Why didn't the Republican majority take any offense at Bush's lies to their faces, which have cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars and killed tens of thousands of people, while taking such umbrage at a lie of no consequence to the Republic and which harmed not a soul?


Over the top a bit... (none / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 06:28:32 PM EST

Uh, the 1992 election was moot because the 1996 election had happened after it.... calender's work like that. So they couldn't have undone the 1992 election, eh??

And I think the requirement is, or at least what the Constitution says is:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So what has "federal" to do with anything?

Now, are you going to tell me that if you are under oath and lie about one subject and don't another, that isn't perjury.

Funny. The last time I was sworn in they said something about "The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth..."

Can any of the lawyers around here comment on that?

BTW - The fact that it was settled out of court has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

BTW - Before you launch any personal attacks, I have commented many times that I thought the Repubs shouldn't have did what they did. Not because I thought Clinton was right, but because I thought their actions hurt the country more than his.

Two wrongs don't make a right, RePack. Your defense of Clinton is as bad as the Repubs defense of their actions against him.


perjury (none / 0) (#25)
by roger on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 06:38:13 PM EST

is a lie, regarding a material fact in dispute.

The question that Clinton gave a false answer to was not material to the suit. The impeachment was legally very, very, weak


Then they need to change the oath, (none / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 06:50:15 PM EST

and have a lawyer define every question...

The impeachment may have been weak... your excuse for lying under oath is even weaker.

Especially if the person is suppoedly a man of character, leader of the free world, etc., etc., et al and a hiccup or three.


Roger (none / 0) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 06:52:22 PM EST

Do they get to stop and go out and ask their lawyer about every question??

BTW - Thanks for the info.


: not only that, (none / 0) (#28)
by roger on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 07:57:33 PM EST

Their lawyer can sit next to them during the depo

Monica (none / 0) (#8)
by alapip on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 11:05:16 AM EST

I think the previous judgemental comment shows both a lack of reality and of empathy. Certainly, both Monica and Bill showed a failure of self control, but the immense attractiveness of a person in a position of fame and power, and likewise, the intense desire that can be engendered in a matured man by a young and lovely woman, in both instances will sometimes overcome their individual defenses.

One cannot make a realistic judgement if one has never been in a like position, or has not at least tried to "walk a mile in their moccasins".

We are all, for the most part, at the mercy of our personal brain chemistry and the effects our environment has in accenting or nulling inherited tendencies. After long consideration, I conclude that most well informed people would have to agree that the nature/nurture arguement, as well as the evolutionary process, has been well established as demonstrably true. However, I do not think that 'most well informed people' have necessarily taken this knowledge to that next logical step, which is to apply it to their internal selves, questioning their motives. Are they making realistic decisions about interactions with their fellow man and society at large, or are their unconscious buttons simply being pushed? Are they truly exhibiting free will?

Sometime in our lives we hopefully will arrive at a point in our personal evolution where our 'automatic' progress will bump up against our sudden realization that we have never actually exhibited free will in our decisions and actions up to that point. Until one comes to that realization, I argue, it is virtually impossible for free will to be demonstrated. We have been responding to various situations, (stimuli), as we have been 'programmed' by our personal nature/nurture.

No, we are not computers or automatons, and yes, we must be held responsible for our actions, (otherwise societal chaos would likely ensue). However, in the judging and punishing process, whether personal or societal, we certainly should err in the direction of leniency and understanding, if we err at all.

In the meantime, Happy Holidays to all, peace, and take your vitamins.

: Let's not forget... (none / 0) (