Jewish World Review March 19, 2002 / 6 Nisan, 5762
Instead, she is currently counting the money HBO paid her for agreeing to do "Monica in Black and White," and basking in the afterglow of what might (hopefully, but doubtfully) be her final moments in the national spotlight.
The documentary currently running on HBO even makes her out to be some sort of victim/hero, at least to the college students who lobbed mostly softball questions and supportive cries of "We're on your side Monica!" at the often sobbing ex-Presidential sperm receptor.
Under any circumstances, seeing someone as unworthy of public adulation as Monica Lewinsky being treated as figure of actual importance would be nauseating, but in this case it is almost unbearable.
That is because the facts CLEARLY show that Monica Lewinsky is a felon who belongs behind bars. The truly amazing thing is that NOBODY seems to have even noticed her crime, even though it was revealed on national television, twice.
No, I have not forgotten that Monica received "immunity" from Ken Starr for her past transgressions during her bid to elude testifying truthfully in the Paula Jones case, or that her immunity was extended through the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. But what HAS been forgotten is something critical to which Monica testified during her impeachment "trial" deposition that she has now blatantly contradicted in two later TV interviews. (It is vital to note that there is no such thing as "immunity" for FUTURE perjury.)
You may recall that much was made during Monica's impeachment testimony that she declared that, at least in her mind, there was NO "linkage" between the President asking her to file an affidavit in the Jones case, and that sworn statement having to be false. This was vitally important because, without Monica admitting that Clinton wanted her to lie, it became almost impossible to prove one of the strongest elements of the obstruction of justice case against the President.
While it strained credulity (even for Democrats) to think that Monica honestly thought that Clinton had actually given her the option of filing an affidavit in which she admitted that she had serviced the President on numerous occasions, as long as Monica stuck to that story her boy Bill would remain in the clear.
Then came the super-hyped interview with ABC's aging queen of celebrity interviews, Barbara Walters. Amidst a mostly vapid discussion in which one of the most noteworthy questions involved Monica's choice of lipstick, Walters was able (probably by mistake) to reap at least one significant revelation from Lewinsky.
In chilling detail, Monica told Walters how terrified she was (after the FBI had apprehended her) about what Clinton would say regarding their relationship in his deposition in the Paula Jones case the next morning. Thinking that Monica's false affidavit made it safe for him to deny the relationship, Clinton was about to get "caught with his pants down."
Monica said she even dreamed up a plot to escape, go to the site of Clinton's testimony, and hold up a sign that simply said, "Don't do it!" as the President's limousine drove by. Not only did the magnitude of this little gem glide right over Walter's uninformed head, I did not see ONE mention of this obvious inconsistency with her impeachment deposition anywhere in the news media.
Now, in Monica's latest attempt to recast her image, she has provided even further evidence that she committed perjury in the impeachment "trial" of the President of the United States. In the HBO interview/infomercial Monica tells her friendly audience that she actually tried to use a pay phone in the ladies room of the Ritz Carlton hotel (where Mr. Starr's mean men had her "held") to call Clinton's secretary, Betty Currie, to "warn" the President that he was walking into a "perjury trap" (which, legally speaking, does not exist).
Obviously, if what Monica had testified truthfully about there being no "linkage" in her mind between the President asking her to file an affidavit and that testimony having to be false, there would have been NO reason for her to be so concerned about how Clinton would testify the next day. In the HBO special she even goes so far as to explain that she assumed that Clinton would lie in his deposition.
As upsetting as it was for Bill Clinton to basically get away with his perjury, at least he was impeached, held in contempt of court, fined and disbarred. Monica Lewinsky, who was given immunity from admitted crimes and on whom great amounts of taxpayer money were spent for her "truthful" testimony, has not even faced the threat an indictment (nor even ONE press question about this!) and is free to profit from her felonies.
As maddening as that is, even more frustrating is that no one seems gives a
03/12/02: Sir Charles is Royally Wrong