"It all depends on what you mean by the word is"

[pnorman]

I've been hearing that phrase time and time again, and attributed of course to Bill Clinton. I tried to Google it, but came up with nothing conclusive.

By now, I STRONGLY suspect it to be an Urban Legend ... and a MALICIOUS one at that. Can anyone here at DU provide confirmation or denial of that alleged quote, and the context if it's correct?

pnorman

[Todd B]

1. Here is an article describing said quote:

Did some searching and here is an article about said quote:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/I/It/It_depends_what_the_definition_of_is_is...htm

[marions ghost]

6. yep

he said "it depends on what the meaning of "is" is"...during the Grand Jury testimony. He was widely criticized for that and also for attempts to limit the definition of sexual relations-- "I did NOT have sex with that woman...."

But one thing good about the Clinton impeachment--after that bizarre spectacle, nobody can say that impeachment is not justified now...

[LightningFlash]

2. McGovern already put this one to rest....

Dick Cheney claimed saddom hussein was seeking to attack and had a really powerful weapons program.

It was a lie.

Saddom's son in law in 1998 confirmed there was no more weapons. All destroyed. Investigation confirmed. Cheney LIED flat faced on the record....

[SmokingJacket]

3. Try "what the meaning of is is"

He did say it -- I saw a clip long ago -- it was in the context of talking about Monica Lewinsky (or possibly Paula Jones?) when he was being questioned by Ken Starr (or possibly someone else).

Sorry to be vague! I remember it very clearly because he had such a funny look on his face -- as if he knew how twisted his words sounded, but that it was the only way he could put it.

[jobycom]

4. He said it during the grand jury testimony

I'll try to dig it up, I've researched it before. If I recall, it's odd that he gets accused of being evasive with the statement, because it was the interrogator who was misusing the word. Something like, they asked Clinton if Lewinski was his mistress, and he said no, and they said he had already admitted to it, and he said yes, in the past but not the present, and they said he had just lied because she had once been and therefore still was, and he said "well I guess that depends on what your definition of is is."

I'll see if I can find it.

[merh]

5. If I am not mistaken, Clinton was asked during a deposition if

had ever had sex or sexual intercourse with Monica Lewinski. His response was "It depends on what is, is." "Is" being the definition of sexual intercourse. His response was a legitimate response in terms of the legal definition provided by the U.S. District Judge presiding over the case that required his deposition.

Her definition of sexual intercourse was a broad definition that did not emcompass oral gratification of Mr. Clinton, it referred to him touching body parts or giving sexual gratification. So his response, it depends on what is, is, was "accurate" under the definition governing the case as stipulated by the parties and accepted by the court.

[pnorman]

7. Thanks to all of you.

I now have the proper context. Although not particularly praiseworthy, it's a perfectly reasonable reply, given the nature of the interrogation. That certainly can't be said of the NUMEROUS quotes attributed to Dubya.

pnorman

[TahitiNut]

8. Let's try to be clearer about this.

In one of Monica Lewinsky's depositions, she stated (in effect) "there is no sexual relationship of any kind between me and President Clinton."

In other words, she swore that, at the time of the deposition, she was not having any kind of sexual relations with Clinton. The deposition stated it in the present tense when, in fact, their "affair" had terminated six months before.

During a Clinton deposition, an argument ensued between counsel, during which Clinton was asked by his own counsel whether Lewinsky's statement was true. At that point, he said it was. "Absolutely."

In a later interrogation/deposition, Clinton was challenged regarding his earlier deposition testimony that affirmed Lewinsky's deposition. That's when Clinton uttered the infamous "meaning of 'is'" quote.

In my opinion, Clinton was entirely within his rights to answer the question literally. AFAIK, it's a long-standing principle of law that any ambiguity in a question favors the defendant's interpretation. The defendant has absolutely no duty to assist the prosecution, including helping them rephrase their questions in a manner that might expose his culpability or, indeed, any personal information that was never relevant to the legal issues discussed. (Remember, none of it was ever relevant to the Paula Jones suit, which was what drove the deposition of Clinton.)

Indeed, that's EXACTLY why Clinton could not be charged with perjury. Clinton was NOT guilty of perjury, nor was he ever found guilty of perjury. He was, however, subject to other ethical obligations out side of the fact that he was a defendant. He was also a lawyer. Thus, completely outside of and separate from the Starr Inquisition and all the bullshit civil suits, he was sanctioned for a breach of ethics as a lawyer, NOT a defendant. As an "officer of the court," an attorney cannot engage in misleading statements before the court. This, of course, was a hyper-technical sanctions since attorneys actually do it all the time. Clinton chose not to fight the 5-year license suspension.


The giggling hyenas of the fascist right, having the attention spans of gnats, never fully trace the circumstances of what was a perfectly reasonable and ethical (for a defendant) stance. Bill Clinton showed a far greater respect and knowlege of the truth in this scenario than anyone has the right to expect from any politician.