Yes and No (Clinton's Law)

It was a strange sight, wasn't it? He may not be the most powerful man in the world, but as I write this he is still the leader of the most powerful country. And there he was looking small and nervous answering (or not answering if one is to be more precise) intimate questions about his sex life (sorry, one must get this right, about his un-sex life) from a high profile lawyer.
His demeanour was the same as any defendant in a tight spot in any witness box the world over. He was uncomfortable, uncertain and almost visibly wincing as each new question was put to him.
There were no cheering crowds to give him encouragement, no White House Aides (at least none in shot) to steer him away from danger or to whisk him away from the podium if the going became too hot.
He addressed his interrogator as "sir", something even hardened criminals do not do in this country.
If we thought he was a God beforehand, we knew after those hours of questioning that he was (and here I mean "is") a mere mortal whose throat gets dry when he is under pressure and who shares the same need as we all have to empty his bladder from time to time.
Intense debates no doubt took place on Monday night as SOLICITORS JOURNAL readers throughout the land sat on their sofas glued to the television watching a wholly new concept of legal interpretation being introduced into our culture.
Division was probably not so much along party lines:
"We must do what is right for the country, so okay let's lynch him" [Republicans].
"Oh it was nothing serious. Anyone can make a mistake" [Democrats].
Here it was more likely to be:
"Look at him, the slimy toad. He cannot even answer his name without being evasive and smirking" [the female response]
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone..." [a view from the other gender with the help of the Bible]
"That's typical. You men are all the same..."
Leave aside for a moment what happened in the Oval room. Most family lawyers have heard about far worse from their clients as every imaginable domestic appliance is brought into play in the name of sexual gratification. My erstwhile Jamaican partner would frequently come into my room, eyes round with wonder and pour out a messy description about what HE (it is usually the men) did with the vacuum cleaner, an electric toaster or the parrot.
The cigar will no doubt be added to that famous candy bar and the more famous swimming pool as part of the natural history of sexual scandal.
But we will move on. The tabloids will provide us with new (and more exciting) titillation. President Clinton will either struggle on, somehow facing down the knowing looks he will get wherever he goes, or he will resign and perhaps go back to his old job as a professor of law. And if he does, he might well start by writing a glossary of new meanings for old words. This will be of assistance in judicial systems the world over and enable lawyers to add a new perspective to forensic enquiry.
Here is how we might get to the truth in the Clintonesque era:
"And were you driving the car at the time of the collision"
"No"
"And when you say 'no' do you actually mean 'yes'?"
"Yes and no"
"So you are now denying that you were driving the car"
"It depends on what you mean by driving. I was in the car sitting behind the steering wheel with my feet on the pedals while it was moving along, but I wasn't driving it."
"What were you doing then?"
"Well you have to put the matter in perspective. In the times before cars, nobody drove them. They drove oxen and geese to market. Now, nobody is suggesting that I had a cow or a goose in the car, so I was not driving was I?"
"You were in the car which ran over Mrs Jenkins were you not?"
"Now it depends what you mean by 'in'. In my day we used to go to inns for a drink, and you're a barrister and you went to Inns of Court for those long boring meals. That's what I mean by the word. Clearly the car was not a pub and it certainly was not full of barristers so I must have been somewhere else and I certainly was not driving."
"But you said to the police officer afterwards that you were sorry that you ran over Mrs Jenkins and that you were driving."
"No I did not. My vocal chords may have constricted and produced a vibrating noise but I do not remember saying that."
"Are you now denying that you said that"
"I don't remember."
"But you have just been voted Mr Memory Man 1999"
"Well I had a lot on my mind. I was running three countries. If I did remember, I have forgotten. And if I have forgotten then obviously I did not say it. So, no."
"Meaning 'yes'?"
Judge:
It is quite clear that this man is totally innocent of the charge. This prosecution should never have been brought. Mr Barr you are therefore sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for the offence for which I have found you not guilty.

This article first appeared in Solicitors Journal in September 1998