CLINTON'S TESTIMONY--- FOUR HOURS

Victor Bloom MD

There is a famous story of the womanizer who was discovered 'in flagrante delecto' by his wife with his latest lady-love. The wife was about to flail this adulterer with expletives when the scoundrel demanded, "are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?"

The president's videotaped testimony before the Starr grand jury skillfully avoided answering any questions which would have in effect admitted to perjury. If his political enemies focussed on his inappropriate intimate behavior, it was only to bring him down. He considered his sexual life private, whether in the White House or not.

He said that 'most people' understood that 'sexual relations' means genital intercourse, and he therefore denied having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, then a 21 year old intern. According to a hair-splitting definition of sex, she had sexual relations with him, but he didn't have sexual relations with her. Most of us with vivid imaginations tried to visualize the scenario, and all we could come up with is her performing oral sex on him while he had his hands up in the air or over his head or crossed on his chest or gripping the arms of his chair. This unlikely phantasmagoria was the source of endless guffaws by late-night comedians which generated many laughs by television watchers and computer enthusiasts.

In the end, the president's testimony left the attempted prosecution for perjury and obstruction of justice as "he said, she said...", but if there were no eye-witnesses to the actual alleged 'sexual' behavior, there is no case. Except for the fact that Starr, in his great thoroughness and dedication to the task, politically motivated or not, obtained much corroboration, which is now just being released as 1400 pages worth. You can bet that expert fast readers will pore over the 'evidence' eagerly and try to analyze whether the president was telling the truth.

Clinton has admitted to lying, and now, finally, truthfully 'confesses'. But he won't admit to any details, details which would be embarrassing and damaging. Probably millions of Americans watched the four hours of testimony and have become the jury in this vast, town-hall trial of history. Congress can vote for censure or impeachment. Many hope Clinton will resign. Many hope he doesn't, as they fear another ten years of Gore. It is all so very complex. The country is divided, the Democratic party is divided. What can be the verdict of the women's movement?

Don Imus, the outspoken radio and TV personality, doesn't believe Clinton and calls him a "white-trash redneck in the White House." Years ago at a 'roast' he was the keynote speaker and raked the Clintons over the coals, strongly implying lying and adultery. Bill and Hillary were greatly discomforted and Imus was criticized for being so disrespectful. His anSwer was that everybody knew who he was and what he was when he was invited. What did people think? (That he would 'suck-up' for Bill and Hillary's approval?)

Clinton handled himself expertly as damaging evidence and testimony are thrown in his face. What did people think? That he would break down and cry or have a fit of anger? He was angry at times, but was able to convey a righteous anger at a witch-hunting 'independent' counsel trying to bring down the liberal president and his presidency. To this date, the country is divided about Starr. Some think the prosecution is all political, while others maintain his motive is persecution, as that is Starr's job definition. People say Starr is going too far, that he has crossed a certain line. If Starr's report is accurate, people will say that Clinton has gone too far in abuse of power.

It is said that Europeans are amused by American mores and the hypocrisy which underlies them. Actually, Europe generally is more tolerant of adultery than Americans, but not of their leaders lying to them. Some of their leaders have been discharged from public office when it became clear they were lying.

One can ask, at this late date, what could have motivated Clinton to have committed wrongdoings that he would have trouble wiggling out of? I don't know if it is 'character' or neurochemical imbalance (addiction) or a combination of both. But I think we can devise an understandable motivation for him to stonewall the details and maintain that he did not commit or suborn perjury, obstruct justice or abuse power. The answer is, "follow the money.

If the American people exonerate him, he will continue to be a successful fundraiser. If the American people do not believe him, and in fact develop a distrust of the man, he willã not be a successful fundraiser. In that case he would no longer be an asset to the Democratic party and he would have lost his power.

This is not the first time a person with unconscious guilt, guilt on a deep level, has proved his own worst enemy, and brought himself down. It is a question whether the voters will prop him up or let him fall of his own weight.

Dr. Bloom is Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Wayne State University School of Medicine. He is a Diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology and Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association. He is a member of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and corresponding editor of their quarterly journal, Academy Forum and on the editorial board of the Detroit Medical News. He welcomes comments and questions at his e-mail address: hyperlink. URL: victorbloom.com