It's amazing how revealing a person's remarks can be, if you pay attention to what he's really saying.
On March 10, 1997, President Clinton made the following statement: "I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I have changed government policy solely because of a contribution." A simple, straightforward assertion of innocence, right? On the contrary! Read it again: "I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I have changed government policy solely because of a contribution."
Notice anything peculiar about the phrasing? "I don't believe you can find any evidence . . ." is how the President began. Now, honestly, is that how an innocent man would respond to a charge of impropriety, much less criminality? Of course not. An innocent man would declare, "I didn't do it!" He would expressly deny the charge and assert his innocence unequivocally. And yet, in this opening phrase, President Clinton ignores the subject of his guilt or innocence altogether. Instead of denying his guilt, he merely asserts his unconvictibility. Notice that he doesn't even deny the existence of evidence implicating him; he merely suggests that it can't be found. He doesn't even have the confidence to say that he knows it can't be found; he simply believes it can't be found.
The lack of candor -- the ambiguity -- in this opening phrase should disturb all honest and upright Americans. But parsing the rest of this seemingly innocuous quote reveals something more distressing. It reveals that the President not only failed to assert his innocence, but that he actually -- perhaps inadvertently -- acknowledged his guilt! Read it again: "I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I have changed government policy solely because of a contribution."
The President's statement can be divided into three parts. One is the opening phrase that we've already analyzed. Another is the concluding phrase, "that I have changed government policy solely because of a contribution," which identifies the substance of the alleged crime (accepting bribes) and incorporates the weasel word "solely" to define the offense more narrowly. The implication of that little qualifier is that it's okay for government officials to accept bribes and tailor decisions accordingly, so long as there are other considerations involved. The third part of the quote, the three-word phrase connecting the other two parts, is where the real bombshell explodes. Read it again and see if you can spot it: "I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I have changed government policy solely because of a contribution."
Did you catch it? President Clinton expresses doubt that evidence can be found regarding "the fact that" he accepted bribes. Not the charge, not the allegation, not the possibility -- the fact! A fact is something true, something taken for granted, something indisputable. This could, of course, have been a Freudian slip -- or it could be a brazen admission of guilt, demonstrating Bill Clinton's deep-seated contempt for the people and the law of our great nation.
