The New York Times reports:

 "President Clinton said today that although he thought his impeachment ordeal had inflicted enough punishment on him, he would not try to escape more by seeking a pardon from his successor if indicted after leaving office."

Terence Hunt of the Associated Press reports:

"President Clinton said today he would not ask for any pardon from his successor for any possible crimes committed while in office."

But of course Clinton said no such thing. Here's what he actually said, followed by kausfiles' analysis:

"Well, the answer is I have no interest in it."

One of the oldest lawyers' dodges in the book. Clinton is stating his present intention--that he has no interest in a pardon, which of course is true since he has an interest in not being indicted or charged at all. But as every first-year law student learns, a statement of present intention is different from a promise of future conduct. Just because Clinton has no interest now does not mean he won't have an interest in the future. Since Clinton was presumably not unready for the pardon question, it's significant that he immediately honed in on the hoary "no interest" fudge.

"I wouldn't ask for it."

Clinton didn't say, "I won't ask for it." The phrase he chose is qualified by the previous expression of "no interest," and may mean nothing more than "I wouldn't ask for it now." Clinton quite clearly did not say he "would neither request nor accept a pardon," which is what Vice President Gore, the man most likely to grant it to him, had said the day before was Clinton's position.

"I don't think it would be necessary."