You didn't answer my question, parados, which specifically referred to his Paula Jones testimony. You are attempting to deflect.
But you make a good point: When dealing with Clinton, it is imperative that you are precise in your use of language. The particular phrase used by your hero was:
Slick Willie wrote: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
The term, "sexual relations," was defined in the Paula Jones' lawsuit as follows:
Quote:For the purposes of this definition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes
(1) contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to gratify or arouse the sexual desire of any person
"Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.
Clinton argued that because Lewinsky engaged in oral sex on him, rather than vice versa, Lewinsky had engaged in contact with one
his relevant body parts, and therefore under the definition she had had sexual relations with him. He argued that he had never engaged in contact with one of her listed body parts for the purpose of sexually gratifying either him or her, so that under the definition he had not engaged in "sexual relations" with her. As Clinton understood the definition, if a man kissed a woman's breasts for the purpose of sexual gratification, that constituted "sexual relations," while allowing a woman to stimulate his private parts would not, because in that situation the woman would be engaging in sexual relations, while the man would not be. It is an absurd distinction, made by one desperate to not tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
In my view, however, he clearly lied during his sworn deposition ... after he swore under oath to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Quote:Q. At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone together in the Oval Office?
A. I don't recall ...
His televised statement to the American people was another intentional misleading statement by your hero -- which you apparently do not believe to constitute a lie, even though the clear intent of his making the statement was to mislead. Since you do not consider
that to be a lie, I'm curious to find the parameters upon which you would consider a statement to be a "lie."
Which gets back to my earlier question: Do you think Clinton lied in his Paula Jones' deposition?
