[fintstone]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Fint,
Well, I have been busy. Thanks for the link.

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false, notwithstanding tortured definitions and interpretations of the term sexual relations,' " Wright wrote.


Although Clinton refused before the grand jury to elaborate on the Lewinsky relationship, Wright said she found enough evidence to conclude that he had engaged in sexual relations with her.


I'll give her 0 for 2. Yeah, he was alone with her, but at the deposition, he said he couldn't recall. He weaseled out from a direct statement that would have been a lie. Although I find it hard to believe a man would not remember being alone with someone in that state.
No , there were no sexual relations by the definition agreed to by the attorneys.

So, it seems that her personal definition of sexual relations leads her to the ruling.


Sorry for the diversion, back to the current topic.

I suspect that being found guilty of lying in a court of law...and having no recourse or appeal....is about as close to proving a person has lied as one can possibly get.