|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Jim Cox wrote:
> In my opionion, what most people and politicians and pundits all are
> missing is this: Bill Clinton lied in the Paula Jones deposition.
According to the definition set out in the deposition, if it is true that
Clinton simply received oral sex from Ms. Lewinsky, this would not fall under
this, and he could truthfully claim that he did not have such relations with
her. Whether is would constitute sexual relations in the normal context (not
relevant to the charge of perjury, but to statements made public later), it is
at the very least arguable whether this type of thing would qualify either.
Personally, I feel that it would have been better for Clinton to stick to his
strategy of denying that he lied or committed any wrongdoing in this matter. If
it is true that he fondled her, cigar routine, etc. AND it can be shown that
these actions were intended to sexually arouse her, and all this stuff can be
*proven*, then this would be a different matter - THEN we could then claim that
he lied, perjured himself, perhaps ought to be impeached (although this would
still be debatable), etc.
Regards,
A.J.
|