When one citizen sues another citizen and is required to answer under oath, those answers are supposed to be truthful... The subject of the lie is really irrevelant.
But if you're taken to court on a fraud case, which proves to have no basis whatsoever, what business is it of the court if you conceal a completely irrelevant sexual shenanigan? You tell the truth (presumably) about the fraud, and related non-offences - does the prosecutor then have the right to say "Ah, but he got sucked off by a colleague, therefore he is guilty, therefore we must punish him"? - as though the guilt were proven in the fraud case?
I assume that as a lawyer, you're required to stick only to the truth in court [LOL, is this right??] So, if challenged on some completely irrelevant but embarrassing misdemeanour of your own, would you fess up and join the accused in the dock?
Face it, you're just p*ssed because the worst you could prove against Clinton is that he accepted a BJ from a tacky intern. LOL, that was so worth it. And such a revelation, too :) |
