this guy is very sharp. Check this out: Clinton perjury, from which not even the Rhodes scholar will be able to wiggle out of:
washingtonpost.com
(1) Perjury. Clinton's defense -- that Monica Lewinsky had sex with him but he didn't have sex with her -- has rightly earned derision. But for the sake of argument, assume that Clinton is right that, under the definition offered by the Jones court, he did not have sex with her.
Fine. But there is no semantic escape from this: When presented with Monica Lewinsky's deposition stating that she didn't have sex with him and asked if it was true, Clinton responded "absolutely true." (Like O. J. and his classic "absolutely 100 percent not guilty," Clinton prefers to lie with gusto.)
But Clinton claims that she was the toucher and he the touchee. Hence, under the very court definition of sex that Clinton has been peddling, her denial of having sex was false and his affirmation was perjury."
--------------- end clip from column.
Oh, I know that the Clintonites will eventually say, "oh, nobody ever really believed that he didn't commit perjury". Just like after chorusing together that "see, Clinton denied it, so we have to accept it!" back in January, now Clinton supporters say "oh, nobody really believed his denials back then".
And on it has went. Going back further: Clinton is a womanizer: "those are all allegations! Flowers sold her story for money, she has no credibility!" Remember that? I do. Now it's "oh, everyone knew he was a womanizer, yet they accepted that, and elected him anyway". Yawn. |
