To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (105898 ) 8/24/2007 2:44:52 PM From: one_less Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976 This copy and paste is from other posts of mine, as I was quoting myself. A comment that you should have read and recognised since it is the core of our discussion over the past view days. I agree your inability to comprehend the written language of English is and has been part of the problem (the other part is your dishonesty) but I am doing my best to remediate for you. I will break it down for you:"Based on that his willful false testimony, JUDGE Susan Webber Wright expressly provided by law that, his license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas and later by the United States Supreme Court and according to law he was also fined $90,000." "Based on that his willful false testimony, Bill clinton's testimony was no accident. He intentionally and willfully provided false testimony, the evidence is overwhelming, indisputable and without a shadow of a doubt. "JUDGE Susan Webber Wright" She was the Judge who ruled on the matter. "expressly provided by law that," The law expressly provides her the authority to act on this matter as she did. If you find the phrasing odd you might want to locate the definition for perjury, which you provided and where this text also resides." his license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas and later by the United States Supreme Court and according to law he was also fined $90,000." These are punishments provided by law according to judgements against Bill Clinton."That's false and incomprehensible all at the same time. Nothing in those pieces is false, the pieces when compiled into the longer comment do not represent a falsehood, and if you are still unable to comprehend, I suggest you go to an elementary school remedial reading teacher for help. Best regards, Gem