trolling again albed...perjury in this case is a legal term as you well know. something mr. libby is familiar with now that he's been convicted on four of five counts, including perjury and obstruction of justice. after a forty million dollar plus witch hunt, clinton wasn't convicted of anything, so no, he wasn't
guilty of perjuring himself in the legal sense. as for the moral sense, when the
majority of those practicing fellatio didn't consider the activity "sex" and the question was specifically about sex, the argument that clinton lied ends there as well.
i wondered why the prosecutors simply didn't ask him if he had "physical contact" with the woman, and if so, what variety...they could have done so and had clinton denied it he clearly would have set himself for perjury, although i have my doubts as to whether he would have "obscured" an answer to such a direct question. but it didn't happen and we'll never know. for whatever reason they demurred.
in any event we all knew the genesis of this. it was the continuing attempt by the right and the supreme court to subvert democracy and was itself far more harmful to the republic than any awkward verbal gymnastics clinton may have employed to defend himself and the office of a duly elected president.
in spite of trolls trying continuously to confuse this (and so many other current republican political disasters) with deliberately misleading history lessons on clinton, it is about valerie plame's leakers, where the subversion continues unabated, and with bush and cheney at its head.
of course thanks to bush 1, jr. has better advisors. this man is a sociopath who doesn't
understand truth beyond the fact he senses it's dangerous. when the 9/11 commission requested he swear in and testify under oath this president flatly refused.
so i won't call him a perjurer. he isn't one - yet.
for now he's just a liar. the highest in the land.
- js.