What, exactly was Clinton's lie? Or was it more of a lawyer weasleing his way through a case? My understanding of it was he wanted to use a different "legally accepted" definition of the phrase "sexual relations" than his deposer wanted to use. Am I wrong here?
Nice downplaying of his dissembling (generously speaking) about the Enron donations BTW.
"You were a major beneficiary of Enron throughout your political carreer."
"Enron supported my opponent"
Still doesn't sound exactly truthful to me.