and it is not a side issue. It is a very important historical fact which your absolute statement above distorts.

Clinton was given a definition of sex as defined by the prosecutor in the case. He was told to answer questions based on the definition of sex as written on the 3 x 5 cards presented to him prior to his testimony. On the 3 x 5 cards were listed various female body parts as well as various male body parts. The questions to Clinton were phrased to inquire about female parts touching male parts and vice versa. Egregiously missing from the 3 x 5 cards were "lips."

As the prosecutors asked the questions, Clinton, himself a lawyer, referred to the cards he had been instructed to utilize, and answered each question literally. The prosecutor hung himself out to dry in the questioning by ridiculously allowing for the possibility that oral sex might have been experienced.

I taped this deposition and watched many Republican lawyers comment on Clinton's testimony. They themselves said he walked a thin legal line, but did not lie.

The public outrage over the misleading answers Clinton gave were misplaced and distorted. He told the literal legal truth as defined by the prosecutors themselves.

It was one thing to be outraged by Clinton's misleading statements in public relations setting, but it is quite another to distort the legal truth about his testimony.

Defining it as a mere side issue to distort your casual accusation against the former President of the United States in a historical impeachment proceeding only diminishes the credibility of your posts here.

And furthermore, "I did not have sex with that woman" was literally true when applying those standards the prosecution itself had defined as sex, limiting it purely to orthodox intercourse, and excluding oral activity.

Sam