I mean, that whole Zippergate mess Clinton got himself into a few years back wouldn't have bothered me if it hadn't been for the whole perjury thing.
As I understand it (and I'd have to look this up), it wasn't actually perjury, because (a) he was using the definition of "sexual relations" provided by Paula Jones' own lawyers and (b) it was ruled irrelevant to Jones v. Clinton (possibly because Jones' lawyers realized that, in trying to set a perjury trap, they'd inadvertently torpedoed their case below the waterline. I mean, think about it; if oral sex isn't "sexual relations", is propositioning someone for oral sex still sexual harrassment?).
And they've never been able to explain what his sex life had to do with Whitewater anyway, to justify an investigation of a dubious land deal turning into a fishing expedition into every bit of underage magic remotely dubious act he may or may not have ever committed. Good thing for them the so-called liberal media has been largely able to ignore the PillsburyReport.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2006-01-30 01:03 pm (UTC)As I understand it (and I'd have to look this up), it wasn't actually perjury, because (a) he was using the definition of "sexual relations" provided by Paula Jones' own lawyers and (b) it was ruled irrelevant to Jones v. Clinton (possibly because Jones' lawyers realized that, in trying to set a perjury trap, they'd inadvertently torpedoed their case below the waterline. I mean, think about it; if oral sex isn't "sexual relations", is propositioning someone for oral sex still sexual harrassment?).
And they've never been able to explain what his sex life had to do with Whitewater anyway, to justify an investigation of a dubious land deal turning into a fishing expedition into every
bit of underage magicremotely dubious act he may or may not have ever committed. Good thing for them the so-called liberal media has been largely able to ignore the Pillsbury Report.