Bob Noel wrote:
In article LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07, "Mike"
wrote:

There was no perjury.

He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury.

I hate to wade in here, being a libertarian and not caring to defend either
party, but the Senate tried him on the perjury count (among others). The
vote was 55 "Not guilcup" and 45 "guilcup" on the perjury charge. By
definition that is legal innocence or a party game of charades gone
horribly awry. If he had only mimed his answers he wouldn't have had to
worry about the perjury charge.

Call the next defendANT!