"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article Telsk.632$Ro1.589@trnddc04, "Mike"
wrote:

'The offense of willfulling telling an untruth in a court after
having taken an oath or affirmation."

You still don't have it right after two tries.

Take your complant to the people who wrote the dictionary.

You can search numerous dictionaries and most of them don't have all the
required elements required to support a federal case for perjury which a

(1) a false statement is made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a
judicial proceeding;
(2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding; and
(3) the witness must have the specific intent to deceive.

That's the definition given by the USSC, which is the one that counts. Ken
Starr never came close to meeting that burden which is why he never so much
as attempted to indict Clinton for the crime of perjury. Giving misleading
but factually correct answers is not a crime. Providing answers you believe
are correct is not a crime.

So no matter how much you wish Clinton would have been convicted, he wasn't
even so much as indicted and for very good reason. Those are the facts.
Accept them and get over it.