Angry

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:53:19 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net::


Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his response to the
question, "I think I used the term 'sexual affair.' And so the record is
completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky,
as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?"
His answer was, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
I've never had an affair with her."


I've had some trouble parsing your sentences above, but here's a fair
analysis of the issue:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...jury092498.htm
Clinton asserted his answers were technically accurate. He
considered an affair to mean intercourse and interpreted "sexual
relations" not to include oral sex performed on him. "Sexual
relations" was defined as follows: "A person engages in 'sexual
relations' when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact
with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks
of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person."


However, Marriam-Webster's definition is:

Main Entry:sexual relations
Function:noun plural
Date:1950

: COITUS



Main Entry:coitus
Pronunciation:*k*-*-t*s, k*-**-, *k*i-t*s
Function:noun
Etymology:Latin, from coire
Date:1855

: physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by
rhythmic movements usually leading to the ejaculation of semen
from the penis into the female reproductive tract; also :
INTERCOURSE 3 compare ORGASM
–coital \-t*l\ adjective
–coitally \-t*l-*\ adverb


So, while Clinton's statement may not have agreed with the legal
definition of 'sexual relations', his statement appears to have been
consistent with the accepted meaning of the phrase.


You better run for office as you use logic that only politicians can
appreciate. That is almost as good as saying that Vietnam wasn't a war,
but just a "police action."


Matt