David Hobby wrote:
>
> "John D. Giorgis" wrote:
>
> ...
> >
> > Bob Z. said that no Democrat defended Clinton on this.
> >
> > In my mind, Bob Z.'s claim is patently absurd. Many Democrats did argue
> > that any man would lie about adultery, and the only possible reason for
> > making such a cl
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:brin-l-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 6:04 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Clinton's Perjury *Again* RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16
words
>
> > What democrats said that it
> What democrats said that it was acceptable for Clinton to lie under
> oath?
>
I don't know what other Democrats may have said. I never said it was
acceptable for him to lie under oath. I just didn't think it was an impeachable
offense.
I also think he should never have been forced to face t
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of John D. Giorgis
> Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 4:41 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Clinton's Perjury *Again* RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
>
> At 04:34 PM 8/2/2003 -0400 Jon Gabriel wrote:
> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTE
"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
...
>
> Bob Z. said that no Democrat defended Clinton on this.
>
> In my mind, Bob Z.'s claim is patently absurd. Many Democrats did argue
> that any man would lie about adultery, and the only possible reason for
> making such a claim was to attempt to mitigate the cha
