<< > The testimony was to provide evidence of pattern in a sexual
What pattern was being proven? That the President has extramarital sex
--- perfectly legal, and not material to the case in question except in
some mushy "character" way --- or that the President has a pattern of
sexual harrassment? The questioning pertained to the former, which
isn't relevant and shouldn't IMO have been allowed by the judge. The
questioning should have been directed towards the latter, which would
have obviated the first *and* been material. The judge screwed up,
Relevancy: The question was asked to determine if the President had a habit
of exposing his Presidential (or Gubernatorial) dick to subordinates and
asking them to kiss it. It turns out he does!
If you were part of a jury sitting in that trial, you could have nullified the
judge's ruling, but you weren't. Whether or not you or Clinton or Clinton's
legal counsel thought it was an appropriate question doesn't matter. No one,
not any citizen, gets to lie under oath.
Your logic is ipso facto. Neither you nor anyone (except Clinton and Jones)
knew what went on in that hotel room at the time the question was asked re
Lewinsky. Just because it was proven immaterial (more on THAT late) after-
the-fact does not excuse the lying under oath.
I still think you are hung up on sex. Some people don't like the government
poking around their financial records; they feel that is their private
business as well. Let me tell you - from the standpoint of someone who has
been held in contempt of court for not providing full disclosure - that we are
all bound by the same laws. My disclosure was completely immaterial, but the
judge asked for it. Period. That's our imperfect legal system.
Clinton's testimony was material at the time.