4 ms·

There's nothing wrong with what he said taken on its own. But as an answer to a reporter's question, it rings of sophistry. Kind of like how Clinton gets shit

There's nothing wrong with what he said taken on its own. But as an answer to a reporter's question, it rings of sophistry. Kind of like how Clinton gets shit for talking about the meaning of the word 'is', even though Kant also talked about that subject.

jackfoxy 16y ago
Clinton was under oath giving testimony for a deposition live on CNN, and the talking head who came on at the end gave him a complete pass. The attorney asking the questions didn't press him very hard either. Back in the day there was a big difference between a press conference and a deposition. EDIT: Actually I should have used the term "stand-up" (I believe that is the correct technical term). As I recall it was a full body shot of a CNN reporter on the courthouse steps (or outside somewhere) with the instant analysis.
- philwelch 16y ago
  It was a valid legal question, resting on the distinction between "is currently" and "has ever", as I recall. On the other hand, once you're on national TV saying "it depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is", you've lost 95% of the audience.
  - jackfoxy 16y ago
    Count among the 95% the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional (Clinton was disbarred in Arkansas for 5 years and ordered to pay a $25,000 fine) and the U.S. Supreme court, which disbarred him from appearing before the highest court in the land.
    - philwelch 16y ago
      Not for asking about the definition of "is", though--just for the original offense of lying under oath about his sex life.
      - jackfoxy 16y ago
        As I recall the "is" inquiry was the segue to the lie. Could be wring about that. It was a long time ago.