Even in the Clinton case there was a good reason he was asking for clarification. In his grand jury testimony he had stated "There's nothing going on between us

Even in the Clinton case there was a good reason he was asking for clarification. In his grand jury testimony he had stated "There's nothing going on between us." If 'there is' is interpreted as 'there is currently', then the statement is truthful; if it is interpreted as 'there is and has always been', then the statement is false. Similarly, his statement "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" wasn't technically a lie in the context of the case. The investigation lawyers had textualized the definition of 'sexual relations' to be limited to PIV sexual intercorse, which he hadn't engaged in. So in a legal context his statement of not having 'sexaal relations' and his admission to having an 'improper physical relationship', were in no way contradictory. However, when you take the statements out of that context and put them in the context of public opinion, it appears to be a bold faced lie. The more you play the game, the worse it looks outside of that context.