CarolC:

A little nit-pick:

This is very much the same sort of thing Clinton has been so thoroughly criticized for when he said "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is".

While Clinton might be derided for carefully parsing words (such as "sexual relations", where he took advantage of a strangely curtailed and corcumscribed legal definition of such that was asymmetric; Judge Wright, after an objection by Bennett, trimmed a more standard legal definition to exclude contact by others with one's own genitalia), the most famous 'example' of this 'careful parsing' was not really an example of such, but was rather an example of his not taking the opportunity to do so.

The questioners had used the present tense in asking whether there "is/was" a sexual relationship with Lewinsky. At that time, Clinton had (finally) called it off with Lewinsky, so that a flat-out negative answer might have been reasonable. Clinton pointed out for the benefit of the questioners that there was a difference between the past tense and present tense of "is" (and implicitly indicated that a correct answer might well depend on which was used).

It may be that the questioners were simply inept in their questioning. I'd point out that the Bronston v. U.S. case points out that it is the responsibility to the questioner to ask the pertinent question and to make sure it's answered, not the responsibility of the person being questioned to figure out what the questioner may be driving at and answer that instead (in fact, one could make a case that an answer to what is not asked -- but which should have been asked -- if different from the answer to the actual question and false, could potentially be perjury). Just as the questioner doesn't get to determine the answers, the deponent doesn't get to choose the questions.

Or it may be that the questioners were purposefully being obtuse or unclear, hoping to generate an answer that might be portrayed as inaccurate, either legally or politically.

Nonetheless, Clinton pointed out (for whatever reason) that the question itself was unclear. Can't fault him for that (particularly since this was a legal proceeding and any unclarity as to what was asked and to what was answered might cause legal problems). You might think him picky there, but that's not quite fair when the actual situation was such that there was a difference in the answer which did depend on "what the meaning of 'is' is".....

Cheers,