Oooops. Sorry, the "perjury" article that did pass was the one relating to the grand jury testimony. The one relating to the deposition failed.

See here

Mea culpa.

From the article of impeachment (of which Clinton was found not guilty-:

"On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action."

Notice they don't bother saying what statements were false. If they're talking about the (in)famous "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is", Clinton's response was in fact accurate (it was the questioners who used the present tense in asking if there "is" a relationship, when Clinton had terrminated the relationship prior to the questioning).

But FWIW, the legally ignerrent Republicans didn't know that misleading testimony is not perjury (see, e.g., the U.S. v. Bronston case). And Clinton is hardly responsible legally for what his lawyer says, even if they made any misrepresentations to a judge (which Bennett did not do).

This is how legally slipshod the Republican impeachment was, and it's forever a blot on the Republicans that voted for it that they thought it had any legal justification.

Regardless, cooler heads prevailed in the Senate, where none f the articles of impeachment garnered even a majority, much less the two thirds needed for conviction (and even less the unanimity that would be required in a courtroom using the actual law and a judge that would be bound to heed legal precedent such as Bronston and Gaudin).

Cheers,