[Romulus]

I’m not seeing equivocation here. Which isn’t to say I’m letting Fr. E. off the hook — just that we don’t have sufficient information to know if he has now come clean or not.

In his public statement he has every right to be vague: the woman involved is an adult entitled to her own good name, and Fr. E. is not accountable to us.

[allmendream]

You don't see equivocation in it not being “the” sexual act?

Really?

If he could have written that “it did not involve a sexual act” no doubt he would have. But that, most likely would have been an outright lie rather than a Clintonian equivocation.

So instead we read that “it did not involve “the” sexual act”.

If a Democrat Congressman said he had an “inappropriate relationship” with a woman that “did not involve ‘the sexual act’”, you would find his remarks clear and forthcoming and not at all engaged in equivocation?

Really?