[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?

[DBeers]

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

Regardless, EVEN assuming you are completely correct and know all details as to the downfall of the Priest. WHAT does that have to do with Hannity? If you are not equivocating yourself here on Hannity's behalf then what is your point with this apparent pursuit?

Why not just admit that many disagree with your opinion and move on?

I disagree with you -oh well...