[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...

[allmendream]

I didn't say I knew the details, I am saying that “the sexual act” is an OBVIOUS equivocation, and show an utter lack of contrition.

It has nothing to do with Hannity. Lord love an Irishman, but Hannity is a sad sick joke as an intellectual commentator. If brains were TNT the poor guy could barely blow his nose.

Why not just admit that “involve the sexual act” is a lame equivocation, and if the lameass equivocator could have said that it did not involve “a” sexual act, the reprobate would have said so, and move on?

Regardless? No. Give it your regard. Either you do see equivocation in him saying it was not “the” sexual act, or you do not.