>What world are you living in? :o) It was never a grievance against his 'personal flaw of cheating on Hillary' but rather his lying under oath.

Hi Tracy. Doing some reading on this, I've come to the following conclusion. Clinton should have explained what happened, but...

He was in a legal hearing and given a poor defintion of sex. He or his lawyers saw a loophole and took it. In the context of a legal proceeding it was a reasonable thing to have done.

Even the judge didn't charge him with perjury or even obstruction, but instead issued a statement that warning him that he was being, I think it was, evasive.

A hostile Congress voted to impeach Clinton for perjury , which basically means to charge him with it. The hostile Senate voted to not convict him of those perjury charges.