We think, in some areas, she provided erroneous testimony that is in disagreement with the president's testimony, and particularly in specific areas having to do with the grand jury,

Testimony in today's document release overwhelmingly demonstrates that not one member of the White House staff who testified believed that it was important to find Ms. Lewinsky a job, ... If the president intended to secure Ms. Lewinsky's silence in exchange for a job, it was clearly in his power to do so and to grant her precisely what she wanted.

I think we would need to take a look at where the games are played, particularly in situations where there would be one play between two conference members with identical records. The statistics in all circumstances would favor the home team. So, if two teams with 9-7 records played each other once, chances are the home team is going to win that game. We would have to continue to dig in terms of trying to come up with some sort of tiebreaker that would allow us to come up with some determination as to which is the better team.

From what we can tell, this is nothing more than a reasonable disagreement among reasonable people.

[Now Melton's lawyers say] there exists no sworn testimony by Mr. Melton denying that he provided Ann Radelat with a copy of the subject memorandum, ... The only sworn ... responses filed in this matter by Mr. Melton correctly state that he did provide a copy of the memo to Ann Radelat.

There are a myriad of traps for the unwary, particularly in the areas of the new look-back rules and in the treatment of annuities.