I'm probably just replying to have replied, but....
Again, I agree entirely that it never should have been asked. But I think an oath is an oath. Words matter. And he lied under oath.
Awful position to be in, but he did put himself there, even if the investigation started out about one thing and ended up being about another thing. Then he lied under oath. Uselessly, too, because the proof was there and he should have known it.
It was also a bad decision for a rather crafty politician. He'd have come out much better if he said "yes, I did, and I deserve divorce", then gone home to try to save the marriage. There is something terribly disarming about a person openly admitting to wrongdoing without any equivocation. There's an urge to forgive....well....unless it's cops interrogating a criminal. But that's a different scenario.
Either way, he decided to lie under oath.
There's a rarely used defense called "necessity", where one says "yup, I did it and I knew it was objectively wrong. But it was the lesser of two evils and I had no other choice." I don't think that applies here.
eace
