Today's piece in the NYT is a perfect example of the of how the Romney camp uses carefully chosen words to fool the ill informed.
The law enforcement official said the answering service’s caller identification system captured a phone number that was linked to Mr. Garrity, who has not been charged.
A lawyer for Mr. Garrity, Stephen L. Jones, said Mr. Garrity had nothing to do with the phone call and had offered to take a voice analysis test to prove it.
“He didn’t make the call,” Mr. Jones said. “The number that the call was made from, apparently he has no connection to. It’s not his number. It wasn’t his phone or any phone that he was aware of.”
He has no connection to the number the call was made from because he had the phone disconnected after the incident. It's not his number, because he has a new number. The call wasn't made from his new phone or any phone he's aware of on the day this story is being published.
An other exchange comes to mind...
“He didn’t make the call,” Mr. Jones said. I never had sexual relations with that woman.
“The number that the call was made from, apparently he has no connection to. It’s not his number. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement...
It wasn’t his phone or any phone that he was aware of.” If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."