That depends entirely on how you define "have sex." Personally, when a man says, "I/we had sex," I presume he means something beyond a blowjob.

I wouldn't resist the argument that this is a limited definition of sex, but it's still my default. So when a man says "I didn't have sex with that woman," discovering that she gave him a blowjob reads as misleading, but not quite as a lie to me. I'm betting the same is true for at least some others.

And yes, all the others are dodges and prevarications of one type or another too. That's my point. Language is slippery. And many people have learned how to use that slipperiness to mislead without technically lying.

Again, we don't disagree about Trump's lies, but it seems to me that you're taking for granted the benefit of hindsight. There was a period of what? 4 days of counting during which it was impossible to say for sure that Trump was lying, and his legal challenges dragged on into late December, a month and a half after election day. That's a month and a half where Trump can repeat the claim that the election was rigged or that he won, and other than pointing out how unlikely it is, I don't see what other recourse there is.

Given that you're saying that political falsehood should be punishable with prison, we'd need some kind of legal due process to ascertain a lie, right? But how would that work? And what happens in the cases, God forbid, where the system gets it wrong and a lie is judged true?

It sucks being on this side of the argument, because I really do understand and share your frustration. I'm hoping you'll come up with a good, practical way that a ban on lies could be enforced (especially before they've had a chance to do their damage and any attempt to silence them would be taken as proof that "the deep state" or whoever was hiding the truth). But it's a practical impossibility as far as I can see.