No... those are facts... interpretation has nothing to do with nuances... unless you are Bill Clinton... trying to parse words.
Bill Clinton Slooged on the blue dress... and lied about it... as much as he tried to claim no sex was ever involved. See where dancing around the subject got him. Of course some people still believe that somehow body fluid teleported onto the dress without them being in the same room.
Calling someone a criminal... and saying that their personal actions may not have been completely legal all arrive at the same thing... the only differences are the nuances of the words used.
Actually that's not very nuanced... but exaggerated to make a point. You can mean something very different depending on exactly what words are used and how they are used... and it leaves no 'interpretation".
Both ultimately mean the same thing. And would in a courtroom. Particularly where perjury is involved.