Kay Bailey Hutchison's evolving views on perjury

Clinton impeachment era:

http://www.ameriroots.com/impeachment/senator_hutchison.html

<snip>

The edifice of American jurisprudence rests on the foundation of the due process of law. The mortar in that foundation is the oath. Those who seek to obstruct justice weaken that foundation, and those who violate the oath would tear the whole structure down.

Every day, thousands of citizens in thousands of courtrooms across America are sworn in as jurors, as grand jurors, as witnesses, as defendants. On those oaths rest the due process of law upon which all of our other rights are based.

The oath is how we defend ourselves against those who would subvert our system by breaking our laws. There are Americans in jail today because they violated that oath. Others have prevailed at the bar of justice because of that oath.

What would we be telling Americans -- and those worldwide who see in America what they can only hope for in their own countries -- if the Senate of the United States were to conclude: The President lied under oath as an element of a scheme to obstruct the due process of law, but we chose to look the other way?

I cannot make that choice. I cannot look away. I vote `Guilty' on Article I, Perjury. I vote `Guilty' on Article II, Obstruction of Justice.

I ask unanimous consent an analysis of the Articles of Impeachment be printed in the Record.


Plamegate era:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/23/hutchinson-technicality/


I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation were not a waste of time and dollars.

The media NEEDS to see this.

Hypocrisy.

as I was saying in the other thread on this topic, why do we have to do the media's job for them?

Why can't they come up with this stuff and slam these bastards like they deserve?

and mauled the living crap out of her for saying that.

Or at the very least reminded her of her previous position.

Thanks so much for your research, Cocoa.

And whenever they say anything close to inconsistent, he throws it in their faces.

,

I read it somewhere that Hutchinson was hit with some corruption charges not too dissimilar from Delay's. But Delay's lawyer got her off on a tech a few years back. Interesting.

She is guilty, but can't watch technicalities go the other way... what a hypocrit!

This is a story that I've got to have. Could you find that story and post a link please?

...he did follow up on her phony indignation at the idea of trying Delay on perjury charges by bringing up her position during the Clinton years, although he did it in a very weak way, as usual.

As soon as Hutchison started talking about how unfair it would be to use perjury as a charge against Delay, I immediately thought of how the Republicans did just that very thing to Clinton. I thought Timmy might miss that but was pleasantly surprised that he caught it.

along with 49 other Republican Senators. The two-thirds majority required by the Constitution for successful removal would have required the 5 other Republicans, plus 12 Democrats. But all 45 Democrats stayed united against this obviously purely political impeachment, on purely trumped-up charges of perjury and obstruction. (See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5141234&mesg_id=5141234 )..

Now, when completely material perjury and obstruction may be involved, she opines that they are "not real crimes"? And Russert doesn't bring up her TWO Senate votes to remove a President? How weak could a "journalist" be?

.

led us to a war on lies ..he is just as guilty as judy miller..he is a filthy lying pig!
and he has sat there for 2 years knowing he was complicit in the outing of a cia noc..and putting her life and the life of other who serve our nations security at risk!!

he could have honestly told the american people his part in this leak..
i want that filthy pig off my air ways..he did not hold up his part of using my air ways that is very clear in the constitution!

get him off my airways now!!

fly

of how the Republicans made a very big deal of "perjury" during the second Clinton term.

prior to air time.

May as well get her out of the Senate, too.

Imagine such hypocrisy from my senator. :sarcasm:

When is her term up?

This is Texas, after all.

.

In 2006. Barbara Radnofsky is running against her as a Democrat in 2006.

Outing a CIA agent is hardly anything to her huh? Ugh. I can't stand these SOB's.

nt

Tom Delay saying "Kay Bailey Hutchison" with a slur. Pretty much sums it all up for me.

That one never gets old.

What happened to, "It's not about sex. He lied under oath!" Jesus on a trailer hitch.

Recall that he only agreed to give testimony before the GJ if it wasn't under oath. No oath, no perjury.

Legally he may be in the clear, but morally, a sitting president is under oath 24/7 with respect to anything at all linked to his presidency. In fact, given that a president does vow to uphold the Constitution, laws, etc., it might well be argued that any deliberate, premeditated lie told in his official capacity as President is very close to perjury anyway.

Maybe it's time to make it explicit in that oath and the law.

in front of the 9/11 committee? I believe it was stated that since they took an oath on the day they were sworn into office, then there was no need to take another oath while they are in office.

So if the coronation oath counts for any testimony they give to any GJ, Committee, or special prosecutor will always be the truth without taking another oath.

That's where the "it wasn't about the sex, it was because he lied to the GJ." Obviously, Clinton took an oath that was not required since he was the sitting president and still in office.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/clinton_under_fire/fall_out/278532.stm


After all of this is over (as if?), I don't think any in this administration can be found clear of all charges by the ones that were charging them.

It's really funny because we all know that if it is any of them, Bush will pardon them before they even get close to a jail.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson on Clinton:

Statement by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)

ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR CONVICTION OF PERJURY

Lying is a moral wrong. Perjury is a lie told under oath that is legally wrong. To be illegal, the lie must be willfully told, must be believed to be untrue, and must relate to a material matter. Title 18, Section 1621 and 1623, U.S. Code.

If President Washington, as a child, had cut down a cherry tree and lied about it, he would be guilty of `lying,' but would not be guilty of `perjury.'

If, on the other hand, President Washington, as an adult, had been warned not to cut down a cherry tree, but he cut it down anyway, with the tree falling on a man and severely injuring or killing him, with President Washington stating later under oath that it was not he who cut down the tree, that would be `perjury.' Because it was a material fact in determining the circumstances of the man's injury or death.

Some would argue that the President in the second example should not be impeached because the whole thing is about a cherry tree, and lies about cherry trees, even under oath, though despicable, do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution. I disagree.

The perjury committed in the second example was an attempt to impede, frustrate, and obstruct the judicial system in determining how the man was injured or killed, when, and by whose hand, in order to escape personal responsibility under the law, either civil or criminal. Such would be an impeachable offense. To say otherwise would be to severely lower the moral and legal standards of accountability that are imposed on ordinary citizens every day. The same standard should be imposed on our leaders.

Nearly every child in America believes that President Washington, as a child himself, did in fact cut down the cherry tree and admitted to his father that he did it, saying simply: `I cannot tell a lie.'

I will not compromise this simple but high moral principle in order to avoid serious consequences to a successor President who may choose to ignore it.

http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/hutchison.shtml

and prophetic...

I will not compromise this simple but high moral principle in order to avoid serious consequences to a successor President who may choose to ignore it.

AT Hutchison, of course.

are bared and amplified across the world instantly.

damn! I used to be a good speller.

Is not "I cannot tell a lie" but "I cannot tell anything that is not a lie".

:-)

Thank you

crime"

Only die hard freepers . . . .

Is there such a word as "hyperhypocrite"? There is now. It's someone who thinks their own hypocrisy is a virtue.

But she sure does take some beating, doesn't she! Even by neocon standards. Well, no... perhaps not. But by Republcians standards.

Peace.

to get them both out of office? They are two of the most corrupt, dishonest senators in an extremely corrupt U. S. Senate. As Thom Hartmann said a few days ago, "Even about 1/3 of the Democrats need to be replaced -- the DLC Democrats!"

Tonight I was so disappointed in Sen. Charles Schumer when he said (in response to Russert's question -- "Knowing what you now know, do you regret your vote to invade Iraq?" -- that "No, I don't, because I did think that there was a serious threat there." Schumer should know better. Russert said, "Knowing what you know NOW..."

Is Schumer a member of AIPAC (or whatever they call the American-Israeli alliance)?

When one of our leading senators does not regret invading a sovereign nation in a pre-emptive attack, leading to the tragic deaths of over 100,000 civilian Iraqis and a deadly environment with so much U235 (depleted uranium) all over that land, I tend to wonder how we're ever going to survive and overcome this mess.

electing dishonest, corrupt conservatives is a state hobby

and we have DeLay here in Houston.......

I knew she'd said otherwise earlier. Thanks for this.

What a Hypocrite!

:nuke:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5141234&mesg_id=5141234 .

IMO, her ULTIMATE hypocrisy, of truly historic proportions, was joining 49 other Republican Senators who voted, on 2/12/99, to REMOVE Bill Clinton from office for alleged obstruction of justice. Hutchison also was one of 45 Republicans who voted that same day to remove Clinton as President for alleged perjury. Of course, both allegations were FALSE according to the judge in the Paula Jones case, the case that ostensibly gave rise to the impeachment proceeding.

surely, they would have nailed him - was not even over a misdemeanour, still less a crime. How adultery ever got into the American legal system at all is mind-boggling.

:bounce:

;-)

She's a conservative idiot in my life every single day. Ann Richards was one of my favorite female Texas politicians. Guess who is one of my least favorite?

When I heard her say that WH people should not be indicted for perjury and/or obstruction of justice; I wondered what she said about Clinton. Now I know. She's just another corrupt, lying republican.

How the hell do these people live with themselves?

There should be a site dedicated to documenting all of the hypocrisy and hypocrites out there. That way we can have a great resource to research anybody and show them for the duplicitous schills they are.

Does anyone know if this guy would let someone run this site;
http://www.hypocrites.com/

I mean, one giant hypocrisy database would be an invaluable tool to expose hypocritical egomaniacs like Hutchison.

If I knew anything about Html code, I would volunteer in a second.

Ideas anyone?

.

she thinks every one else has!

out with soap.....I'm lucky to have a TV! :mad:

So now we see what the Republican talking point will be if Fitzgerald comes back with charges of pergury, but not charges of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

The Rethugs will just say this is a game and there was no evidence to indict on the actual crime of outing Valerie Plame.

What digusting human beings they are.

All of them! I am really hoping The Fitz charge Rove and Libby with either Perjury or Obstruction of Justice because you know the repukes will give every excuse in the book that it's not the right charge but when Clinton half lied about a sexual affair it was. Although I don't think Clinton was actually charged with perjury.

I think I'll do just that!

Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R - TX)

284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-5922
E-mail: senator@hutchison.senate.gov
Web: http://www.senate.gov/~hutchison/

Evidently you have two different definitions of perjury depending on whether a Democrat or a Republican is involved. Being for conviction of perjury in a case of lying about sex is evidently a more important matter than in a case of blowing an undercover operative's cover-which threatens the VERY security of the United States. It used to be that a Senator would put loyalty to the Constitution and the United States at a HIGHER level than their loyalty to their party. How you can face yourself in the mirror in the morning without flinching is beyond me.

I recall her getting quite a bit of TV time back then, a clip of 1999 Hutchison vs. 2005 Hutchison would be nice to see on the Daily Show for example.

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0852103

Current Office: U.S. Senator
Current District: Senior Seat
First Elected: 06/05/1993
Last Elected: 2000
Next Election: 2006

my email to her opponent Barbara Radnofsky:

Dear Barbara,

I imagine Texas voters don't care for hypocrisy, so I would think a campaign ad could be made out of this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5141932

Good luck in 2006!

any guesses?

.

Yay Cocoa, that's the way to do it!

Take their damn lies and use 'em. Rub it in their smug, fugly faces.

:applause:

Remember 1998: the greatest hits were "rule of law", "we're a nation of laws", "nobody is above the law", "let justice take it's course".

All that indignant talk in 1998 has turned to crickets chirping in 2005.

Hypocrites.

The law never applies to them. If they break the law, the legal courts and courts of public opinion should not judge them harshly, since they were only doing it for the good of the country. Repukes always demand that honesty and rule of law is essential to a Democracy. So if Democrats lie, they do it to tear down the country and the moral fabric of our society. Except of course when it's the repukes lying. Then the lying is frivolous and calling them to account for it, is criminalizing politics.

Talk about wasting time and public dollars Kay. Watergate and Monicagate were huge wastes of public dollars, but you didn't seem to care about the taxpayer then, Kay.

She's a first class hypocrite! She makes me sick.

Sonia

according to DeLay when he was shitfaced.

I wish we could get that information in front of the American people's noses. I guess the truth don't sell Coors Beer and Viagra to the sick, lame and lazy, blind, crippled and crazy Sunday School students in the GOP. I graduated from Sunday School, the same day I found out about Santa. Some people NEVER learn though...

Bush, Trent Lott and Kay Bailey Hutchison were all cheerleaders in college. Kay Bailey Hutchison was just cheering for
KKKarl's "DEFENSE," on Chrissie's Sunday Suckfest today. I wish Tweety and Bush would just go ahead on and get a Gawd Danged room. It would be nice if that room came with steel bars and a padlock. Guys like Tweety are Bushco accomplices up to their ears. Part of Rumbo's/DoD's secretive war propaganda crew, just spreading "misinformation to the enemy." Their "Enemy" is you and me without a doubt, judging by the amount misinformation the neocons have spread in this country, since day one.

But they call them "Yell Leaders" at Texas A&M, his alma mater.

(Insert favorite Aggie Joke here.)

:banghead:

I suggest we shove it into her face.

...DUPLICITOUS REPUBLIFASCIST WHORE too.

...DUPLICITOUS REPUBLIFASCIST WHORE too.

bra and her tits hit her knees?

Its about the LIE of WMD in IRAQ!!!

:thumbsup:

K & R

... shouted from rooftops.

Oh the hypocrisy!

That we have such gutless, hollow people leading this country does not bode well for us. You'd think a Senator would somehow have more gravitas than that, but no, that's where we are now.

:kick: for old Kay

at the State and National conventions...in Primetime...said over and over and over and over and over again...ad nauseum

Just wondering?

.

to go. She's repulsive.

shoe is on the other foot then a whole new set of rules apply to this lousy group of good-for-nothing cheats.

I used this very post - ovbiously - but it was set out so well. Here is the address to her contact page:

<http://hutchison.senate.gov/e-mail.htm>

Here is the message you can cut and paste. I urge you all to write her and see if we get a response:

I witnessed your appearance this morning on Meet the Press. I feel sorry for you, as I fear you are going to be forever remembered as a hypocrite. Here is why:

Here is what you said during the Clinton impeachment:

The edifice of American jurisprudence rests on the foundation of the due process of law. The mortar in that foundation is the oath. Those who seek to obstruct justice weaken that foundation, and those who violate the oath would tear the whole structure down.

Every day, thousands of citizens in thousands of courtrooms across America are sworn in as jurors, as grand jurors, as witnesses, as defendants. On those oaths rest the due process of law upon which all of our other rights are based.

The oath is how we defend ourselves against those who would subvert our system by breaking our laws. There are Americans in jail today because they violated that oath. Others have prevailed at the bar of justice because of that oath.

What would we be telling Americans -- and those worldwide who see in America what they can only hope for in their own countries -- if the Senate of the United States were to conclude: The President lied under oath as an element of a scheme to obstruct the due process of law, but we chose to look the other way?

I cannot make that choice. I cannot look away. I vote `Guilty' on Article I, Perjury. I vote `Guilty' on Article II, Obstruction of Justice.

I ask unanimous consent an analysis of the Articles of Impeachment be printed in the Record.


Here is your quote from MTP this morning:

I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation were not a waste of time and dollars.


Hypocracy is very evident. I hope you will make a statement to regain your good name.

Sincerely,

DOES NOT REPRESENT ME!!!!!

C*nt.
fsc

You have to wonder about these people. Are they just so stupid that they will knowingly contradict themselves because there is a new talking point or spin prepared by their masters? Uh.. I guess so. I sent her a link to this thread :D

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5141932

Ms. Hutchison:

Your overwhelming hypocrisy, as revealed by your statements about perjury as applied to Bill Clinton and as applied to Republican White House officials, is simply appalling. Texas is a long way away, but we can smell the stink way up here in Columbus.

Do you Republicans think that Americans are so stupid that we somehow won't notice your blatant contradiction of your own words? I can't believe the contempt you show for logic, decency, and your fellow Americans.

Like other Republicans, you should be very worried about your prospects for the coming years. We the people are getting sick of the lies, the incompetence, and the corruption. Majorities in all 50 states now say the country is off track. Who put us there? Who has been in charge for 5 of the worst years in American history?

It's the Republicans! You all had better hope that enough voting machines can be rigged in your favor. It will be tough to win a fair election after what you all have done to us. Thanks for nothing.

That was stupendous! Please send her words and your words to Keith Olbermann so he can read them on the air. That was terrific!

Unfortunately, Hypocrisy is standard MO for current GOP. Someone ought to compile a list -- it would fill a book easily. I'd like to see one story of political integrity, i.e., maintaining a constitent position despite immediate political interest.

House Judiciary Committee hearing, December 11, 1998
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin): Mr. Chairman...


SENSENBRENNER: ... for the past 11 months, the toughest questions I have had to answer come from parents who want to know what to tell their kids about what President Clinton did.

Every parent tries to teach their children to know the difference between right and wrong, to always tell the truth and, when they make mistakes, to take responsibility for them and to face the consequences of their actions.

President Clinton's actions at every step since the media told us who Monica Lewinsky is have been completely opposite to the values parents hope to teach their children. No amount of government education programs and day care facilities can reverse the damage done to our children's values by the leader of our country.

But being a poor example system grounds for impeachment. Undermining the rule of law is.

Frustrating the court's ability to administer justice turns private misconduct into an attack upon the ability of one of the three branches of our government to impartially administer justice. This is a direct attack on the rule of law in our country and a very public wrong that goes to the constitutional workings of our government.

To me, making false statement under oath to a criminal grand jury is an impeachable offense, period. This committee and the House decided that issue by a vote of 417-nothing nine years ago in the Judge Nixon impeachment.

To accept the argument that presidential lying to a grand jury is somewhat different than judicial lying to a grand jury and, thus, not impeachable, is wrong. It sets the standard for presidential truthfulness lower than for judicial truthfulness.

The truth is the truth, and a lie is a lie, no matter who says it. And no amount of legal hair-splitting can obscure that fact.

The evidence clearly shows that President Clinton lied to the grand jury fully 7.5 months after the president's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky hit the front pages.

SENSENBRENNER: Those lies were told because the president was unwilling to admit he repeatedly lied in the Paula Jones deposition in January.

Whatever one thinks of her federal civil rights suit, the Supreme Court decided by a vote of nine to zero that she had the right to pursue it and to gather evidence to support her claims.

Giving testimony under oath at depositions is one way parties to lawsuits are allowed to obtain evidence under our laws. The president lied numerous times at that deposition to obstruct Ms. Jones' pursuing her right to get that evidence.

When Americans come to Washington, they see the words "equal justice under law" carved in the facade of the Supreme Court building. Those words mean that the weak and the poor have an equal right to justice, as do the rich and the powerful.

President Clinton's lies in that deposition were directly designed to defeat Ms. Jones' claims. He then lied to his Cabinet and his staff so that they would unwittingly deceive the American public on this issue. And he appeared on TV denying sexual relations with quote "that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."

The president's defenders might claim that he did it to protect the first lady and his daughter. While that might have been true right when the story broke, it wasn't shortly afterwards when all the personal embarrassment possible had already been caused.

He didn't admit to an inappropriate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky until the DNA tests on that famous dress came back. And to this day, he still will not admit to lying at the deposition and to the grand jury, all to evade responsibility for his untruthful testimony.

His repeated and continued failure to accept responsibility for his false testimony has brought us to the point where this committee is on the verge of approving articles of impeachment of a president for only the third time in our nation's history.

Had President Clinton told the truth in January, admitted that he had made a mistake and suffered the consequences then, there would have been no independent counsel investigation on this matter and we would not be debating impeachment here today.

Mr. Clinton has recognized that his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky was wrong. I give him credit for that. But he has not owned up to the false testimony, the stonewalling, the obstructing the courts from finding the truth and the use of taxpayer-paid White House resources to hide and perpetuate his lies.

He has tried to use his apology for private misconduct to evade taking responsibility for the very grave public wrongs done to the judicial system's ability to find the truth. He has used legal hairsplitting and redefinition of words to perpetuate those lies and has continued to do so.

The framers of the Constitution devised an elaborate system of checks and balances to ensure our liberties by making sure that no person, institution or branch of government became so powerful that a tyranny could be established in the United States of America.

Impeachment is one of the checks the framers gave to Congress to prevent the executive or judicial branches from becoming corrupt or tyrannical.

Today, based upon the evidence that the president lied, obstructed and abused power in an effort to prevent the courts from administering equal justice under law, I cast my vote in favor of impeaching William Jefferson Clinton.

I do so with no joy, but without apologies, just as those on this committee who voted to impeach President Nixon 24 years ago did.

Watergate and the Nixon impeachment reversed the results of an overwhelming election and were extremely divisive to our country. But America emerged from that national nightmare a much stronger country and will do so again after this sad part of our history is over.

What is on trial here is the truth and the rule of law. Our failure to bring President Clinton to account for his lying under oath and preventing the courts from administering equal justice under law will cause a cancer to be present in our society for generations.

I want those parents who asked me the questions to be able to tell their children that even if you are president of the United States, if you lie when sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you will face the consequences of that action even when you don't accept the responsibility for that.

among many things.....

I know it would show pettiness and infighting but SOMEONE has to come out and say outting and covering up the outting of a CIA operative is far worse a situation than the blue dress scandal.....

Franky I think they set up Wilson to out Brewster Jennings.... he was just a pawn.

Rash Limbaugh said the same thing last week on his show, almost word for word. The dead giveaway is the both Limbaugh and Hutchinson used Martha Stewart as an example. I've seen this line elsewhere too.

ON EDIT: NYT confirms Hutchinsons statements part of a broader strategy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/politics/24leak.html?hp&ex=1130126400&en=5b13878cbd9535b7&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The hypocrisy goes beyond the impeachment vote. The top objective of the GOP in the 90s was to try to find an excuse to impeach Bill Clinton. The GOP repeatedly came up with fictitious accusations with no evidence. Then, the GOP claimed an investigation was needed because the "public had a right to know." "If he's innocent, why would he mind? What does he have to hide?" Everything that went after that was perjury and obstruction of justice traps. That was the entire strategy.

They would interview Democrats and ask them, well, you do thinks these are serious charges don't you? Well then, you wouldn't want to just sweep it under the rug, would you. After all, if he's innocent . . .

It' high time we did the same thing in this case.

Lot more serious matter.

Thanks for nailing down the specifics on her brazen hypocrisy.

The right wing nutcases circled the wagons when Rush "drug users should be convicted and sent up" Limbaugh was outed as a junkie. Apparently, moral relativism is evil only when practiced by liberals.

- Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison did not recuse herself from investigating the collapse of Enron Corp. despite having received at least $195,000 to fund her campaigns from three major players in the failed company

- Hutchison has had the highest profile of all U.S. senators for financial ties, personal ties or both to major players in the Enron debacle

- Hutchison has also been a major recipient of campaign cash from the employees of Arthur Andersen L.L.P., the consultants who signed off on Enron's bookkeeping.

- Hutchison received more from Enron than any other member of Congress, including the 23 other members of the Commerce committee

- While Enron and Andersen provided Hutchison with significant contributions, by far her largest contributors since 1997 have been the lawyers at Houston-based law firm Vinson & Elkins L.L.P.

- Vinson & Elkins gave a substantially clear review to allegations of improprieties within Enron prior to its meltdown.

- The partnership's lawyers since 1997 have given Hutchison $93,700.

- Hutchison's husband, Ray Hutchison, is a member of the firm, working from the partnership's Dallas office.

- A leading energy law firm, Vinson & Elkins has long been an Enron consultant, reportedly netting $30 million in 2001 alone from the Houston energy company

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2002/02/18/story4.html

just saying, mmm-Kay

"I certainly knew Kenneth Lay from just business meetings, where you would meet with business people who want to talk about an issue," said Hutchison. "But I certainly didn't see him socially."

they would be droning with moral indignation "the flag has fallen, my God!" They would have tried to impeach him for that, if they could. If Bush sells a nuke to Bin Laden they would be screaming "witchhunt", if anyone tried to investigate. Little partisan insects are all conservative republicans are. "Perjury technicality", LOL.

Please feel free to LIE under oath.

Russert is a neocon whore.

Good work and good catch, Cocoa.

Also nominated, but it doesn't look like you'll need my vote.

nice work :yourock:

this little aspect...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/politics/24leak.html?ei=5088&en=6cb9607ccd79f4fd&ex=1287806400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

I know, it's pretty crowded there.

--IMM

I just wrote a column for my school paper about this. Hopefully they will run it next week. I'll prolly write a letter to the Star-Telegram and the Morning News as well. This needs media coverage. The hypocrisy has got to end.

Be the media! Down with "presstitutes."

Texans, if I know anything about them, don't go for this shit.

--IMM

If only the President had followed the simple, high moral principle handed to us by our Nation's first leader as a child and had said early in this episode `I cannot tell a lie,' we would not be here today. We would not be sitting in judgment of a President. We would not be invoking those provisions of the Constitution that have only been applied once before in our Nation's history.

But we should all be thankful that our Constitution is there, and we should take pride in our right and duty to enforce it. A hundred years from now, when history looks back to this moment, we can hope for a conclusion that our Constitution has been applied fairly and survives, that we have come to principled judgments about matters of national importance, and that the rule of law in American has been sustained.

I'd love to see Molly Ivins weigh in on her reversal.

Hekate

But since I'm not superstitious I'll nominate this article and send Kay Baily Hutchinson a letter, telling her that she is full of Texas beans, the kind that the good folks don't eat.

That these people can say these things without vomiting spontaneously amazes me. These assholes still think that it's October 2001 and no one's gonna call them on anything. She's just one more turd in a port-a-potty that is long overdue to be dumped out.

geeez...

I hope the media tears hear a new one. I highly doubt they will though.

and she is a Class A bush whore

That single word exhausts any consideration of her possible merits or demerits in public affairs. She is surely the quintessential neocon, a paragon of what they stand for.

I was going to say that she "epitomises" neocondom, but how can you epitomise something as irreducible as shamelessness - in this context, that defining shamelessness of the neocons? The most that can be said about her in that connection is that she is the perfect myrmidon, another limited, uncomplicated and unequivocal member of that curiously banal set of hollow individuals.

And since that word, "shameless", in a single stroke, exhausts any further consideration of the "values", she operates with, what further consideration can be profitaby accorded to anything she or they utter? Truly, a defining moment.

Just keep repeating it. Say it again and again.
REPUBLICANS ARE SCUM! Priod. No discussion. The GOP is currently made up of three types of poeple: Scumbags, greedy bastards and extremely ignorant people. Let them all go to Hell!

Oh, that's right. Laws are for the unwashed masses and Democratic Presidents, not the GOP. :eyes:

.

Have you guys seen how supportive this witch is of DeLay????? She barely got out of an idictment from Texas Grand Jury herself.... she of all people BENEFITED from a so called techinicality..

F you Hutchison!

and makes it grist for one of his Flippity-Floppity bits.

kick

"We Republicans are the good guys! We can do anything rotten!"

"When Democrats lie, it's treason! When we lie, it's a technicality!"

:puke:

along with a note calling KBH a lying politician.

I saw where it was mentioned to media blast this, great idea and please do so. Also, write the heifer, it probably won't do any good but it helps keep you focused and feels good.

When you've finished both of those take a minute and write a LTTE to your local paper.

This is my email to Senator Hutchison, another hypocrite (can you say Contract with America?).

Dear Senator Hutchison,
Although you do not represent me, I was appalled by your hypocritical comments regarding perjury and obstruction of justice made on 10/23/05 on Meet the Press with Tim Russert. Your direct quote:

“I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation were not a waste of time and dollars.”

This stance seems to indicate a unique change of moral principle, which you used in 1999 for partisan politics during the Clinton Impeachment hearings and your analysis of the Articles of Impeachment quoted below:

“Nearly every child in America believes that President Washington, as a child himself, did in fact cut down the cherry tree and admitted to his father that he did it, saying simply: `I cannot tell a lie.' “

“I will not compromise this simple but high moral principle in order to avoid serious consequences to a successor President who may choose to ignore it.”

“If only the President had followed the simple, high moral principle handed to us by our Nation's first leader as a child and had said early in this episode `I cannot tell a lie,' we would not be here today. We would not be sitting in judgment of a President. We would not be invoking those provisions of the Constitution that have only been applied once before in our Nation's history.”

The thing that I find most troubling is that your philosophy was sterner when the crime of perjury occurred over a personal matter. Now that the crime of perjury is related to a very important national security matter it seems to be weaker. I personally believe that the compromise of classified information on CIA operations concerning WMD intelligence would be much more detrimental to national security than a personal relationship, even though the President of the United States of America was involved. I ask you to hold yourself to the high moral standards you stated in 1999. If you do not, it will certainly appear that you were lying about the said “high moral standards” you held then, which could be seen as perjury had you been under oath. Did you tell a lie in 1999?