Please help me draft a letter to Kay B. Hutchison who only thinks

perjury and obstruction of justice are rules for Democrats, not Republicans. By way of her responses that someone here shared on another thread, I think it is only logical that she believes the rules don't apply to her own party...or maybe she thinks that there is a separate set of rules and thus a double standard for politicians who are Democrats.

She is one of my two CROOKED LYING Senators and I want to let her know how wrong and partisan I think her statement was regarding this particular matter.

Thanks for your input.

any member of the Senate who has such utter and contemptuous disregard for the laws of our land should do the honorable thing and resign from the Senate immediately.

To characterize perjury as "a technicality" is to betray a ignorance that has embarrassed her before the world. If she feels the need to mock our judicial system, perhaps she'd do better as an anarchist talk show host.

But, she's demonstrated, with that idiotic comment, that she's competely incompetent to serve in the Senate, and not worthy of her American citizenship. She should turn in her passport, too.

I get the big bucks, toots .............

I write in protest and get form letters thanking me for getting in touch, followed by their stand on issues which usually have no relationship to how I feel or why I wrote.
DeLay and KBH are both guilty. I've never heard back from Cornyn, and have written to Shelia Jackson-Lee, and called, but she's not my rep and I've never had a response from her.
So good luck! :)

writing stage but I get so angry at their stupid decisions and comments that sometimes I write anyway just because it makes me feel better.

I've become cynical but didn't mean to rain on your parade.:pals:

speak out against these outrageous betrayals then take it silently (which I sometimes do too - depends on the battle).

Working on one now pointing out how her views vary depending on if it's a Dem or a Repug in office. I also plan on pointing out how she hasn't had an original idea of her own and that she may as well be a droid programed by bush*. Since all one appears to have to do to be a Texas Senator is mimic bush's ideas I'm going to suggest she be replaced by a mynah bird. It could accomplish the same thing with a huge savings in salary to we taxpayers.

Peace.

:thumbsup:

because he lied under oath - about an extra-marital BLOW JOB with a consenting adult, then she should similarly have no trouble accepting what SHOULD and MUST be done to those in this White House who've lied, perjured themselves, covered up, obstructed justice, and conspired - about dragging our nation to a war of aggression against a nation that did NOT attack us, and didn't pose any threat to us, AND about trying to destroy the good names and careers of anyone who dared to try to stand in their way.

Seems to me that's got a good deal more heft to it than a blow job. If she has trouble with any of the latter, she should also come forward and denounce what was done in the case of the former. Which, of course, she won't. kay bailey hutchison is PATHETIC.

Dear Kay:

People are not allowed by law to lie to Federal Prosecutors or Grand Juries.

If everyone was allowed to lie to Federal Prosecutors and Grand Juries, federal prosecutors would not be able to put cases together.

Think about it, it is really quite simple. Do you really want to recommend that people lie to Federal Prosecutors? I doubt it.

So stop saying these crazy things on TV, it only makes you look like the stupidest person ever born.

Regards,

it. Thanks. What a great letter.

.... Kay is nothing if not simple. The form letters she sends in reply to any letter or email you send her are insipid and stupid beyond belief.

She really is a moron uttering talking points she heard somewhere else. You'd think she could at least hire someone to write her letters.

Check out her last sentence
"...just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."


On Sunday, Republicans appeared to be preparing to blunt the impact of any charges. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, speaking on the NBC news program "Meet the Press," compared the leak investigation with the case of Martha Stewart and her stock sale, "where they couldn't find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn't a crime."

Ms. Hutchison said she hoped "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 and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."

Well, anyway, dear Kay, remember the affair involving the stain on that little black dress a few years ago.

You know the one, don't you?

The one where every lying Repug had a chance to get up and grand stand about private morality, political ethics and the importance of the rule of law.

You are a member of the law and order party aren't you? Or has it become the war and spend party these days? So hard to keep track of small time politics when your handlers over at the PNAC keep us on perpetual alert, in constant crisis, and hot for another war.

But I digress.

Anyway, you more than most, should know about perjury under oath in front of a grand jury. You made some pretty statements about that back in the black dress days. Now you seem to minimize your own ethics and standards. HOw does it feel when the pump is on the other hoof?

Since you dragged our great nation through several years of hell and media circus maximus with the entrapment of our last commander in chief, it is only fair to remind you that pay back is hell, but still sweet, even when the crimes may be high and not misdemeanors.

Outing a CIA agent is significant and lying about those shenanigans to a grand jury is nothing to shake your coiffed little head at.

So please show some respect for the rule of law, our Constitution, and above all the people you serve: The American People, and concede that perjury is not trivial.

As always, your boss,
Just another American Citizen.:patriot:

they have been putting more pork in the barrel than a fundy seperatisat waiting for Armaggedon.

They're so liberal with their spending that liberals have started to call themsleves spendthrifts.

They're like a drunken Scotsman at a whore house on discount night.


OK enough dog jokes...need more coffee..must have coffee

"Redhedd" there had a wonderful take on Kay.

"Kay Bailey Hutchinson, the new poster girl for "laws only apply when they are convenient for the GOP," said on today's Meet the Press:

KAY:'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.'
(Hat tip to ThinkProgress for the exact quote. I was sputtering too much to get it down on paper.)

May I call you, Kay?

Kay, dear, the law is the law whether or not it sends your cronies to jail. And I didn't see you making the rounds on all the talk shows during the Clinton Impeachment proceedings disagreeing with the notion that perjury and obstruction of justice were serious crimes against the rule of law.

In fact, one of your colleagues, Henry Hyde, had this to say at that time:

"The question before this House is rather simple," said Hyde, an Illinois Republican. "It's not about sex ... The matter before the House is lying under oath. This is called perjury."

Hyde said perjury and obstruction of justice "cannot be reconciled with the office of the president of the United States ... The people's trust has been betrayed."

He accused Clinton of a "premeditated, deliberate corruption of the nation's system of justice."
It's amazing how a little thing like the internet can be so helpful in exposing hypocrisy, isn't it? Perjury was a corruption of nation's system of justice back then -- but an inconsequential technicality now? Wow, that was quick.

(snip)

UPDATE: Kay, your Petard. Petard, Kay. In your own words, all the way back on Feb. 12, 1999:

KAY: 'I was reminded as well, however, that the laws of our Country are applicable to us all, including the President, and they must be obeyed. The concept of equal justice under law and the importance of absolute truth in legal proceedings is the foundation of our justice system in the courts.'

Whew, it must be painful, twisting yourself in all those ethical knots. Then, you said this:

KAY: 'The Supreme Court of the United States has observed that there is an occasional misunderstanding to the effect that the crime of 'perjury' is somehow distinct from 'obstruction of justice.' United States v. Norris, 300 U.S. 564, 574 (1937). They are not. While different elements make up each crime, each is calculated to prevent a court and the public from discovering the truth and achieving justice in our judicial system. Moreover, it is obvious that 'witness tampering' is simply another means employed to obstruct justice.'

Hmmmm...calculated to prevent the court and the public from discovering the truth, eh? Amazing how that doesn't sound so inconsequential coming from your own mouth, isn't it, Kay? Gee, then you said:

KAY: 'Lying is a moral wrong. Perjury is a lie told under oath that is legally wrong....Willful, corrupt, and false sworn testimony before a Federal grand jury is a separate and distinct crime under applicable law and is material and perjurious if it is 'capable' of influencing the grand jury in any matter before it, including any collateral matters that it may consider. See, Title 18, Section 1623, U.S. Code, and Federal court cases interpreting that Section.
The President's testimony before the Federal grand jury was fully capable of influencing the grand jury's investigation and was clearly perjurious.'

Interesting how perjury seemed so important to the rule of law back then, isn't it?

But my favorite part of your statement was your conclusion:
KAY: '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 find firedoglake to be the best blogspot to read regarding the Plame affair.