Disagreeable
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,464
- Reaction score
- 0
When is perjury not a crime? When it's a Republican White House. ROTFLMAO! That Kay Bailey Hutchinson can say this with a straight face is too funny! 
Excerpts; link below; my emphasis.
"Republicans, who impeached and tried to remove a president who lied about his private sex life, have now decided that the whole "rule of law" thing really isn't all it's cut out to be.
Some Republicans -- anticipating the possible indictment of top White House aides -- are launching a preemptive public relations strike that is stunning in its audacity.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Tex.) outlined the strategy on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, when moderator Tim Russert asked her whether White House spokesman Scott McClellan's previous denials that anyone in the administration had anything to do with the leak of covert operative Valerie Plame's name to the media lacked credibility.
"Tim, you know, I think we have to remember something here," Hutchinson admonished. "An indictment of any kind is not a guilty verdict, and I do think we have in this country the right to go to court and have due process and be innocent until proven guilty. And secondly, 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 and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury.
"I think we should be very careful here, especially as we are dealing with something very public and people's lives in the public arena. I do not think we should prejudge. I think it is unfair to drag people through the newspapers week after week after week, and let's just see what the charges are. Let's tone down the rhetoric and let's make sure that if there are indictments that we don't prejudge."
So now perjury is a "technicality"?
"…On Jan. 23, 1998, within days of media reports that Clinton may have had an affair with a young intern named Monica Lewinsky, Hutchinson appeared on a local Texas television program, WFAA-TV (Dallas-Fort Worth) to make the case that perjury was an impeachable offense. (Only a summary of the interview, rather than a full transcript is available on Nexis.) And certainly many other Republicans were reminding the public throughout the Lewinsky scandal that telling the truth under oath was fundamental to democracy and the rule of the law."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9812184/
Excerpts; link below; my emphasis.
"Republicans, who impeached and tried to remove a president who lied about his private sex life, have now decided that the whole "rule of law" thing really isn't all it's cut out to be.
Some Republicans -- anticipating the possible indictment of top White House aides -- are launching a preemptive public relations strike that is stunning in its audacity.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Tex.) outlined the strategy on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, when moderator Tim Russert asked her whether White House spokesman Scott McClellan's previous denials that anyone in the administration had anything to do with the leak of covert operative Valerie Plame's name to the media lacked credibility.
"Tim, you know, I think we have to remember something here," Hutchinson admonished. "An indictment of any kind is not a guilty verdict, and I do think we have in this country the right to go to court and have due process and be innocent until proven guilty. And secondly, 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 and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury.
"I think we should be very careful here, especially as we are dealing with something very public and people's lives in the public arena. I do not think we should prejudge. I think it is unfair to drag people through the newspapers week after week after week, and let's just see what the charges are. Let's tone down the rhetoric and let's make sure that if there are indictments that we don't prejudge."
So now perjury is a "technicality"?
"…On Jan. 23, 1998, within days of media reports that Clinton may have had an affair with a young intern named Monica Lewinsky, Hutchinson appeared on a local Texas television program, WFAA-TV (Dallas-Fort Worth) to make the case that perjury was an impeachable offense. (Only a summary of the interview, rather than a full transcript is available on Nexis.) And certainly many other Republicans were reminding the public throughout the Lewinsky scandal that telling the truth under oath was fundamental to democracy and the rule of the law."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9812184/
