Monday, October 24, 2005

hypocrironicle

To be a vocabularian today, I think the word best describing Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's performance on Sunday's Meet the Press is hypocrironicle.

Kay Bailey Hutchison, on Meet the Press on Sunday morning was asked about the CIA leak investigation and what she thought about it:

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.

But, of course Senator Hutchison doesn't seem to feel that way when it is a member of the other party in the line of fire. Senator Hutchison voted to impeach Bill Clinton for exactly what she is now say we should not indict on - perjury and obstruction of justice.

The two Articles of Impeachment before the Senate in this proceeding do in fact accuse the President of committing three actual crimes, `perjury before the grand jury,' `'obstruction of justice,' and `witness tampering,' that meet the requirements for conviction of an indicted defendant in a criminal case brought under Federal law...

Lying is a moral wrong. Perjury is a lie told under oath that is legally wrong...

The President of the United States willfully, and with intent to deceive, gave false and misleading testimony under oath with respect to material matters that were pending before the Federal grand jury on August 17, 1998, as alleged in Article I presented to the Senate. I, therefore, vote `Guilty' on Article I of the Articles of Impeachment of the President in this Proceeding.

The President of the United States engaged in a pattern of conduct, performed acts of willful deception, and told and disseminated massive falsehoods, including lies told directly to the American people, that were designed and corruptly calculated to impede, obstruct, and prevent the plaintiff in the Arkansas Federal sexual harassment case from seeking and obtaining justice in the Federal court system of the United States, and to further prevent the Federal grand jury from performing its functions and responsibilities under law, I, therefore, vote `Guilty' on Article II of the Articles of Impeachment of the President in this proceeding.

Willful, corrupt, and false sworn testimony before a Federal grand jury is a separate and distinct crime under applicable law and is material and perjuries 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.

But, sadly, Kay is not the only Republican starting to take aim at the special prosecutor. In completely predictable fashion, GOPers have already started the swift boat campaign against Fitzgerald.

"He's a vile, detestable, moralistic person with no heart and no conscience who believes he's been tapped by God to do very important things," one White House ally said, referring to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.


W pals bushwhack CIA leak prosecutor

Resignations May Follow Charges

3 comments:

Sigmund, Carl and Alfred said...

Tempest in a teapot- all of it. See today's WSJ.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007447

tommy said...

How do we know what indictments are coming?

I see speculation about what's going to happen after the indictments and I wonder how people know who is going to be indicted.

Maybe it's just me but I like to have something to react to before I react, probably why I can't be a politician, I'd always be too far behind in the spin game.

Dingo said...

Siggy, the WSJ final point was that Libby, being a seasoned lawyer, would know better than to lie to the grand jury. Clinton was an attorney also.

Tommy, this is too fun not to speculate about who (not if) will receive indictments. There very well could be no indictments, thus, I need to get my shots in while I can. What else am I going to blog about? Issues? as if...