• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hello Pot, Meet Kettle.

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,335
Reaction score
13,568
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Does anyone see the irony here?

The following is a quote from the Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison:

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 a 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.”

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401583.html

Maybe senator Hutchison is on to something, because the next thing you know an opposition party might end up spending millions and millions of the taxpayers dollars investigating a president, and then when they cant get him on anything else (after they go so far as to call him both a murder and a rapist), questioning him under oath about an affair that has nothing to do with anything in the hopes that he will lie about it and that will give them grounds for impeachment. That sure would be a travesty if that happened.
 

Middleground

Dam Epidamic
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
26,066
Reaction score
12,020
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Let me add her thoughs during the Clinton impeachment era:

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.

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


What a hypocrite!!!
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
She is a huge hypocrite that tows the party line no matter what. She certainly didn't come to Martha Stewarts defense IIRC.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
Does anyone see the irony here?

The following is a quote from the Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison:

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 a 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.”

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401583.html

Maybe senator Hutchison is on to something, because the next thing you know an opposition party might end up spending millions and millions of the taxpayers dollars investigating a president, and then when they cant get him on anything else (after they go so far as to call him both a murder and a rapist), questioning him under oath about an affair that has nothing to do with anything in the hopes that he will lie about it and that will give them grounds for impeachment. That sure would be a travesty if that happened.
Hypocritical?...Sure as heck sounds like it to me...

Question....Is she wrong then and right now?
Or right then and wrong now?...:confused:
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hutchinson is a bimbo, we all know that.

Then again, the presumption that an indictment has merit is always risky, look at the bogus indictments Lawrence Walsh issued on the Iran-Contra foolishness scant days before the 1992 election.

I see SouthernDemocrat is in denial about the charges against our dear Rapist President, though. The charges had merit, the perjury in question was concerning an issue of relevance, and he did abuse the power of his office in an attempt to sway the outcome. Why he did that when the Republicans in the Senate were eager to dodge the issue and get back golf is beyond me.

As for this Valerie Plame thing, does anyone care?
 
Top Bottom