Hello Pot, Meet Kettle.

[ALiberalModerate]

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]

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]

She is a huge hypocrite that tows the party line no matter what. She certainly didn't come to Martha Stewarts defense IIRC.

 

[cnredd]

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?...

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

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?