Wednesday, October 26, 2005

The Flip-Floppers Of The "Right"

Speaking of unprincipled, flip-flopping Republicans, I have been meaning to write about Kay Bailey Hutchison and her talking out of both sides of her mouth on the crime of perjury. As it happens, however, another blogger beat me to it.

Hat tip to the Fight The Reich Wing blog for this one:

11/23/2005 about Valerie Plame case:

"I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment ... 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 their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."

2/13/1999 about Bill Clinton case:

"The principle of the rule of law--equality under the law and a clear standard for perjury and obstruction of justice--was the overriding issue in this impeachment."

2/12/1999 about Bill Clinton case:

"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."

Since when is perjury a "technicality" instead of a crime?


The lies the government and media tell are
amplifications of the lies we tell ourselves.
To stop being conned, stop conning yourself.
James Wolcott

8 comments:

  1. DailyKos was kind enough to post some of the original reich wing sputtering on perjury and obstruction from back in the long-vanished past, here.

    What was that about consistency being the hobgoblin of foolish minds?

    :-), StS

    ReplyDelete
  2. 10 27 05

    Hey II:
    thx for posting on my blog. And No, many of the countries that possess nukes didn't have them before, that along with the US's waining influence DOES scare me!

    About your article; good points. I am so unsure about all of this Plamegate stuff because everytime I turn on the TV, I don't wanna watch it! YOu are exposing the inconsistencies in how the law is applied and I like that. It is foolish to prosecute a man for moral turpetude on one day, but then not prosecute a man for moral turpetude the next. LYing is lying no matter how we frame it and dishonesty isn't cool, especially when we rely on honest people to govern us. But then again, are there any honest politicians?

    ReplyDelete
  3. BOB - It would be great if there is an underlying crime too because that would mean more jail time! :-) But, I'll settle for perjury if that is what will give the Pillsbury Rove Boy the swift kick in the ass he has deserved all these years.

    MR - you are absolutely right that lying is lying no matter who does it. Politicians are probably all liars but many don't tell lies that endanger national security. It is nice to see a "conservative" with integrity - you are an endangered species.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I blogged about this too.

    Perjury is a serious offense… but you do need to consider the circumstances when considering the punishment.

    Clinton perjured himself about consensual sex… Something so far removed from the subject of the special prosecutors’ original investigation – and a topic so far removed from the public’s purview that it’s ridiculous to think we spent more than $70 MILLION to bring the charge.

    On the other hand, Bush’s crew has probably perjured themselves with the expressed intent of discrediting the credibility of someone WHO SPOKE THE TRUTH about Iraq seeking uranium for WMD – and hence tried to muffle voices of dissent as they made a case for war.

    To call both perjury, although technically right, is like saying j-walking and murder are both crimes.

    ReplyDelete