Republicans Testing Ways to Blunt Leak Charges (NYT)

[jefferson_dem]

Republicans Testing Ways to Blunt Leak Charges
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 - With a decision expected this week on possible indictments in the C.I.A. leak case, allies of the White House suggested Sunday that they intended to pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal technicalities or the product of an overzealous prosecutor.

<SNIP>

On Sunday, Republicans appeared to be preparing to blunt the impact of any charges. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, speaking on the NBC news program "Meet the Press," compared the leak investigation with the case of Martha Stewart and her stock sale, "where they couldn't find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn't a crime."

Ms. Hutchison said she hoped "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."

President Bush said several weeks ago that Mr. Fitzgerald had handled the case in "a very dignified way," making it more difficult for Republicans to portray him negatively.

<SNIP>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/politics/24leak.html?ei=5088&en=6cb9607ccd79f4fd&ex=1287806400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

[Mnemosyne]

1. There's a word for that Hutchison witch,

and I can't use it here.:puke: :puke: :puke:

[silverweb]

2. Yeah, okay.

"...the White House suggested Sunday they intended to pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal technicalities or the product of an overzealous prosecutor."

Good luck with that, you lying, miserable, corrupt, evil vermin.

[Kierkegaard]

5. Yes. It's called the 'LOSER' plan.

Lie, Obfuscate, Slander, Evade, Refute.

[silverweb]

12. I like that one!

Watching the LOSER plan lose is going to be interesting. The RW LOSERs have caused enough misery and suffering and damage to our nation and the world for the entire 21st Century, so lets hope this is the end of them for at least that long.

[Kierkegaard]

16. I certainly hope the general public has awakened.

Oh, and feel free to spread the 'LOSER' acronym around!

[NYC Liberal]

13. Refute = "prove wrong." How about....resign?

:)

[Kierkegaard]

17. Additionally:

2) To deny the accuracy or truth of...
They are particularly good at refutation without proof, hence my use of the word...but feel free to adjust and distribute!

[leesa]

15. Yup. Kay Hutchinson's already got that game down

Do these droids EVER think on their own?

[Peachhead22]

3. And the Fitzmas gifts keep coming

The campaign commercial for KB Hutchinson's opponent just practically wrote itself.

[jefferson_dem]

4. Sen. PJ (Perjury Technicality) Hutchinson is fucked. Some things are

just not spinnable.


...but it will be a barrel of fun watching them try!

[bunny planet]

20. Yes, and there are tons of KBH quotes from Clinton's impeachment

time that speak in outraged terms about perjury being a very serious crime. I believe firedoglake had them all listed quite nicely earlier today.

[AZBlue]

50. A few kernels of wisdom from Kay Bailey Hutchison from Feb. 12, 1999

"I do not hold to the view of our Constitution that there must be an actual, indictable crime in order for an act of a public officer to be impeachable. It is clear to this Senator that there are, indeed, circumstances, short of a felony criminal offense that would justify the removal of a public officer from office, including the President of the United States. Manifest injury to the Office of the President, to our Nation, and to the American people, and gross abuses of trust and of public office clearly can reach the level of intensity that would justify the impeachment and removal of a leader."

----------------

"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."

-------------------------

"Something needs to be said that is a clear message that our rule of law is intact and the standards for perjury and obstruction of justice are not gray. And I think it is most important that we make that statement and that it be on the record for history.

I very much worry that with the evidence that we have seen that grand juries across America are going to start asking questions about what is obstruction of justice, what is perjury. And I don’t want there to be any lessening of the standard. Because our system of criminal justice depends on people telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is the lynch pin of our criminal justice system and I don’t want it to be faded in any way."



BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR, KAY...

[damntexdem]

6. Oh yes, an overzealous, dignified, Republican prosecutor.

It ain't going to play in Peoria.

[malaise]

37. The problem is that all

their spokesmen and women have praised Fitz big time. The only spin I'm looking forward to is how they plan to separate Bush and Cheney from the men lying for them.

[MarsThe Cat]

7. did k bailey stand up for martha stewart at the time?

or for the 'rule of law'??

[jefferson_dem]

8. She is sure whistling a different tune than she did with Bill in 1998.

Not sure if she commented on Martha until now. Regarding the impeachment proceedings, see >>>

What a difference a few years makes for Hutchison

Sen Hutchison in 1998: "Willful, corrupt, and false sworn testimony before a Federal grand jury is a separate and distinct crime under applicable law and is material and perjurious if it is 'capable' of influencing the grand jury in any matter before it, including any collateral matters that it may consider." I vote `Guilty' on Article I, Perjury. I vote`Guilty' on Article II, Obstruction of Justice."

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/23.html#a5514

[calimary]

10. I don't remember if she did or not. What I DO remember is how

she had the GALL to stand up in the Senate and say one's past experience or background shouldn't have any bearing on whether they're fit for some new job (in this case, defending contradicta's rise to Secretary of State). I almost lost my lunch when I heard that. Made me WISH to hear her mewl so generously and forgivingly about that if it were a nominee or appointee of some DEMOCRATIC President. Yeah, I know, I know...

[AZBlue]

51. KBH was probably thinking of her own indictments when she said that

Ronnie Earle indicted her three times for misusing "state employees and equipment for personal and political gain." The case was good against her but unfortunately didn't go through because a Texas judge ruled that some evidence gathered was inadmissible. I'm sure she'd like everyone to forget that and not hold it against her....

[antonialee839]

9. I think the Repugs are going to screw themselves

with this course of action. Especially if they keep with the "let's make this seem trivial" plan. The stake in the heart of that plan is called movies. The sheeple in America have seen enough action/adventure, espionage movies to know that it's bad, dangerous, and unpatriotic to out one of your own spies,one of the good guys. Just a theory I have.

[emulatorloo]

11. reasonable sane people will be repelled by a "perjury is ok' argument

only hard core freeps will buy that.

[MO_Dem]

18. CNN should run BREAKING NEWS to report

that repuglicans now say there is nothing wrong with lying. This is gonna be so much fun watching them eat those words. Wonder if Ms. Miers wrote those 'talking points'?

:toast:

[emulatorloo]

44. LOL at the Miers connection. . .n/t

[newswolf56]

14. The most polite observation I can make about...

Kay Bailey Hutchison is that she should be accompanied by the political variant of the surgeon general's warning: "This politician may be dangerous to the health of liberty."

Hutchison is an absolute lockstep disciple of George Bush, like Harriet Miers smitten into a cultoid state equivalent to Squeaky Frohm's boundless admiration for Charles Manson.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Is that the best they can do?

1) Ms. Hutchison said she hoped "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."

Perjury isn't a "technicality," dear. It's a felony. The reason that perjury and obstruction are felonies in grand jury contexts is rather clear: without these sanctions, grand juries would have little power to force accurate testimony, and justice would thereby collapse. Moreover, finding no "underlying crime" is no defense to perjury or obstruction. It is often the case that the perjury and obstruction are precisely what prevents the prosecution of the underlying crime. Without these charges, we would be rewarding criminals for successfully hiding their crimes by breaking their legal oaths and contravening lawful investigations! That's the precedent Kay Bailey Hutchinson, a Senator of the United States wants to establish?!? (This is besides the very obvious hypoicrisy involved in suddenly seeing perjury as a technicality when just seven years ago she and her party saw fit to bring the nation to the verge of a constitutional crisis on this point!)

2) Some Republicans have also been reprising a theme that was often sounded by Democrats during the investigations into President Bill Clinton, that special prosecutors and independent counsels lack accountability and too often pursue cases until they find someone to charge.

The Independent counsel statute has expired, and a special prosecutor is not an independent counsel. That said, the former partisan Independent counsel, after running a leak-filled, endless, $70 million dollar investigation that pursued everything and anything related to the Clinton White House, brought no charges against anybody, period. Nobody in the White House or on its staff was ever indicted for anything. In contrast, the current special prosecutor has run a no-leak operation that lasted the life of a grand jury, and cost less than $1 million according to reports, and will end - if with any charges - with specific indictments. To conflate the two is a categorical mistake of first magnitude, but more importantly, an insult to any adult with a memory.

[Tiggeroshii]

21. I have this crazy idea it won't be just some ol' "perjury technicality"

If you're investigating a case for two years, chances are there's probably a lot of evidence to charge somebody for more than just perjuring themselves. I mean, if they perjured themselves, the prosecutor probably knew before that they were going to do that...

I'm gonna make the guess that everybody indicted will have two indictments -one for perjury the others for possible conspiracy and other things...

[lovuian]

22. Kay Oh Kay ... Martha still went to jail!!!

so are we going to have a Prex walking in jail!!!

[katty]

47. goodheavens,Kay, get thee back to your tea party!!!

[creeksneakers2]

23. Republicans Testing Ways to Blunt Leak Charges

WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 - With a decision expected this week on possible indictments in the C.I.A. leak case, allies of the White House suggested Sunday that they intended to pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal technicalities or the product of an overzealous prosecutor.

On Sunday, Republicans appeared to be preparing to blunt the impact of any charges. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, speaking on the NBC news program "Meet the Press," compared the leak investigation with the case of Martha Stewart and her stock sale, "where they couldn't find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn't a crime."

Ms. Hutchison said she hoped "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."

Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 03:40 AM by creeksneakers2

Rash Limbaugh said the same thing last week on his show, almost word for word. The dead giveaway is the both Limbaugh and Hutchinson used Martha Stewart as an example. I've seen this line elsewhere too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/politics/24leak.html?...

[truthisfreedom]

24. not a "perjury technicality" like Clinton's little "perjury technicality"

no, certainly not one of those!

[Patsy Stone]

25. First, they always try this crap out on Sunday morning.

Orrin Hatch spun the Katrina BS, once they figured out what the BS was, on This Week, and now Kay Bailey Hutchinson on MTP.

This paragraph rocks, and you'll forgive me if I can't help but add a photo:

"His silence has left much of official Washington and nearly everyone who works at or with the White House in a state of high anxiety. That has been compounded by the widespread belief that there are aspects of the case beyond those directly involving Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby that remain all but unknown outside of Mr. Fitzgerald's office. Among them is the mystery of who first provided the C.I.A. officer's identity to the syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who published it on July 14, 2003."



ed: accuracy

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. Needs a link if it is to be in Latest Breaking News.

[bluestateguy]

27. I'll make them a deal

Rescind the Clinton impeachment articles in a House vote. Expunge them from the record as if it never happened. Then I'll take their charges seriously.

[fearnobush]

28. Link please.

[meow2u3]

29. Why don't they do what they always do?

Swiftboat Fitz, Ronnie Earle, and the judge (if he or she is a Democrat). They had a lot of practice :sarcasm:

[Javaman]

30. They can try and blunt this all they want...

but the reality is: this will be like a Diarrhea in the rest room. Not a person will admit to it, go near it or talk about it. But regardless, the stench is still there for everyone to smell.

[librechik]

31. yeah, and calling state treason a "leak" was the first attempt to blunt

the charges.

MSM is worthless.

[rodeodance]

32. Republicans Testing Ways to Blunt Leak Charges

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, quote for the day! "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."



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/politics/24leak.html?th&emc=th

October 24, 2005

Republicans Testing Ways to Blunt Leak Charges

By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
and DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 - With a decision expected this week on possible indictments in the C.I.A. leak case, allies of the White House suggested Sunday that they intended to pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal technicalities or the product of an overzealous prosecutor.

Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, is expected to announce by the end of the week whether he will seek indictments against White House officials in a decision that is likely to be a defining moment of President Bush's second term. The case has put many in the White House on edge.

Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., who is Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, have been advised that they are in serious legal jeopardy. Other officials could also face charges in connection with the disclosure of the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer in 2003.

On Sunday, Republicans appeared to be preparing to blunt the impact of any charges. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, speaking on the NBC news program "Meet the Press," compared the leak investigation with the case of Martha Stewart and her stock sale, "where they couldn't find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn't a crime."......

[rodeodance]

33. looky at the Brownback comment!!

"I think we just need to stick to our knitting on the topics and the subjects the American people care about," Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, said on "Fox News Sunday."

[rodeodance]

35. Rupugs say-"just a techicality (purgery)-waste of taxpayer money, ect.

-----just a techicality (purgery)-waste of taxpayer money and we need to stick to topics Americas care about

[DoYouEverWonder]

34. Kay sure thought perjury was a big deal

when she wanted Clinton impeached.

Here's an excerpt from her statement about Clinton's impeachment trial
in the Senate:



Statement by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)

PERJURY, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND WITNESS TAMPERING AS IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES

Section 4 of Article II of our Constitution provides:

`The President . . . shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'

Because of the uniqueness of this Constitutional process in which `guilt' and `punishment' are combined, each Senator, as a trier of both fact and law, before voting as to the guilt or innocence of the President under either of the Articles must answer the basic question: Do the crimes of perjury, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice as alleged in this proceeding rise to the level of the `high crimes and misdemeanors' included in our Constitution that would justify the automatic removal from office of the President of the United States?

The Supreme Court of the United States has observed that there is an occasional misunderstanding to the effect that the crime of `perjury' is somehow distinct from `obstruction of justice.' United States v. Norris, 300 U.S. 564, 574 (1937). They are not. While different elements make up each crime, each is calculated to prevent a court and the public from discovering the truth and achieving justice in our judicial system. Moreover, it is obvious that `witness tampering' is simply another means employed to obstruct justice.

This Senate on numerous occasions has convicted impeached Federal Judges on allegations of perjury. Moreover, the historical fact is that `high crimes and misdemeanors,' as used and applied in English law on which portions of our Constitution were founded, included the crimes of `obstructing the execution of the lawful process' and of `willful and corrupt perjury.' Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, a treatise described by James Madison as `a book which is in every man's hand.' See article entitled `The True History of High Crimes and Misdemeanors,' by Gary L. McDowell, Director of the Institute of United States Studies at the University of London, appearing in the Wall Street Journal, January 25, 1999.

more...

http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/hutchison.shtml

[rodeodance]

36. and I read that Russert actually caught her on that one and reminded

her of it. te he.

[NewJeffCT]

38. We need to be prepared to counter the SHITSTORM to come

the RW media machine has had 2 years to gear up for this and will unleash a shitstorm so big it will be the media equivalent of Katrina & Rita combined.

We need to be ready to counter it... not only with the words of Bush, but also from Mehlman and others.

[H2O Man]

39. Very true.

We should prepare.

[NewJeffCT]

40. any suggestions?

I know a few kind words about Kerry's service from Bush & other Republicans a few weeks into Kerry getting Swift Boated was way too little & too late for the meat grinder Kerry had gone through. Kerry's response came way too late as well.

[cassiepriam]

42. or even worse, no shitstorm. Press reports nothing, or public yawns.

[NashVegas]

43. "Isn't That What Republicans Tried to Impeach Bill Clinton For?"

Should do nicely.

[Eurobabe]

41. Don't even GO THERE about WASTING taxpayer monies

re: investigations. You dumb ass Hutchinson! Do the words 'Ken Starr' ring a bell?

[The Stranger]

45. Why let them prepare and run trial balloons? INDICT THEM.

It is time to get this show on the road.

[Brooklyn Michael]

46. Method #1: Complain that no "important" law was broken...

Method #2: Portray prosecutor (or anyone on his staff) as politically motivated.

Method #3: Terror Alert! Terror Alert! Terror Alert!

Method #4: Whatever you do, DO NOT compare to Clinton's perjury.

Method #5: Refuse to provide relevant documents, or otherwise stall until the investigation runs out of time.

Method #6: Call Democrats "mean-spirited" and say they "have no plan of their own"...despite this being a complete non-sequitur.

Method #7:....did we mention Terror Alert!

Method #8: Talk about any of Clinton's "scandals"....except, of course, the perjury.

Method #9: "Capture" Osama bin Laden.

Method #10:..........c'mon, you know it's comin'....

TERROR ALERT!!!

(brought to you by FOX News)

[MO_Dem]

48. Hah! KBH made CBS Evening News

they showed the clip of her comment yesterday, although they didn't remind us that perjury was a serious crime when Clinton was president. But they did say that KBH's office said that she does think perjury is a serious crime, or some such. She says one thing, her office says another! They are all unraveling!

:crazy:

[TroglodyteScholar]

49. delete