Re the blatant hypocrisy of saying perjury is just a technicality...

[Brotherjohn]

I mean, seriously, perjury in the course of covering up a consensual affair was raised to the level of a high crime worthy of impeachment in 1998. But in 2005, perjury in the course of covering up the treasonous outing of a CIA operative to cover up deceiving the nation into an unnecessary war that has cost thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars... is now merely a "technicality".

Can we just skip impeachment proceedings and LAUGH them all out of town?

[Horse with no Name]

1. Their logic knows no bounds

It's all about selling it to the American people, anything to get the focus off what is important.
As long as they talk perjury, nobody is hearing treason.

[afdip]

6. for most people, logic is linear, for the repukes

logic is circular

[fjc]

2. I'm glad I'm not the only one to see this point.

It was my immediate reaction to Kay Baily Hutchinson's remarks this past weekend as reported in the NYTimes. I have to wonder, no, make that hope, if the Democratic party will make as much of this as it is worth, and it is worth all the marbles as far as I can see. It reveals like nothing else has how deep is the moral corruption of the Republican party.

[maine_raptor]

7. Hutchinson said on MTP that

perjury and obstruction of justice were not the ONLY crimes Clinton were accused of during impeachment. Been racking my brain all weekend, what the hell were the "other" crimes she was talking about? I was very surprised that Shummer did not throw that back in her face when she said it.

[fjc]

11. Clinton was "accused" of an array of crimes..

all exhausively investigated to the point of nausea and nothing ever came of any of it till he committed perjury lying about a blowjob. That was his crime. These guys may have committed perjury about national security, but now perjury is only a mere technicality? Bullshit.

[maine_raptor]

13. No, No, that's not what I mean

Kay said that there were "other" crimes that Clinton was tried on (impeachment trial in Senate).....well then what were they?????

The only one I remember is the purjury.

[TahitiNut]

14. Clinton did NOT(!) commit perjury.

The judge cited him for contempt for misleading testimony - testimony that was literally accurate and truthful but effectively misleading. That's the sole finding. His law license was supended for five years - an act of the bar association.

[maine_raptor]

15. I know that!!!!

But, like I said, Kay said that there were other "crimes" that he was tried for...what were they?

Because if there was only one, purjury, then this US Senator was not paying attention during the impeachment trial in the Senate, and her own words now show that she was more interested in convicting Clinton and removing him from office than actually doing her sworn duty...for which SHE sould be IMPEACHED and removed from office.

[fjc]

16. I thought he was inpeached for purjury.

Someone please provide a link.

[TahitiNut]

23. Impeached but NOT CONVICTED.

This is where it's important to realize that impeachment is the process whereby the House files charges (accusations) to be tried in the Senate. An accusation is NOT a conviction! Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228-206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221-212 vote).

In neither of the charges was there ever a finding of guilt.

In the case of the claim of perjury in the Paula Jones deposition, he wasn't even impeached! Two other articles of impeachment failed — a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205-229 vote), and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148-285 vote).

[fjc]

26. Thank you. I'm just another victim of the RW spin machine,

[ProfessorGAC]

17. In Addition, TN. . .

. . .the questions before the Jones attorneys were not material to that matter (remember it wasn't a harrassment suit, but a Civil Rights action). No materiality, no perjury.

Before the grand jury, the questions asked were about what he said in the deposition of the Jones case. Repeating the same answer about a non-material matter, is still non-material.

Hence, no perjury was ever committed, from a legal point of view. (Cite: Mann & Roberts)
The Professor

[TahitiNut]

21. Yep. Exactly. They overreached in the deposition. Typical.

It's an ordinary practice for overzealous attorneys to 'go fishing' in a deposition, engaging in interrogations that would be immediately ruled immaterial in court but, under the procedural rules of the deposition process, must await the evidenciary clean-up of post-hoc rulings from the bench. It's a reprehensible practice, imho, to abuse the deposition process in this fashion, but it's sadly all-too-common.

I also regard it as disgusting that even 'Democrats' get suckered into this "Clinton committed perjury" big lie and repeat it. (Hell, I'm not even a Clinton groupie and have to waste my time correcting this lie.)

[ProfessorGAC]

22. It Happened To Me, More Than Once

I've been an expert witness in more than a few trials (civil).

It's interesting how often relationships get explored to "determine the impartiality of the witness" come up, when it's obvious, because i've been selected BY ONE SIDE OF THE CASE, that i'm advocating a position. I'm not supposed to be impartial! Yet, i have to answer every question, no matter how immaterial.

You're right. It's reprehensible.
The Professor

[MrBenchley]

19. In fact, the House managers couldn't point to anything that was perjury

and ended up looking like imbeciles.

Fun FACT: Matthew Glavine, the guy who led the charge to have Bill Clinton's law license lifted for "immorality," got arrested and convicted for yanking his doodle dandy in a public park not long afterward...and it was his SECOND offense.

[Loonman]

3. Repubs need their asses nailed to the wall for this

Natch.

[afdip]

4. "our perjury is not as serious as your perjury"

is just an off-shoot of "our god is better than your god." ah, the clear breeze of repuke rationality.

[July]

20. Good point. We should turn this around on them.

(Even though Clinton's "perjury" wasn't even perjury.)

You know, what's worse, lies about a blow job or lies about national security?

[ixion]

5. now, why is the MSM letting them get away with it?

It's a glaring hypocrisy.

[whatever4]

8. Declare the 2004 vote invalid, null and void

and have a revote, another election? Seriously, if the vote was flawed, it was flawed.

I'm all for that. Or just give it to Gore. Or Kerry. " perjury is just a technicality" that is just too much. You're right, what they say really is laughable, until the bastards get away with it. Again.

[Botany]

9. No lie is too big or no spin is too far out.

Arnold stood in front of the RNC and told a bald faced lie,
"I saw soviet tanks in my hometown in Austria."

1. His town was in the British Sector
2. He was born after the Soviets left Austria

And the repugs just cheered and clapped .... the media did not even
touch this lie.

So perjury about lying to get us into a war, what is the problem?

[The Whiskey Priest]

10. That line was heard many times over the weekend.

That is the great Repub forte.....construct a meme and repeat it until it enters the mainstream and becomes a truism. We, of the left need to become more adept at the game.

[Punkingal]

12. I sent an email ro Hutchison...

saying almost exactly what you just posted here. I don't expect a reply.

[papau]

18. What happened to Kay H's 1998 speech re Clinton and perjury/obstruction?

:-)

[Marr]

24. Ready for hypocrisy³? These are the same mouths that chanted flip-flopper

at the Kerry campaign.

Conservatives are infamous for shameless hypocrisy, but this whole "perjury is a technicality" angle is the most galling example I can think of.

[warrens]

25. Martha Stewart went to jail, Miss Hutchinson

So we'll pack this whole administration off for 18 months and call it a day, OK?