Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kay Bailey Hutchison

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
tulsakatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:46 AM
Original message
Kay Bailey Hutchison
Remember on Meet the Press, Kay Bailey Hutchison said that she did not consider perjury to be a crime........that it would be better if the original crime were prosecuted. Tucker Carlson said a similar thing this week on Real Time. He said he didn't think someone should be prosecuted for something other than the original crime.

This kind of thinking is not the way the law works!

For instance, let's say I get stopped for a traffic violation. Let's say I run a red light and a cop pulls me over. When he pulls me over, he discovers I don't have insurance. Is there any cop in the world who would only give me a ticket for running the light? No! He's going to give me a ticket for not having insurance too! Plus they would probably even suspend my license too!

It's a little strange to hear a politician suggest an outcome that goes against the law. By not prosecuting for perjury as well as everything else they find is the way every court in the country operates!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bigbrother05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:49 AM
Response to Original message
1. What a statement
we have laws, but they don't apply to the have's, only to the have nots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 05:07 AM
Response to Original message
2. But Bill Clinton's case was completely different..........
right? :eyes: I'm 55 years old and my mind isn't what it used to be but I seem to remember Repiglicans having a shit fit about Clinton "lying under oath". Am I right about this, or is my old mind playing tricks on me?

If they DID have a shit fit about it that would mean that the Repiglicans are HYPOCRITES! :wow: Who would have ever thought that the Repigs would be less than honest about something like this. My gosh, they're the party of HONESTY and INTEGRITY! She must have been misquoted, that all I can say! :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 05:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Bear in mind at all times:
Republicans are less troubled by hypocrisy than normal people are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bernardo de La Paz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 05:19 AM
Response to Original message
4. She's a hypocrite. She said the opposite in 1998
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy M Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 05:45 AM
Response to Original message
5. Not to mention the only thing that keeps some people telling the...
truth is the fear of perjury. Can you imagine how many more lies would be told in the court room if there were no punishment for perjury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 06:24 AM
Response to Original message
6. She didn't see it that way when they were prosecuting Clinton
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 07:04 AM
Response to Original message
7. KBH is an idiot (& an embarrassment)!
Fortunately, we have a really good candidate to replace her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DawnneOBTS Donating Member (374 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
8. She is a stupid bitch...
I'd be ashamed if I lived in Texas to have to see her ugly ass face on television. I sure hope that there is a good Dem candidate to defeat her (providing that election fraud can be overcome).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Separated at birth or a timeline?






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Exit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
9. Kay Hutchinson should've shut her mouth before she put her
(no doubt expensively-clad) foot in it. Her remarks from the Clinton era--in which she describes perjury as essentially on a par with infanticide--give the lie to what she babbles now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. I was half listening to MTP--THAT should have been a "cut her mike" moment
Russert should have pulled an O'Reilly and said,"Okay that is beyond even what I can stomach. Cut her mike she doesn't deserve to be heard ever again on public airwaves"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC