From: "Mark" 

I think she presented her position clumsily. I think what she was trying to
say was she didn't want to see petty action taken (when no substantial
action related to the original charter was to be taken) because of slight
differences in testimony from appearance #1 to #2 etc.

i.e. "but you said you left the office at 11AM in #1 but said it was 1PM in
#2 and you further said the box in your garage was labeled 'handle with
care' when it's clear by the AP photo that is says 'fragile.'"

But that's not how it came across, so it is up to her to clarify her statement.

"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:435d8f4c$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> It was Hutchinson's ever changing view of perjury that I was commenting
> on. FWIW I'm somewhat in agreement with her 2005 view. I'm just attacking
> the flip-flop when it involves one of her comrades
>
> February 2, 1999
>
> "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."
>
> Oct 23, 2005
>
> "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."
>
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:435d8a69$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Clinton was never indicted for the crime of perjury.  He was given a pass
>> for the good of the country.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>> news:435d6f90{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> So "the Republican strategy is "obstructing the
execution of a lawful
>>> process"  is perjury but obstructing a special prosecutor is a
>>> "technicality"?  It looks like all the little
Bushkins are falling in
>> line.
>>> The mantra chants for this week will be overzealous, prosecutor and
>>> technicality
>>>
>>>
>>> Meet the Press Oct 23, 2005
>>>
>>> "a crime and not some perjury technicality where they
could not indict
>>> on
>>> the crime." Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
>>>
>>>
>>> 1999 statement on Clinton perjury
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR CONVICTION OF PERJURY
>>>
>>> Lying is a moral wrong. Perjury is a lie told under oath that is legally
>>> wrong. To be illegal, the lie must be willfully told, must be believed
>>> to
>> be
>>> untrue, and must relate to a material matter. Title 18, Section 1621 and
>>> 1623, U.S. Code.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5