From: "Rich Gauszka" 

I agree that it was clumsy but I'm not sure if I can attribute that
clumsiness to her or a gaggle of Rove-less comrades attempting to come up
with a viable explanation that the public will digest. The apologists
should at least wait till charges ( if any ) are presented by the grand
jury. Maybe there's a grand jury to White House leak that we'll need yet
another special prosecutor to investigate. A plethora of special
prosecutors each investigating each other 



"Mark"  wrote in message
news:435d9173{at}w3.nls.net...
>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