Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A comment on Tweety's show today

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
 
No Exit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:19 PM
Original message
A comment on Tweety's show today
Andrea Mitchell, war whore, has explained to us why Sen. Kay Hutchison made her ludicrously hypocritical remarks yesterday, to the effect that "perjury is just a technicality".

According to Dogface Mitchell, you see, Ms. Hutchison made this remark because "she had been investigated by Ronnie Earle, a democrat", and was subsequently "exonerated".

Oh, okay. I'm so glad we have these well-connected bigwigs like Andrea to explain this to us little people. See, it's ALL RONNIE EARLE'S FAULT!

Andrea's "analysis" would not have passed muster in a 10th grade government class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yeah, she too has found laws to be irritating technicalites.
Next, G Gordon Liddy and Chuck Colson tell us how good people get tripped out by criminalizing politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. She said that shit!?!
I will watch the rerun, but I hope we are not the only ones to see through that crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Exit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. Considering that it literally made no sense at all,
I have high hopes that any person other than a freeptard could see through it like you see through a freshly-polished windowpane!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MidwestTransplant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. That woman is so useless. Why would anybody have her on their show
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 04:37 PM by MidwestTransplant
I truely think she is neither intelligent nor well spoken and never has anything usefull to add other then letting it slip that Powell is talking with Fitz.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
4. Well, I was glad Tweety said it was ridiculous or something to that
effect re what Hutchensen said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guy Whitey Corngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. What a fucking hack! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
6. Kay Bailey was "exonerated" by the sitting judge in the case who refused
allow any of the evidence Ronnie Earle had gathered to be presented at trial.

Consequently, Ronnie Earle had not choice but to end the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Exit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Really?? Well, SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE!
Then I guess we should re-classify Kay's prosecution as "not proved" instead of "not guilty".

"Exonerated", my foot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
7. More RW bullshit from one of the premiere media-whores...
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 04:24 PM by truebrit71
...she was not "exonerated", the judge wouldn't allow Earle to present his evidence so Earle withdrew the charges knowing that he couldn't win the case...

Regardless, Mrs Greenspan is a fucking liar, and Hutchinson is a USDA Prime Moran.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neocondriac Donating Member (732 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
8. Mrs Greenspan...
should step down. Move to Margate with Alan. You facokta fucks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clydefrand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
9. Why isn't the question for any jounalists hearing such answers
as hers: Why would there ever be a reason for them to lie if no one has done anything wrong? Lying to me only signals that they have done something wrong.

We know that from Big Dog's sex scandal. He lied because he knew it was wrong to do this to his family. Wrong for him? That's for him to decide. Wrong for me? Only that it put the country through the turmoil that it did. I'm not judging him except for that reason. I care not about someone's sex life. How I wish we only had a sex scandal going on now and he were still in office. I'll bet there are a lot of repukes who wish the same, but would never admit it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kevinmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
12. ABC's The Note has a Good Article on this......
http://blogs.abcnews.com/downanddirty/2005/10/taking_on_a_lea_2.html#23trackback

SNIP

Hutchison hopes that if there is an indictment, "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."

When President Clinton was going through his little adventure, Sen. Hutchison said that perjury and obstruction of justice were pretty serious charges. Each, she said, "is calculated to prevent a court and the public from discovering the truth and achieving justice in our judicial system." This comes from her remarks in the Senate's closed deliberations on the articles of impeachment against President Clinton. She submitted them for the record on February 12, 1999.

Sen. Hutchison pointed out that the "Senate on numerous occasions has convicted impeached Federal Judges on allegations of perjury." She went on to say that "the standards are set by the Constitution for all officers of the Federal government. They are precisely the same, and we are obligated to apply them evenly."

"Lying is a moral wrong," Hutchison said. "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."
Sen. Hutchison's conclusion, therefore:..........More
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beausoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
13. I thought the same thing.
WTF does Earle have to do with Bailey-Hutchison's about face on perjury?

Fucking pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jane Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
14. Hutchison was not exonerated.
Her lawyer, the now-familiar Dick DeGuerin, found a friendly judge who ruled Earle's best evidence inadmissible.

It was perfectly good evidence - - either an audio or video tape, if I recall - - but in a political move, it was ruled inadmissible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Exit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Well, I guess only the rich and mighty, such as Bugman and Kay,
can afford to shop at "The Judge-Shoppers Boutique"!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StClone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Yes a technicality
Hutchinson got off on a technicality...interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Exit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
17. Fucker Carlson: "They (the WH) should at least have kept open the
option to attack him (Pat Fitz)!"

Can you BELIEVE what these scumbags are saying??????

Attacking the prosecutor is a "good option"????

Tell it to all the people who are doing long federal prison time for threatening federal judges and prosecutors!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
18. hutchinsons ass should have been in jail, judge didnt
allow some of the stuff in, why case was thrown out so quickly and there was some other shenanigans in it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingofalldems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
19. Mitchell was the official WH stenographer for the Clintons
trash the WH and steal from AF1 lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Okay, I have a question:
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 07:11 PM by WinkyDink
Is it fair and accurate to state, as Tweety did several times, that Clinton committed perjury?
IOW, isn't that what he was ACCUSED of but NOT convicted of, and therefore cannot be said to have "committed" it?

(Edited from: Above post's title is misleading!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
21. and she wasn't too happy when Tweets made it clear...
that Clinton was impeached on a "perjury charge". That means that Rove can be indicted in the same manner and mediawhores like her won't have a leg left to stand on.
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, 04:42 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