"... 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."
This is intriguing, as during the Clinton impeachment boondoggle, her views were diametrically opposed (she voted to convict on both charges.)
"The reason that I voted to remove him from office is because I think the overriding issue here is that truth will remain the standard for perjury and obstruction of justice in our criminal justice system and it must not be gray. It must not be muddy."
All this is to be expected as the R's begin the arduous, if not impossible, task of covering their asses as all hell breaks loose from Fitz's office this week. The damage must be minimized, and as no one knows exactly who will be charged with what, the game now is to limit damage by limiting expectations and minimizing the effect by trivializing the crimes.
And, of course, reversing field on issues on is NO problem for the R's (unless, of course, they are talking about John Kerry.) The arguments they made on behalf of John Roberts, they are now abandoning or reversing in the case of Harriet Miers. Who knew they were such contortionists? Of course, with decades of twisted logic behind them, contortion is to be expected.
No comments:
Post a Comment