Defending the Indefensible

LOWERING THE BAR: Last week, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff "Scooter" Libby were "advised that they are in serious legal jeopardy." As a result, "allies of the White House have quietly been circulating talking points in recent days among Republicans sympathetic to the administration, seeking to help them make the case that bringing charges like perjury mean the prosecutor does not have a strong case." (For a full list of rebuttals to right-wing myths, click here). Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said, "It seems to me quite possible--dare I say probable?--that no indictments would be the just and appropriate resolution to this inquiry." Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) dismissed the leak inquiry as a subject the American people don't care about. And on Meet the Press yesterday, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) said a possible perjury charge against any White House staffer is nothing more than a mere "technicality." But on Feb. 5, 1999, when considering articles of impeachment against President Clinton, Hutchison stated that it was important to prosecute for perjury because she was concerned that "grand juries across America are going to start asking questions about what is obstruction of justice, what is perjury. 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."

See video of Sen Hutchison's outrageous performance at http://www.crooksandliars.com/