home

Hutchison's Spokesman Deflects Criticism With a Lie

by TChris

Kay Bailey Hutchison’s spokesman, Chris Paulitz, is blaming “liberal groups” for misconstruing her remarks on “Meet the Press.” As TalkLeft reported here, Hutchison demonstrated remarkable hypocrisy by saying she hoped any indictment obtained by Patrick Fitzgerald would be “an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality.” How, exactly, did “liberal groups” misconstrue Hutchison’s newfound belief that perjury is merely a technicality?

“Senator Hutchison was not commenting on any specific investigation. She was expressing her general concern that perjury traps have become too common when investigators are unable to indict on any underlying crime,” Paulitz said.

It's good to see conservatives criticizing prosecutors, but it's difficult to understand Paulitz' point. The “trap” is apparently this: a prosecutor asks a question, and the witness, under oath, lies. Not much of a trap, and one that is easily avoided by telling the truth or by exercising the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. In any event, it’s obvious that (notwithstanding Paulitz’ spin) Hutchison was commenting on a specific investigation.

Tim Russert announced at the beginning of the segment that he’d be asking the panel about “the investigation into the CIA leak case.” After discussing other topics, Russert “turn[ed] to the situation here in Washington, the CIA leak investigation.” He played videos of remarks made by President Bush and Scott McClellan, then asked Sen. Allen whether Karl Rove and Scooter Libby were involved in the leak. When Allen responded “I don’t know,” Russert asked Allen, “[D]o you believe that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby discussed Joseph Wilson's trip and his wife's employment at the CIA?” Allen again demurred. Russert then asked Hutchison whether “those comments from the White House [denying that Rove and Libby were involved] are credible?” After reminding viewers that an indictment is not a verdict, Hutchison said:

I certainly hope 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 inves