home

Hutchison's Spokesman Deflects Criticism With a Lie

By TChris, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 09:01:41 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

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 investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.

It couldn’t be clearer that Hutchison was, in fact, commenting on a specific investigation: the investigation that Russert was asking about. In other words, Paulitz lied. Is anyone surprised?

< Pentagon Spokesman Nominee Thinks News Media Are In Partnership With Al Qaeda | Indictment Watch >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hutchison's Spokesman Deflects Criticism With a Lie | 9 comments (9 topical)
    Re: Hutchison's Spokesman Deflects Criticism With (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    At least it's a consistent world view. If criminal activity can be spun as "just politics" (which was last week's talking point), then clearly lying under oath is "just a technicality". If you're the party in power, that is.

    Re: Hutchison's Spokesman Deflects Criticism With (none / 0) (#2)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    Scott McClellan would be proud

    Re: Hutchison's Spokesman Deflects Criticism With (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    "Perjury trap" is a term of art used in legal circles. It refers to the practice of calling a witness to appear in front of a grand jury for the sole purpose of catching them in lie.

    Re: Hutchison's Spokesman Deflects Criticism With (none / 0) (#4)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    I'm disagreeing with TChris (unusual for me) and agreeing with Dlane on this one. To spell out at little more fully for the non-lawyer readership what is meant by a "perjury trap," here's the typical scenario: Prosecutor has a target that s/he thinks is guilty in the case, even though the prosecutor isn't confident s/he can prove it at trial. Prosecutor already knows the "true" answer to a certain important question (or at least is confident that s/he does). The question is one that the prosecutor thinks the target will be reluctant to answer truthfully, but has no right to "take the Fifth" on. (That reluctance could arise out of any number of reasons -- for example, the question may have to do with the culpability of a family member or close friend of the target, which keeps the witness from taking the Fifth, because the Fifth Amendment privilege is personal to the witness.) Prosecutor then calls the target before the grand jury and asks the question, eliciting the anticipated false answer. Explicated that way, I hope it's more clear why a "perjury trap" is considered by many to be an abusive tactic, even though the witness could, in the end, always "just tell the truth."

    Re: Hutchison's Spokesman Deflects Criticism With (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    peter g, while i can appreciate your explanation, i have a basic problem with it: if the 5th amendment is personal, and is meant to avoid implicating oneself in a crime, taking it to avoid lying on the stand would seem to be a perfect response; you refuse to respond, in order to avoid implicating yourself in the crime of perjury. the other response is: i don't recall at this point in time. hey, prove i lied. you can't, unless you now read minds. i didn't lie, and you would be hard pressed to prove obstruction. admittedly, i'm no lawyer, here or on tv

    Re: Hutchison's Spokesman Deflects Criticism With (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    CPinVA: The Fifth Amendment privilege protects the witness against being compelled to become a witness against him/herself with respect to any crime that a prosecutor might say the witness *had* committed. Past crimes, in other words, not future ones -- such as the perjury you haven't yet committed but might be tempted to commit if not permitted to "take the Fifth." Similarly, "I do not recall," when you do in fact recall, is just as much perjury as any other answer. Don't confuse "If I do this, it wouldn't be wrong," with "If I do this, they won't be able to prove I did anything wrong." The basic moral distinction between the two is something that the criminal mind often fails to grasp, but which those of us who wish to be thought of as not having a criminal mind should try to eschew.

    Re: Hutchison's Spokesman Deflects Criticism With (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    TChris writes:
    It's good to see conservatives criticizing prosecutors,
    That's almost as funny watching the Left praise the CIA.

    Re: Hutchison's Spokesman Deflects Criticism With (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    Hutchinson's logic fails to trap any excuses for her obvious hypocrisy. After $50 million US was spent trying to railroad Clinton, she was a hawk on perjury. Now she thinks it's a ploy to catch the innocent -- find someone who is innocent on the defense side of the Plame case -- I dare you.

    Re: Hutchison's Spokesman Deflects Criticism With (none / 0) (#9)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:26 PM EST
    "I'm innocent! I was caught in a PERJURY TRAP!" IIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEE! Poor babies. "Now I know why tigers eat their young." R. Dangerfield

    Hutchison's Spokesman Deflects Criticism With a Lie | 9 comments (9 topical)