Conservative hypocrisy archive to rebut the predicted spin

[GarySeven]

It is clear that when Fitzgerald acts, the Republicans will attack him as a partisan and a hack. If Fitzgerald indicts on a basis of perjury, they will react by saying that Perjury isn't even really a crime; that Fitzgerald had to settle for that in absence of "real" crimes.

We need to establish an archive of conservative rhetoric that can be used to counter this predictible argument. Conservative blowhards had plenty to say about how serious perjury was when the accusation was against Clinton. Those of you with Nexis accounts, or access to electronic archives of conservative bloviation, should access them now to create this repository - because I seriously expect them to be EXPUNGED in the next few days.

Here are two contributions from me, one from David Limbaugh and the other from Neal "democrats-raising-taxes-under-open-government-is more-evil-than-Republicans-shredding-the-Constitution-in-secret" Boortz:


David Limbaugh, The Washington Times, Jan. 20, 1999

Mr. Clinton's wrongs, by contrast, are continuing and, as the House managers have noted, strike at the very heart of our judicial system. Mr. Clinton's wrongs are not limited to perjury and obstruction of justice, but the virtual decriminalization of those crimes by so trivializing them that they are forever diminished in importance. Since they are two of the most important crimes aimed at deterring the disfunctioning of our judicial system, their diminution necessarily promotes the destruction of our system. Remember that the proper functioning of our judicial system is essential in safeguarding our civil rights and our personal liberties.

This is why this battle is far more serious than it may first appear. That is why it is a hill to die on.

So when you hear senators, whose duty is to preserve our system of government, making such preposterous and destructive statements as, "witnesses don't resolve conflicts, they create them" or "perjury and obstruction of justice are not impeachable offenses when about sex" or "everyone lies about sex - even under oath" or "presidents are subject to a different impeachment standard than are judges," please remember Mr. Hyde's admonitions. There are those who love the rule of law, and there are superior cynics; there are those still willing "to keep the faith" with our honored dead, and others who no longer "believe in an America where the idea of sacred honor still has the power to stir men's souls."

Neal Boortz
CNN TALKBACK LIVE 15:00 pm ET
January 11, 1999; Monday 3:00 pm Eastern Time

(show is in progress)

BATTISTA: You know what, we have been through this whole thing about how this trial in the Senate is not really at all like a trial in a courtroom.

But before we go to break, there is a question from Angelina (ph), an Internet question, I think, and she wants to know, in your legal opinion, do you think the president is guilty of perjury?

BOORTZ: How did she know I was a lawyer? Did you tell them that?

BATTISTA: We said that at the top of the show.

BOORTZ: Oh, you did?

Yes, I mean -- and I have conducted a lot of depositions, and I have been through my share of trials, and, yes, I do. And, Bobbie, before we leave today, one of the most fascinating stories out over the past couple of days is a human event story over January 1st, that there are 27 Democratic senators sitting in the U.S. Senate right now, today, who were faced in 1989, with an impeachment question, about whether or not lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice constitute impeachable offenses.

And they all, 27 of these senators, who are still Democrats, still in the Senate, said yes, it does, and the Senate, on that day, voted 89-8 to kick a federal judge out of office, because he lied to a federal grand jury, same thing Clinton is charged with, and obstructed justice, same thing Clinton is charged with. Now, we are going to find out how political or how impartial these 27 Democrats are.

BATTISTA: Well, yes, and I don't know, maybe to some impeaching a judge and impeaching a president is a different thing. I don't know.

BOORTZ: I think the president should be held to a higher standard, if anything, not a lower one.

BATTISTA: We have got to take a break. We got to take a break. We will continue here in just a moment.

(later in the show)

WERBE (Peter Werbe, radio talk show host in Detroit) : Let's go back to the harm quotient again. When President Reagan lied to the nation about his policies in Iran-Contra, thousands of people died in Latin America. I'm not sure exactly what the harm quotient is here.

BOORTZ: Peter Ronald Reagan was never placed under oath. He never lied to a grand jury. He never lied in a deposition. He never lied in the court. If we want to get into the number of times that somebody has lied to the nation, let alone in a legal proceeding then we'll have to preempt all the way up to LARRY KING tonight to cover the lies, half truths, and distortions of Bill Clinton.


WERBE: Why do you think the American people then are so venial, so superficial, so self-centered -- that's quite an indictment of them. I guess I have more confidence in...

BOORTZ: Well Peter I guess it is quite an indictment and the sad truth is -- and I don't except any applause from this line is that considering the approval ratings of Bill Clinton, if there is one thing that this process has taught us in the last 12 months, it is how stupefyingly uninformed, and perhaps even ignorant at least 63 percent of the American people are.


(A bit later)

BATTISTA: You know what think is tough for a lot of Americans though is when we're dealing with issues of morality because everybody's morality is different and when we're sitting in judgment of people's morality I think that becomes a problem also. There was a column yesterday in "NEW YORK TIMES" by Bob Herbert about -- well he called it the "real disgrace because both Rehnquist -- Chief Justice Rehnquist and Strom Thurmond who are involved in judging the morality of Bill Clinton and both of them have skeletons in their closet. And this just goes on and on and on and I think that's what makes Americans uncomfortable.

BOORTZ: Well no Rehnquist is not judging. He is merely presiding. He is...

BATTISTA: But he's a position of authority and power.

BOORTZ: Yes he is and there are no perfect people in this country. I saw that article; you showed it to me before. It talked about Rehnquist -- well he signed a warranty deed that had racial restrictions on it, but he claimed he never read it. Well in my legal career I watched people sign as many as 6,000 warranty deeds. I say maybe two of them read the warranty deed.

BATTISTA: But it went farther than that. I did question his veracity under oath.

WERBE: Chief Justice Rehnquist...

BATTISTA: I'm sorry Peter go ahead.

WERBE: I was just going to say that Chief Justice Rehnquist complicity in racist practices went way beyond that. He had written a memo for Justice Jackson where he said he supported the segregation rulings of the Supreme Court of 1896, so there's very few people involved in this with clean hands when you see that Senator Lott and Representative Barr are giving speeches before racist segregationist, white supremacist groups. I think those are things with a harm quotient to it. Those are the issues that are debatable.

BOORTZ: I think it's harmful when the liberal politician gives a speech before racist segregationist groups like the Nation of Islam too, but you don't see them call to task for that.

WERBE: They're not making those kinds of judgments. See, this is what I think is -- here's why the American people are saying what they are and my estimation is it's grand generalization -- at least my generalization isn't that there ignorant, but rather that they see this partisan witch hunt into someone's personal life and that to them is worst than what has come out of it in terms of lying under oath.

BOORTZ: Peter obstruction of justice is not a part of a person's personal life. Lying to a federal grand jury is not a part of a personal life. Lying in a civil deposition in a case brought under a law that you signed into law is not a part of your personal life. This is not about sex. Sex is the evidence -- it is about lying under oath.

WERBE: I understand that. You need not emphasize...

BOORTZ: The very basis of our system of law.

WERBE: You continue to emphasize it like then -- we've certainly all heard that. I'm saying American people see this as an intrusion into a man's life. He was -- according to, I think, the way most people see it, he was the victim of a witch hunt. You may not say it as such -- and I think he made his own bed of course.

BATTISTA: I got to take a break you guys.