Responses to this message:
For lying under oath.
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9907- 2001May10.html
>>>Mind the space. But unlike the perjured testimony the Republicans tried to hang Clinton with, Olson's testimony wasn't given in some deposition in a civil suit or before a Grand Jury. The testimony that Olson gave that is under dispute was given just this week, during his confirmation hearings.
Olson responded to questions asking him how much input he had on the activities of the American Spectator magazine, which specialized in uncovering and publishing Clinton scandals. Olson was a member of the board. Olson testified under oath that he really had no input and the committee moved on to other questions.
Since then, a reporter for the Spectator has come forward to testify that Olson, on numerous occasions had told Emmett Tyrell, publisher of the Spectator, that going after and uncovering dirt on the Clintons was a valid purpose for the magazine.
Now, why didn't Mr. Olson, who served as one of Dubya's lead counsels in fighting the good fight in Florida courts, just fess up and say, "Yeah, when I was a private citizen, I exercised my rights as a citizen to advise friends and clients how to go about their business." Because, that was really what he had done. But instead, he has to act like he is as pure as the driven snow and free of political taint.
He might have been characterized as a political animal. But as this plays out, he can only be characterized as a lying political animal. Dumb fucking people never learn that when you have a choice between lying and telling the truth -- tell the damned truth; it's easier to remember.
Responses to this message:
Post a response to this discussion thread