Kay Bailey Hutchison for Hypocrite-in-Chief!

Wow.

As I wrote in a column that ran in the Eagle today (and will be on reasongonemad.com in a couple days), those who said, in 1998, "It's not about sex, it's about lying," are going to have to take large doses of the new drug "Hypocrixil" to now explain away the perjury and obstruction-of-justice indictments likely in the next few days.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) apparently got an early, pre-release dose of Hypocrixil, because here's what she said this morning on "Meet the Press" (via Kos):

"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 so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation were not a waste of time and dollars."

Now, setting aside that perjury is, in fact, a crime punishable by up to five years in prison, and also ignoring the $70 million+ spent to investigate the Clintons over many years, for those of you who think consistency in application of the law is important among those elected to write the laws, here's what Sen. Hutchison had to say during the debate over President Clinton's impeachment:

"Lying is a moral wrong. Perjury is a lie told under oath that is legally wrong. To be illegal, the lie must be willfully told, must be believed to be untrue, and must relate to a material matter. Title 18, Section 1621 and 1623, U.S. Code.

[...] "Willful, corrupt, and false sworn testimony before a Federal grand jury is a separate and distinct crime under applicable law and is material and perjurious if it is `capable' of influencing the grand jury in any matter before it, including any collateral matters that it may consider. See, Title 18, Section 1623, U.S. Code, and Federal court cases interpreting that Section. The President's testimony before the Federal grand jury was fully capable of influencing the grand jury's investigation and was clearly perjurious."

I know, I know. It's just not fair to pull up statements Hutchison made seven entire years ago and expect that a United States senator would still have the same view of perjury. Clearly, her thinking on this fundamental element of the American legal system -- that is, telling the truth under oath in front of a grand jury -- has "evolved." And we want people who are willing to admit mistakes, right?

Still, I thought you should know.