Hitchens answers Blumenthal:
Nor can the Wanniski hypothesis stand up in reverse. I spoke to staffers of the Judiciary Committee only on the clear understanding that the evidence was in one trial - that of the President - and not in any other. As Blumenthal himself concedes on page 601, he was in no “perjury” frame at any time. I said in public more than once that if my affidavit was employed for any other reason I would repudiate it and invite contempt of court. I had not met nor had I spoken with Congressman Rogan. Indeed, I did not meet or speak with anyone from any level of the Judiciary Committee until the day I made the affidavit. The first and only contact I had with Congressman (now Senator) Graham was some time afterwards, by long-distance telephone, when he assured me laughingly that the trial of the President would not conclude with my wife and myself as the only ones in jail: in other words that Blumenthal was in the clear. (He said the same thing for attribution to the Washington Post.) If he is quoted anywhere to any different effect, I can assure anyone that phone-logs and other evidence would demonstrate the contrary.
Read the entire post. Hitchens is thorough and straightforward. The Clintonistas are by far the most cowed group in all of Washington. The Bush administration is known for it's secrecy and doesn't say much of anything. The Clinton administration couldn't allow themselves to go a news cycle without saying something. Generally what they said were lies.
Monday, May 19, 2003
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Scott at 8:25 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment