On February 12th, 1999, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison gave a closed-door statement on her reasons for voting to impeach convict then-President William Jefferson Clinton. As you might expect, she listed perjury as a primary reason, but she listed many others, including a forceful argument for presidential impeachment without an indictable crime.
Early on she says, "I was reminded as well, however, that the laws of our Country are applicable to us all, including the President, and they must be obeyed." I'll assume that this includes laws dealing with government surveillance of civilians, as well as those applicable to outing an undercover CIA agent.
While describing Clinton's deposition, she says, "...the Judge and participating counsel for the parties, either knowingly or unknowingly, formulated a definition of the meaning of the words 'sexual relations' to exclude certain forms of human contact that in their commonly accepted meaning would be included."
And what of changing the words "covert operative" to exclude their commonly accepted meaning?
She goes on, "It was alleged, among other things, that the President coached, manipulated, and influenced false testimony of witnesses...".
It is alleged that Vice-President Cheney did all this in preparation for the Scooter Libby trial.
"...engineered the hiding of gifts and evidence that was subject to subpoena..."
As opposed to Rove using the RNC email server so that a subpoena wouldn't turn up evidence against him?
"While under oath before the Federal grand jury, the President gave perjurious testimony before the grand jury..."
Yet, when discussing the Scooter Libby trial, Senator 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..."
In her 1999 statement, Hutchison says, "...engaging personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony..."
Perhaps the Senator has forgotten that she engaged in that behavior herself, with the help of Karl Rove.
But then, my friends, Senator Hutchison makes one of the most interesting arguments for Presidential impeachment that I've read:
"I do not hold to the view of our Constitution that there must be an actual, indictable crime in order for an act of a public officer to be impeachable. It is clear to this Senator that there are, indeed, circumstances, short of a felony criminal offense that would justify the removal of a public officer from office, including the President of the United States. Manifest injury to the Office of the President, to our Nation, and to the American people, and gross abuses of trust and of public office clearly can reach the level of intensity that would justify the impeachment and removal of a leader."
Well said, Kay.