unbelievably wrong-headed statements I have ever heard from a judge, that there is no

4.2.12 WC: 191694 unbelievably wrong-headed statements I have ever heard from a judge, that there is no difference between types of perjury. I challenge anybody to say that there is no difference between a police officer who deliberately frames an innocent man or woman who he knows is [innocent] and subjects that person to false imprisonment or the electric chair, and someone who lies to cover up a private, embarrassing sex act. Congressmen Hyde and Conyers replied: REP. HYDE: I thank you, Professor Dershowitz. I don't thank you for criticizing the motives, saying that we're out to get the president. You haven't the slightest idea of the agony that many of us go through over this question. [W]e are concerned about the double standard. That may mean nothing to you -- MR. DERSHOWITZ: It means a great deal to me. REP. HYDE: -- but it means something to us. REP. CONYERS: Mr. Chairman? MR. DERSHOWITZ: It means a great deal to me. (Applause.) [W]hen is the last time this committee has expressed concern about the rights of criminal defendants -- (a chorus of "regular order" from committee members)... It's a sham. REP. CONYERS: Mr. Chairman? REP. HYDE: Yes, Mr. Conyers. REP. CONYERS: And I thank you for this interchange. [W]e are split totally down the middle in the most partisan fashion that has ever happened. The result is fairly obvious of what's going to happen to anybody with the least understanding of this matter. So for you to be offended by the Dershowitz evaluation strikes me as a little disingenuous. You know what we're going to do here because it's been said repeatedly by every Republican member of the committee! So let's not get offended by the truth at this point in our proceedings. Congressman Hyde then angrily began to lecture me about the rule of law: Does the rule of law -- have you been to Auschwitz? Do you see what happens when the tule of law doesn't prevail? ZIT HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017364