One of the more bizarre Senate republicans is Orrin Hatch of Utah, a guy whom when he ran the Judiciary Committee would not have known the truth if it bit him in the ass. In fact, unlike Arlen Specter, who made Abu Gonzales at least show up unsworn to lie to the committee about all the 1600 Crew felonies, would have let Gonzales literally "phone it in".

During the committee hearings today concerning Feingold's censure motion Oral Orrin had the Rove-inspired cojones to accuse Democrats on the Judiciary Committe of being politically motivated. Now that's comedy.

"Quit trying to score political points," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, shot across the aisle at committee Democrats.

Orrin Hatch you say? You mean this fire-breathing seeker of Truth, Justice and the republican Way?

Hatch was a more one-dimensional figure when he arrived in the senate almost 30 years ago. A fire-and-brimstone values crusader, he introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade and was prone to saying things like, "Democrats are the party of homosexuals." In his early career, he routinely tallied one of the most conservative Senate voting records. His intensity rankled even his GOP colleagues, one of whom later admitted he thought Hatch was an egomaniac with an irritating "save-the-world complex."

But that helped him score points in the GOP as a reliable attack dog. During the Iran-Contra hearings, no one defended Oliver North and the Reagan White House more stubbornly. And during Clarence Thomas's 1991 confirmation battle, no one trashed Anita Hill with more zest. (Among other things, Hatch bizarrely suggested Hill might have lifted her famous tale about pubic hair and Coke from The Exorcist.)

Oh, and here's his take on a blow-job and impeachment.

Of great concern to me is what the standard should be for impeachment in this and future trials. The President's Counsel has argued that the President can only be removed for constituting, what Oliver Wendell Holmes termed in free speech cases, a "clear and present danger." It was contended that a President can only be removed if he is a danger to the Constitution. As such, according to the President's Counsel, removable conduct must relate to egregious conduct related to performance in office. Even if the House's allegation -- that President Clinton committed acts of perjury and obstruction of justice is proven true -- it was argued -- than such behavior does not rise to impeachable offenses because it was private, not public, conduct. In this case an inappropriate sexual relation with a subordinate employee -- was the predicate of the charged offenses.

But such a standard establishes an impossibly high bar as to render impotent the impeachment clauses of the Constitution. I hope that no matter the outcome of this trial, President Clinton's view of what constitutes an impeachable offense does not become precedent. If it does, I fear the moral framework of our Republic will be frayed. If it does, the legitimacy of our institutions may very well become tattered. It would create the paradox of being able to convict and jail an official for committing, let's say, homicide, but not to be able to remove that official from holding positions of public trust. Committing crimes of moral turpitude, such as perjury and obstruction of justice, go to the very heart of qualification for public office.
...
...Impeachment is thus seen by many scholars as a means of removing unqualified office holders.
...
But I must emphasize that even if the President's Counsel is correct in that private acts unrelated to performance in office are not impeachable offenses, I believe the gravamen of what President Clinton committed are public, not private, acts that are unambiguous breaches of public trust. Perjury and particularly obstruction of justice are conduct that attack the very veracity of our justice system. (Furthermore, I vehemently disagree that the underlying conduct was a purely private concern because the conduct involved a federal employee in a work environment).

Lying under oath, hiding evidence, and tampering with witnesses destroy the truth-finding function of our investigatory and trial system. Perjury and obstruction of justice are particularly pernicious if committed by a President of the United States, who has sworn pursuant to the oath of office to protect the Constitution and laws of the United States. Whether perjury and obstruction of justice can be considered private or public acts is of no moment. They are twin "high crimes" harming the political order and requiring impeachment and removal from office.

I guess that to him, a republican Preznit who breaks the law is just, well, Okey-be-dokey. In all his long years that Orrin has warmed a seat in the Senate Chamber he has learned the one most-invioble rule: You don't Shit where you Eat.