Posted on 11/30/2007 1:02:11 AM PST by Kurt Evans
"Make no mistake, perjury is a felony, and its commission by a President may sometimes constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. But is removal appropriate when the President lied about whether he was refreshing his recollection or coaching a witness about the nature of a sexual relationship? Is removal appropriate when the President lied to the grand jury that he denied to his aides that he had engaged in sex only as he had defined it, when in fact he had denied engaging in oral sex? Is removal warranted because the President stated that his relationship began as a friendship in the wrong year and actually encompassed more telephone encounters than could truthfully be described as 'occasional'? To ask the question is to answer it. In my opinion, these statements, while wrong and perhaps indictable after the President leaves office, do not justify removal of the President from office."
--Senator Fred Thompson, February 12, 1999
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
John Chafee. Susan Collins. Slade Gorton. Jim Jeffords. Richard Shelby. Olympia Snowe. Arlen Specter. Ted Stevens. John Warner. Fred Thompson.
Ann Coulter isn't always right, but she was right about this:
"When the framers chose the phrase 'high crimes and misdemeanors' for the Constitution, they were using a term taken from British parliamentary impeachments. There's a 600-year history of what this phrase means -- and Clinton met it about a dozen times before he gave a single statement under oath or suborned a single witness's testimony...
"Rep. James Rogan lost his congressional seat because he stuck by his principles as a manager of Clinton's impeachment. Lifelong Democrat David Schippers abandoned his party's lockstep defense of Clinton to pursue Clinton's impeachment as the House Judiciary Committee's chief counsel. Rep. Henry Hyde saw an affair he had in 1965 become front-page news because he wouldn't waver from doing his job under the Constitution...
"The Times reported that calls from Thompson's Tennessee constituents showed that they 'overwhelmingly favored removing President Bill Clinton from office.' So Thompson could either: (1) Follow the Constitution and make his constituents happy or, (2) disregard the Constitution and make his Hollywood friends happy.
"Only a handful of Republicans voted against all law and reason to keep Clinton in office, and only one of them was from Tennessee."
http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=211
Except, that is not true.
Fred voted to convict Clinton on the other count and thus remove him from office.
“Fred voted to convict Clinton on the other count and thus remove him from office.”
You got it!
And in years to come, in every court house in every town in America, juries, judges, and litigants will have the President's actions as a bench mark against which to measure any attempted subversion of the judicial process. The notion that anyone, no matter how powerless, can get equal justice will be seen by some as a farce. And our rule of law--the principle that many other countries still dream about--the principle that sets us apart, will have been severely damaged. If this does not constitute damage to our government and our society, I cannot imagine what does. And for that he should be convicted.In other words, the title of this post is 180 degrees opposite from the truth.
Thompson/Hunter
“Fred voted to convict Clinton on the other count and thus remove him from office.”
Those were two separate votes. On the perjury charge Senator Thompson voted to keep Clinton in office. Ann’s statement is true.
“In other words, the title of this post is 180 degrees opposite from the truth.”
The title is, “Senator Thompson voted Clinton ‘not guilty’ of perjury.” That’s a straightforward statement of fact:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.vote/
Stop whining!
Thompson on Clinton’s Obstruction of Justice, at the link:
“In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”
I really don’t understand what you liberals hope to gain by such inane hair-splitting.
Fred has done a lot of funny things being the fact he was from a Protected Red state makes one wonder!
How hard was it for Fred to be a conservative in a Red state and still not be 100% and to join the CFT etc.
“I really don’t understand what you liberals hope to gain by such inane hair-splitting.”
I’m not a liberal.
wonderful,
now we get Bishop Willard as our nominee
maybe I’ll stay home
It's also intended to be a misleading statement people by omitting the important fact that Fred did vote for a conviction on the other count.
Fred's vote did not affect the final outcome, and it's not an issue today. We managed to slow Clinton's domestic agenda to a crawl for two years, so it was a worthwhile effort even without removing The Sink Emperor from office.
Is this some kind of run-up to another wacky Ron Paul pitch?
Fred kicked ass in the last debate — I guess he’ll be more of a target from now on.
They are indeed Republicans on your list, but the better part of them are moderates and centrists with some leaning towards liberal. You know, I go after Fred or anyone else when they are wrong and there is plenty to get after Fred and the other candidates on, but I just don’t see this as one of them.
I would have to know his intentions or reasoning behind his vote and none of us can know that. Whether he did it on principle or was joining his centrist buddies, we can’t know. What I do know is that Clinton being impeached would have just managed to hand the presidency to Gore. Gore Vs. Bush was very, very close and Gore acting as a president going against Bush would likely have given us 4 years of President Gore. It was a close race to begin with and this would most likely have given Gore the election. That is my 0.02 worth.
“Thompson on Clinton’s Obstruction of Justice, at the link:”
Actually I think those are the words of the article of impeachment.
Puzzled as to why Ann Coulter would make such twist on FDT...yet not such on a neo-socialist like Romney.
Although I do not agree w FDT letting Clinton off on one count...it is not as troubling as Romney allowing wealth redistribution through forced purchasing of health insurance (MittCare).
This is a Huckabee supporter rehashing attacks on Fred. And Ann Coulter is literate. She knows that Romney was a venture capitalist and management consultant. And she has actually read the health care plans of the Republicans.
This campaign season is shaping up to be the most brutal ever, in our nation's history. I realize Ann is also a Mr. Hunter supporter. For me, it will be difficult to hold my nose again, should I have to do so. The clintons' and the democrats' are like the sands on the beach. Their lies are as numerous. Hindsight is always 20-20, I would hope Fred is disgusted by his vote. The clintons should have been removed, and the Republicans should have All stood up to say so. And then there is AlGore, who should have been removed as well.
It took a vote by the voters to cause a Gore removal, and then the media tried to pull out a win for Gore, out of a loss. Sometimes one must go forward with what actually was taking place, in this case Fred didn't, as did the other nine Republicans then in the Senate. I can only guess, the 900 plus FBI files, held by Hillary, did or didn't have something to do with the vote. Having FBI files is another crime, by the clintons, basically ignored. The truth was there, concerning the clintons. So those who chose to ignore those crimes, actually allowed the clintons to come to the present, the here and now, when the clintons should have only been a footnote to history, not an entire page.
I realize 67 votes would have been necessary to remove clinton. And 67 votes should have been there, when the crimes by clinton were more than sexually related, and instead the crimes, by the clintons, were national security related. The vote, each vote, to allow the clintons to stay, in office, was and still is a sham. China....wink wink, I will not bother to mention.
Thanks to our Senate's lack of will during the impeachment trial, a chance given and a chance lost; should anyone ever again survey our nation's security, in the present, without worrying about the cost? From the look of the present, those 900 FBI files are continuing to hold power over our nation, while our nation's national security goes down the tubes, when paper should have been used to wipe out the clintons, when the chance was there. A chance given, A chance lost. Wonder how the next time will turn out, on the paper of the ballot? Will another chance be lost? Or will the media lie, again? Hindsight is 20-20.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.