Posted on 07/26/2007 7:21:34 AM PDT by hardback
I keep being told that, but no one has ever given me a link. And what did he say, by the way? What possible explanation could he have to say presidents should be allowed to commit perjury?
I’m waiting for my VoteMatch results. Besides, there’s always the possibility that new candidates will come forward before 11/2008. It might be better to wait until the ‘rats commit to their actual candidate before ‘pubs decide. I’m still for “none of the above”.
“I also have significant doubts now. I was troubled by Thompson’s support of affirmative action in his Senate voting record. His choice of Abraham who is an open borders guy is quite disturbing. I didn’t know Abraham was also an Islamic sympathizer. If so, I will likely look elsewhere.”
Not only that but I heard the guy personally came up with the 9-11 plan and trained the terorist how to fly the planes.
Yikes....does that picture of Fred remind anyone of the Esquire cover with Clinton? Do you think Time was trying to do that intentionally?
http://www.magazine.org/Editorial/Top_40_Covers/
(cover #19)
It was certainly good for another orgy of Fred bashing anyway.
I agree....this smells pretty fishy just like the lobbied for abortionists hit....which crashed and burned. Why would La Raza have a "Defender of the Melting Pot" award? La Raza doesn't want a melting pot they want Hispanic rule....hence the name of their org and their desire to establish Aztlan. The melting pot concept is completely inconsistent with the La Raza's ultimate goals.
You were slamming his Congressional record, not his profession.
I asked for specifics, and you come back with that?
Incredibly weak. Get lost.
If you don’t care enough to use a search engine for an easily
found document, you don’t really want to know, you want to be a naysayer.
It was the fifth hit when I did a search.
http://australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/thompson.shtml
It is a very well reasoned and Constitutionally sound statement..
...As noted above, not all impeachable offenses are crimes, and not all crimes are impeachable offenses. While I conclude that one of the three sets of facts at issue in item four of Article I does not constitute perjury, I conclude that the statements concerning Betty Currie, and the statements concerning what he told his aides do constitute perjury. I also find that the President committed perjury with respect to item one of Article I with respect to his statements that he and Ms. Lewinsky's relationship began as a friendship, that it started in 1996, and that he had `occasional' encounters with her. These are the only examples of grand jury perjury that I believe have been proved in the entirety of Article I. The question then is whether these examples of perjury warrant removal of the President for the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors. 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....
This is just about a 1% cut.. I suggest reading the whole thing..
Just as I thought, y’all are all hat, no cattle.
Cool, new info! Unlike some when presented with facts, I can change my mind or at least be ready to accept the new position, however I would like verification.
If indeed that is the case, OFF WITH HIS HEAD...
(A bit over the top? nah...)
You’d do well to research the reasonings behind Fred’s votes before you exhibit your ignorance in your posts.
There are several links with information under the keyword fredthompson. Until you become educated as to the candidate I’ll not waste further bandwidth with you.
Oops, well you caught me, I love Clinton Mississippi, nice little town...
That is what I think.
Once the opposition is purged and silenced....well, you know how that goes.
Thank you for the reply the others refused to give. I will read the entire thing, but I must be honest. The quote you gave reads like sophomoric gibberish. It is the same reasoning the libs gave: “While it is reprehensible and indictable upon leaving office, it does not meet the grounds of an impeachable offense”. BS, ALERT.
I could become educated about a candidate if they ever decided to become a candidate and answer questions in debates.
If I have told you once, I have told you a thousand times, don’t mix facts with a good rant...
Jeez grow up will you...
On top of which, he can be elected without compromising on actual issues. What fun would that be when we could nominate Dr. Demento, the Bircher dream???
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.