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?
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..
Good freepers don't need to be spoon fed. Thank God buckhead wasn't like you - Dan Rather would still be doing the CBS Evening Nooz.
FDT voted to acquit Clinton on perjury but voted to convict on obstruction.
It does not matter how many charges were dismissed or acquitted, it matters only if there was a conviction. A conviction on one count is a conviction.
The reason he voted to acquit Clinton on perjury is because Clinton did not abuse the ‘Powers of the Presidency’ in the act of perjury. Clinton in fact did abuse those Powers in obstructing justice.
A Senate trial is not a judicial trial. A Senate trial is a trial for weighing evidence of abusing powers.
FDT knew Clinton would face charges in a judicial court for perjury and he knew there was evidence to convict Clinton of perjury in a court of law.
Here is FDT’s excellent Lincolnesque legal brief on the whole affair:
http://australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/thompson.shtml
Yawn.
“Never has the Senate convicted on an article worded such as this. Several crimes or categories of crimes (the exact number cannot be determined from reading the article) are charged in this one article. The perjurious statements are not described, nor are their dates. In large part, this article charges that the President committed perjury because he denied prior perjury. At the outset, it is clear that a count such as this in an indictment would not survive court challenge...” - Fred Thompson on the Perjury article of impeachment against Bill Clinton
http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/thompson.shtml