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 ...
People respond to straight-shooter messages that don't rely on hollow lingual gew-gaws like "shining moment." Gew-gaws are a sure sign of someone who doesn't know his/her own message.
So for me, it doesn't matter who the phrase is pimping; I read "shining moment" and roll my eyes, thinking, "Who do you think you're kidding? Shining moment THIS!"
I see you like the working in darkness, no wonder Shining Moment irks you!
In my world Pimp was never a mainstream word, and it belong's to those who surely was NOT Improving The Shining moment more like tarnishing the moment!
BTW since you are from the other world "Improve The Shining Moment!" is from a Hymn!
A Shorter Course in English Grammar and Composition By William Harvey Wells p.96
“Hair-splitting much?”
Maybe. Sometimes telling the truth is like that.
“To be fair and not biased you must include both votes else you are simply spewing propaganda through insinuation by omission.”
That’s absurd.
“What are the ‘questions’ of ‘character’ you suggest are being raised?”
Did Senator Thompson really believe grand jury perjury didn’t constitute a high crime or misdemeanor, or did he vote “not guilty” for political reasons? Does he have a personal belief that lying about sexual matters is morally acceptable?
“Again, you made insinuations. Shame on you.”
Ann Coulter directly implied that Senator Thompson had disregarded the Constitution, and I explicitly agreed. That’s not an insinuation, and I’m not ashamed.
“Since removal from office required a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Senate to convict on at least one article of impeachment, the final outcome was entirely in Democrat hands.”
No single Democrat had any more control over the final outcome than Senator Thompson had, and many of them probably rationalized their “not guilty” votes the same way you’re rationalizing his. Every senator took a solemn oath of impartial justice before God at the beginning of the trial, and your defense of Senator Thompson’s vote on pragmatic grounds frankly raises questions about your own character.
“You don’t even have the character to admit you’re attempting a hit-and-run on Thompson are unwilling to admit you support another candidate.”
I’m willing to admit I support another candidate, but it’s true that I don’t have the “character” to admit I’m attempting a hit-and-run.
“Fred voted to convict on the one charge that could be proved. Anyone saying otherwise is a LIAR!”
Ironically that would make Senator Thompson a liar. He said both obstruction of justice and grand jury perjury could be proved. His not guilty vote was based on the specious argument that grand jury perjury didn’t constitute a high crime or misdemeanor.
“he voted with principle... her statement... like yours... is a deception at best.”
On the perjury charge Senator Thompson voted to keep Clinton in office. Ann’s statement is true.
“Then just what ARE you and which candidate ARE you supporting?”
I’m a Bible-believing Christian, and I’m currently supporting Governor Huckabee.
“This is ancient history and isn’t going to accomplish anything around these parts... except to prove that Fred is starting to scare even more people.”
I believe it’s going to accomplish more than that.
Tearing down candidates is not "telling the truth", it's simply tearing down candidates. I have only sent money to Hunter last spring, but looking at issues important to me came up with Hunter, Tancredo and Huckabee. Thompson was fourth, and I support him with the other 3.
Wouldn't it be easier just to bash Giuliani?
“Sounds like a CNN hit piece to try to alienate Fred from conservatives. CNN has no sense of shame.”
Senator Thompson’s statement is available at other sites.
“Have you all noticed that the original poster STILL has not come back to really explain himself? ... He felt he had a ‘gotcha’ that he could use against Thompson to support his liberal candidate, Huckabee, and he made a drive-by post to try to stir the pot... A support of Huckabee is just an anti-Romney vote and little else. It’s a voter that wants a center left candidate.... but cannot vote for a Mormon!”
You’re not even close.
“I’m supposed to reject the only leading candidate on either side that is unambiguously pro-gun, and the only candidate on either side to put forth serious and meaningful ideas on Immigration, Tax reform, and Social Security reform, because he doesn’t hate Bill Clinton enough? Is that want you’re saying?”
No, that isn’t what I’m saying.
LLS
“Senators are not to judge ‘appropriateness.’ That is the job of the members of the House of Representatives.”
That’s how I’d always understood it.
... and your reply proves I’m right because it was no reply.
“Ann’s statement was a half truth to show Thompson soft on impeachment.”
It was the whole truth to show him soft on Clinton’s grand jury perjury.
“yes, but that totally destroys the lying smear.”
On the perjury charge Senator Thompson voted to keep Clinton in office. Ann’s statement is true.
“But you are attacking the most conservative electable candidate because.....?”
I’m not sure Senator Thompson is the most conservative electable candidate.
“At the very best, your post constitutes a half-truth.”
We obviously disagree about that.
“This charge against Thompson has been debunked, and the correction has been posted here ad nauseum for the past six months or so.”
What charge do you mean?
“Ann’s statement leaves something out, therefore it is a lie by omission and is not true.”
That’s ridiculous. Every statement leaves things out.
“So why the big stink?”
Probably because many people get stinky when the truth pressures them to reexamine their beliefs.
“If we watied for the perfect candidate, no one would get nominated. Christ hasn’t announced His Second Coming to my knowledge.”
Great point. That’s why it bothers me when Sean Hannity says every Republican candidate would be infinitely better than Hillary Clinton. One could argue that Giuliani would actually be worse than Clinton, and obviously only Jesus Himself would be “infinitely” better.
“Other than the fact that you’re trying to imply that Mr. Thompson voted against conviction ... which he did not.”
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.statements/thompson.html
“I therefore vote to acquit the President of the charges alleged against him in Article I.”
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.statements/thompson.html
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.