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 ...
“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.”
I wasn’t talking about other votes. I was talking about the perjury vote. There’s nothing misleading about it.
“Fred’s vote did not affect the final outcome, and it’s not an issue today.”
If Clinton had been convicted of perjury, he would have been removed from office. Senator Thompson’s “not guilty” vote affected the final outcome every bit as much as the “not guilty” votes cast by Democrats. And it is an issue today because it raises questions about Senator Thompson’s character.
“Is this some kind of run-up to another wacky Ron Paul pitch?”
Not at all.
So, Thompson only voted to “convict and remove from office” on one count instead of two. Gee and I thought he was a conservative. (Is this the best you have in attacking Thompson’s Conservative credintials and if so, who is the more conservative candidate you would have us vote for?)
Next you’ll be telling me he donated large sums of money to NARL like Rudy, has made impassioned speaches defending Roe v. Wade like Romney and Rudy, Shut down the Catholic Adoption agency because it wouldn’t allow homosexual couples to adopt like Romney, Used deceptive accounting to hide an affair like Rudy, praised Amnesty for illegals and advocated for tution breaks for illegals like the Huckster or advocated for tax increases like the Huckster.
Raises a question about his character? Are you serious. Good God, if we’re going to say that any disagreement on any point, no matter how technical is a reflection on a man’s character, I think we’ve hit rock bottom. However, if you want to go there, you could write a book on such Character flaws on the part of Huckabee, Romney, and Rudy. Like Rush said yesterday, none of them are conservative and that’s the biggest character flaw of all.
My bad not realizing this was from a Huckabee supporter
Explain your understanding of wealth redistribution in an opportunity for an individual to chose to purchance free market affordable insurance or not to chose?
Please don't confused revisions added after Mitt left office.
Hair-splitting much? He did not see sufficient evidence to support a perjury conviction but did on obstruction. To be fair and not biased you must include both votes else you are simply spewing propaganda through insinuation by omission.
Though we don't always succeed, we aim to be better than that around here.
What are the "questions" of "character" you suggest are being raised? Again, you made insinuations. Shame on you.
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. Thompson's vote alone not to convict on just one of those two articles did not effect whether Clinton ultimately stayed or was removed.
Thompson's character should not be called into question simply because he did not see sufficiently clear evidence of perjury while still recognizing the pattern of obstruction and voting for removal on that basis.
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.
LLS
Bullsh!t... it only takes ONE charge to convict... he voted with principle... her statement... like yours... is a deception at best.
LLS
Never mind, not too difficult to figure out.
Then just what ARE you and which candidate ARE you supporting?
I'm afraid that you are not better than the fake "undecided" voters (i.e. Edwards, Hillary and Obama supporters) who planted those questions in the debate the other night.
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.
Yes, "Fred Fear" is a terrible thing... and we all can feel your terror.
Try not be so obvious.
Thanks for this thread. It gives me a glimpse into Fred’s character that I wouldn’t otherwise have.
I completely disagree with his vote on the perjury charge, but now that I see his reasoning behind it, it’s clear to me that his decision came from the best quality of character one can hope to find in any person, much less a politician. He did what he believed was right, despite pressure to do what was popular. I still think he was wrong, but he displayed a strength of character that I hope to find in our next president.
Has nothing to do with his character the fact that he voted yes on one and no on the other is a credit to his character in that he carefully weighed the evidence and voted his conscience.
Sounds like a CNN hit piece to try to alienate Fred from conservatives. CNN has no sense of shame.
http://www.whoradio.com/pages/2008elimination/index.html?feed=119197&article=2855869
Fred was a good senator his first term. Fred was a good lawyer in Tennessee helping to bring down "Pardon me Ray" Blanton. When he got elected his second term Fred become just another two bit RINO DC insider. Stick with acting or the court rooms Fred. You are not POTUS material the MSM portrays you to be.
It has everything to do with it. Remember when the witness stated he could have {bribe} anyone in that room or too that effect? Let the chips fall where they may Fred said "Don't name no names". Character my foot. I rank him with Ted Stevens another so called beloved of RINO's who also made a statement about Clinton's guilt then voted NOT GUILTY!
There is no copy/paste function on my cell phone. I could open up my address bar and type the url in, one character at time, on my alpha-numeric keypad, if I first write it down somewhere. But I don’t have a pen and paper handy. If it was a link, I could click on it. My cell phone has a slower than dial-up connection, so I hope that’s not a big page.
AND it shows that Fred isn’t a spineless, flip-flopping, pandering wimp that will now say “oh.. I was wrong... I didn’t mean to do that...” etc... instead of saying anything to get votes... like Romney, Guiliani, Huckabee, Clinton, Edwards.... etc... will do.
There are NO candidates out there who have made perfect decisions their entire lives pleasing everyone. They don’t exist.
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.