Why weren’t Giuliani and McCain mentioned? Giuliani recently came to CA declaring he would run the U.S. like Schwarzenegger is running CA. (I can’t think of anything worse.) McCain is half of McCain/Feingold which is why I can’t figure out why they’d endorse a guy (Fred T) who voted for McCain/Feingold. Not to mention Fred T voting the let Bill Clinton off the hook during impeachment. Makes no sense. But then the CRA is the group that endorsed Gary Bauer for President. I don’t think they have much credibility except in their own little minds.
Is deeming the CRA as constituted of "little minds" a conclusion based upon an objective observation or a matter of personal opinion? Upon what basis is such an epithet directed?
Saundra Duffy wrote: “Not to mention Fred T voting the (sic) let Bill Clinton off the hook during impeachment.”
For about the zillionth time, Fred Thompson voted to impeach Bill Clinton for obstruction of justice, writing:
“Time and again, and with premeditation, he was willing to use government personnel to assist in his coverup and his lies, acknowledging part of the truth only when confronted with physical evidence. And he carried his lies and cover up right on into legal proceedings with the grace and ease of someone who regarded a court of law as deserving of no more respect than if he were dealing with a stranger on the street. It is this persistent relentless, remorseless pattern of conduct that requires a verdict of guilty. He was willing to lie, defame, hide evidence and enlist anyone necessary, including government employees over and over again. At every juncture when he had the opportunity to stop, relent or come clean with a forgiving public, he chose instead to go forward. And even today he refuses to acknowledge the damage he has done to the Presidency and the Judiciary, choosing instead to rely upon his high job approval rating and acknowledging only what he is forced to after the production of physical evidence.”
“At a time when all of our institutions are under assault, when the Presidency has been diminished and the Congress is viewed with scepticism, our Judiciary and our court system have remarkably maintained the public’s confidence. Now the President’s actions are known to every school child in America. And in the midst of these partisan battles, many people still think this matter is just `lying about sex.’ But little by little, there will be a growing appreciation that it is about much more than that. 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.”
He couldn’t follow suit on the perjury charge because the House did such a poor job of constructing and wording it. Sen. Thompson explained:
“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...”
You know this, yet you continually repeat the lie that Fred “let Clinton off the hook.” This shows not only a lack of intellectual honesty on your part, but you’ve obviously contracted a bad case of TDS - Thompson Derangement Syndrome. Congratualations! That’s something that you and Hillary have in common.