Posted on 01/13/2008 10:55:13 PM PST by Kurt Evans
Why does Mike Huckabee have so little respect for crime victims and their families?
Thank you.
Dear Chuck;
Love you, man. But you are wrong for supporting this creep. He is a shyster, a charlatan, and a crook.
You have made a terrible mistake. Freepmail me when you finally realize your error.
“What’s not to understand?”
Why Senator Thompson believes President Clinton’s perjury before a grand jury didn’t constitute a high crime or misdemeanor.
“Perjury is almost impossible to prove in a case like this ... Anything you could possibly want to know about Fred’s position on this issue is in this looooong statement.”
I’ve read that statement. You obviously haven’t. Senator Thompson said perjury was proven, but he voted “not guilty” anyway.
I like it.
What in my post makes you think I didn't read that statement?
“I wouldn’t accept his explanation from a liberal and I can not accept his misleading explanation about the Dumond. He was not required to recommend a pardon and he admitted to doing so.”
Governor Huckabee didn’t recommend a pardon for Dumond. Dumond’s sentence was commuted by Jim Guy Tucker, making him eligible for parole during Governor Huckabee’s term. The parole board was made up entirely of Clinton-Tucker appointees. Governor Huckabee’s opinion had no influence on their decision, and they said so at the time. During the campaign for his next term as governor, they conveniently changed their minds.
Apparently you haven't read the statement, as you claimed. Your answer as to why Thompson believes that is right there:
"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.
"In no way does my conclusion ratify the White House lawyers' view that private conduct never rises to impeachable offenses, or that only acts that will jeopardize the future of the nation warrant removal of the President. It simply recognizes how the principles the Founding Fathers established apply to these facts.
"I therefore vote to acquit the President of the charges alleged against him in Article I."
You don't have to like his answer, but it's perfectly understandable, isn't it?
“What in my post makes you think I didn’t read that statement?”
You referred to the difficulty of proving perjury, which is irrelevant since Senator Thompson acknowledged that perjury was in fact proven.
That was my opinion. I never claimed it was Thompson's.
You need to read before commenting.
“Next thing you know, Huckabee will accuse David Thompson of being a relative of Fred Thompson.”
They’re both descendants of Noah. :-)
O.k. Even though I don’t agree that Fred’s not guilty vote is the deal killer you seem to think it is, I’ll pretend it is to make a point.
Both FRed and Huck were soft on Arkansas criminals. Fred in only one instance-a perjurer from Huck’s hometown who, unfortunately happened to be POTUS at the time.
Huck, on the other hand, pardoned enough convicted criminals to fill a large county jail, many of whom went on to commit violent crimes-including murder.
For you or Mr. Texas Ranger to try to use one “not guilty” vote out of two-pertaining to a non-violent crime at that,in contrast to Huckabee’s reckless feel-good pardonathon for predators is beyond absurd.
If you are trying to make this a “pot calling the kettle black” moment...Fred still comes out looking like a clean white plate compared to the greasy, burnt skillet otherwise known as Huckabee’s “record”.
“There isn’t one thing that Huckabee has over Thompson. Thompson beats Huckabee on every single conservative issue.”
Even as a “red state” Republican, Senator Thompson repeatedly voted with the trial lawyers against limitations on liability in defective product and medical malpractice cases. He played a critical role in the passage of McCain-Feingold’s immoral and blatantly unconstitutional restrictions on political free speech. He supported the expansion of NAFTA. He opposes a Marriage Protection Amendment to prevent our most liberal states from establishing legal definitions of marriage that vary from the historical meaning of the word. He voted President Clinton “not guilty” of perjury at the end of the impeachment trial:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1932681/posts
And as I’ve already pointed out in post #27, he has serious problems regarding the right to life:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1953287/posts#27
“When you make assertions like ‘Thompson didn’t support Reagan, because he endorsed his mentor, another Republican, Howard Baker. You are deliberately distorting the record.”
That’s absurd.
“When you make such assertions and don’t acknowledge that your own candidate endorsed Democrat candidates, then it is just a dishonest hit piece.”
So is that.
But Chucky, supporting those amendments is a centrist position. Fred is a federalist which is the conservative position. And you lied on the impeachment question, for a half-truth is a lie. He voted for impeachment on the other charge and Clinton was in fact impeached. That leaves you with little information on which to justify your charges.
Get a shave, Chuck. And do your homework next time.
“Why does Mike Huckabee have so little respect for crime victims and their families?”
I don’t believe he has any lack of respect for them.
“Apparently you haven’t read the statement, as you claimed.”
I read it in November.
“You don’t have to like his answer, but it’s perfectly understandable, isn’t it?”
Actually it’s not.
Well, what can I say? I understood it perfectly well, and can't see what confuses you. Again, one doesn't have to agree with it to understand it.
I read your entire post and did not find it too long. Instead, I found it to be the most enlightening piece I have ever seen, concerning the Huckster. How anyone could read that and still consider Huckabee to be a choice for President, is totally beyond belief.
I support Huckabee. He has a clear stance against abortion. He comes across as a sincere and honest person. Maybe Thompson would be my second choice, but he hasn’t been able to get his message out at all. Bashing Huckabee is certainly not the best way to define himself, it hasn’t worked.
I like you a lot Chuck, but you’re wrong here. Huckabee is a Huckster RINO, who if elected, would be no better than Jimmy Carter.
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.