Replies

“While I don’t agree with Thompson’s doing this, I understand it—and, as Chuck conveniently forgets, Thompson DID vote against Clinton on the obstruction of justice charge.”

If you understand Senator Thompson’s “not guilty” vote on the perjury charge, I’d definitely appreciate an explanation:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1932681/posts

What's not to understand?

He voted it as an obstruction of justice issue. Which it was. Perjury is almost impossible to prove in a case like this; obstruction of justice is not.

http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/thompson.shtml

Anything you could possibly want to know about Fred's position on this issue is in this looooong statement.

HANNITY: Let me ask you the one issue — you split your decision on Clinton impeachment. You voted to convict on the obstruction, but not the perjury. You still stand by that? Was that the right decision?

THOMPSON: Absolutely. It didn't have anything to do with how I felt about him. It had to do with what I considered my role to be. I considered my role to be a judge, and I had to be dispassionate toward the individual. I went back to the founding fathers and what they thought constituted impeachable offenses and was quite surprised, in some respects, that some misbehavior did not constitute impeachable offenses in their views. So I followed that, and that caused me to split my vote.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278554,00.html

Just FYI.

"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."

http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/thompson.shtml

“If you understand Senator Thompson’s “not guilty” vote on the perjury charge, I’d definitely appreciate an explanation:”

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”.