Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kurt Evans
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.

47 posted on 01/14/2008 12:03:24 AM PST by Darkwolf377 (Pro-Life atheist who will vote Fred in the primary, Republican in November)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: Darkwolf377

“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.


83 posted on 01/14/2008 2:07:19 AM PST by Kurt Evans (This message not approved by any candidate or candidate's committee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson