| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 10/10/2007 3:33:14 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Duplicate: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1909425/posts |
Posted on 10/10/2007 3:19:10 PM PDT by goldstategop
Thompson, whom President Nixon once called "dumb as hell," claimed to have carefully studied the Constitution and determined that obstruction of justice by the president of the United States did not constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors." He must have been looking at one of those living, breathing Constitutions we've heard so much about.
When the framers chose the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" for the Constitution, they were using a term taken from British parliamentary impeachments. There's a 600-year history of what this phrase means – and Clinton met it about a dozen times before he gave a single statement under oath or suborned a single witness's testimony.
It has been used in this country and in Britain to remove one government official for making "uncivil addresses to a woman," another for "notorious excesses and debaucheries" and another for "frequenting bawdy houses and consorting with harlots." Or, as Bill Clinton used to call it, "a three-day weekend."
The House didn't even impeach Clinton for his legion of "notorious excesses and debaucheries." He was impeached for excesses that also happen to be felonies. For a nation of laws, there are no more serious offenses than perjury and obstruction of justice.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Think this thread will hit a thousand posts?
Actually, this is a duplicate!
Cute title.
Ultimately, clear principles make good politics?
It’s new to me. I didn’t see it the first time.
Okay - off topic. Has anyone read the article from the National Enquirer that alleges that John Edwards had an affair? Found it and lost it.
That’s OK!
with a woman?
So, who would Ann have be the Republican nominee? No one is perfect, and I’d bet that if you asked Fred about a number of his decisions you’d find that he’d admit that a few were wrong (when’s the last time a politician did that?).
Fred is for a strong defense, and aggressively pro-American foreign policy, he’s pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-illegal immigration and anti-gay marriage. He’s also incorruptible, unlike certain female Democratic Presidential candidates. No, he’s isn’t perfect - but who is? What more could Ann ask for with this field of candidates?
self-ping
She makes valid strikes against Thompson and Huckabee. I still refuse to vote for the so-called top candidates. Sorry as Huckabee may be, I could vote for him if I had to. Rudy McRomnney is never going to get my vote. Thompson had a chance but he blew it. And I would have overlooked the Clinton impeachment thing.
Ann You need to stop hanging around and datingNew York liberals. Yor condemnation of Thompson for not taking down a Clinton while in his sights rings hollow while praising Rudy .
He had his chance while Hillary was stealing his lunch in his own playground.
Duncan Hunter: US Army, 1969-1971, with service in Vietnam
with a woman?
ROFL
Okay I know Edwards isn’t gay, but that tickled me.
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.