When evaluating the intellectual nature of Fred Thompson, it’s instructive to look at his thoughts on the impeachment of Bill Clinton, on which he voted in favor. The following opinion from Fred Thompson, about the grounds that make a President impeachable, was entered into the Congressional Record on February 12, 1999:
“Clearly, a President’s offense or offenses must be serious and/or have serious consequences. Also, while they do not have to be crimes, my own opinion is that in most cases they will be crimes. They must be crimes against the state, but we cannot adopt an unreasonable restriction of that term… while it is true that the founders meant to cover `public’ behavior, I believe they also meant to cover behavior that has a negative effect on the public if it is of sufficient gravity. Furthermore, if the President’s conduct poses a threat and danger to a country, that certainly is a legitimate (though not exclusive) consideration. If that same conduct serves to undermine the President’s credibility and moral authority, that could also pose a danger to the country and is similarly a legitimate consideration. And, again his conduct does not necessarily have to deal with his office.”
Here’s a summary of what Fred Thompson is claiming in this statement:
1. A President can be impeached just for being immoral or having low credibility even if no crime is committed
2. The conduct a President is impeached for need not have anything at all to do with his duties as President, but can be merely a personal fault
According to these lax standards for impeachment developed by Fred Thompson, a President could be impeached for lying to his mother.
Why would Fred Thompson argue such a ridiculous thing? Well, back in 1999, Fred Thompson was one of those Republicans who was so hungry to get Bill Clinton that he would twist and turn the law into the most elaborate knots.
No one argues that Fred Thompson is stupid. The issue is not Fred Thompson’s intelligence, but rather the motivations with which he applies his intellect. As his contorted interpretation of the grounds for impeachment shows, Fred Thompson’s motivations are unrelentingly partisan. Fred Thompson seems to come up with his conclusions, like the need to impeach Bill Clinton, based upon political motivation. Only then does Fred Thompson apply his intelligence, in an attempt to justify his partisan political agenda.
In 2008, we need to elect a President who has the opposite approach from that displayed by Fred Thompson. Fred Thompson’s style of government twists the law to absurd extremes in service of a political purpose. We need a President who uses his or her intelligence to arrive at sound policy, and then finds a way to fit that policy into the political climate of the day.
(Source, Congressional Record, February 12, 1999)
Wow! At least Fred came out and stated his opinion while offering a specific set of circumstances. As we have said before, Fred Thompson does not dine at the Waffle House.
Our author however splatters non focused phrases loaded with the overall purpose of peeing on Fred’s reputation and parade. Here it comes folks. The steaming wagon train of manure to dump on Fred.
Don Jones
MyManFred.com
Wow, Don. You managed to use a lot of words without actually managing to refute a single thing that I wrote – AND you managed to put your web address out there too. Classy.
So, Don, can you please tell me what exactly in the following is incorrect?
Fred Thompson was arguing that:
1. A President can be impeached just for being immoral or having low credibility even if no crime is committed
2. The conduct a President is impeached for need not have anything at all to do with his duties as President, but can be merely a personal fault
According to these lax standards for impeachment developed by Fred Thompson, a President could be impeached for lying to his mother.
Do you really think that these are good standards for the impeachment of the President of the United States, Don?
Looks to me like ol’ buddy Fred dumped on his own parade.
Wait a minute. Old buddy Fred actually said, “If that same conduct serves to undermine the President’s credibility and moral authority, that could also pose a danger to the country and is similarly a legitimate consideration.” That means… that means…lying about weapons of mass destruction poses a danger to the country and is an impeachable offense.
Out of the mouths of babes…
Remember – blow jobs, and other PRIVATE PERSONAL concerns of the guy in office is an impeachable offense, but if you totally ruin the economy by running up the debt, kill a bunch of innocent foreigners, put your own troops in harms way via lies about the causes of the conflict, see to it that anyone in office (including CIA operatives) who disagrees with you or refutes your lies gets exposed or canned as a result, and run a secret government so you can’t be held accountable for trashing the Constitution THAT’s OKAY!! Good thing we have the neocon Republicans around to straighten us all out, eh?
Do you guys wear a bib or do you just prefer to drool straight unto your keyboards?
When the men in the white coats finally figure out you’re not supposed to have internet access, I hope the shock therapy will actually work on you.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I prefer to drool straight into my keyboards; it has a kind of lubricating effect that prevents the ol’ sticky K problem.
Would you like to know how I solve the problem of a stiff control key?
Although he doesn’t drool, Winghunter doesn’t have a single substantive thing to say in response to this article.
We don’t KNOW that he doesn’t drool. In fact, how did he happen to think of that particular thing? A clear case of projection.
And while it seems he didn’t like the article, he doesn’t give us any clues why not. Busy drooling, what’s why.