Coulter foams at the mouth once again
Ann Coulter is both beautiful and brilliant. What stops her from being my dream woman is that she also has a nasty streak in her a mile wide- and is quite capable of baldly promulgating blatant falsehoods on occasion.
Her recent column taking Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson to task is a case in point. Defending Huckabee falls to his supporters; I'm a Thompson man, despite my doubts about his responses to questions about the Supreme Court-recognized right of their families to kill sick people, and the question of whether even state legislatures are competent to redefine society's oldest and most basic institution- marriage-to include people of the same gender.
I happen to agree that Bill Clinton should have been removed from office for lying a grand jury under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinski. But the fact remains that his relationship with Lewinski was not material to the subject matter of the investigation, and therefore, legally, did not constitute perjury. It was not a felony. The case was made on the floor of the Senate- and Fred Thompson was one of those who bought into it- that since Clinton's lie did not constitute a felony, it was not a serious enough matter from a legal point of view to remove him from office over it.
One may agree or disagree with that argument. But Coulter herself does exactly the same thing she rightly accuses Clinton of doing- she lies- when she in claims that the ex-president committed a felony-namely perjury- when he lied to the grand jury. Perhaps Coulter thinks that not being under oath excuses her?
You know. Sort of like Clinton thought that "only " having fellatio (rather than intercourse) with Lewinski permitted him to claim, "I never had sex with that woman?"
Her recent column taking Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson to task is a case in point. Defending Huckabee falls to his supporters; I'm a Thompson man, despite my doubts about his responses to questions about the Supreme Court-recognized right of their families to kill sick people, and the question of whether even state legislatures are competent to redefine society's oldest and most basic institution- marriage-to include people of the same gender.
I happen to agree that Bill Clinton should have been removed from office for lying a grand jury under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinski. But the fact remains that his relationship with Lewinski was not material to the subject matter of the investigation, and therefore, legally, did not constitute perjury. It was not a felony. The case was made on the floor of the Senate- and Fred Thompson was one of those who bought into it- that since Clinton's lie did not constitute a felony, it was not a serious enough matter from a legal point of view to remove him from office over it.
One may agree or disagree with that argument. But Coulter herself does exactly the same thing she rightly accuses Clinton of doing- she lies- when she in claims that the ex-president committed a felony-namely perjury- when he lied to the grand jury. Perhaps Coulter thinks that not being under oath excuses her?
You know. Sort of like Clinton thought that "only " having fellatio (rather than intercourse) with Lewinski permitted him to claim, "I never had sex with that woman?"
Comments
Based on this, you make the accusation against Ann Coulter (and her reputation) that "Coulter foams at the mouth" and "she lies" when she stated (specifically), "...the president who committed perjury and obstruction of justice in a civil rights suit against him..."
Presumably your accusation of foaming at the mouth and being a liar would also apply to the person who claimed: "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 [Clinton] 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."
That excerpt was from a statement made by Senator Fred Thompson regarding the reasons for his vote at the Clinton trial. That statement was entered into the Congressional Record for Friday, February 12, 1999.
Fred also had this to say about what guided his thinking during the Senate trial:
"Scholars have looked to the purposes to be served by the impeachment process as well as history in making their own analysis as to the meaning `high crimes and misdemeanors.' For [Yale law professor and author of Impeachment: A Handbook (1974)] Charles Black they would include offenses (1) which are extremely serious, (2) which in some way corrupt or subvert the political and governmental process, and (3) which are plainly wrong in themselves to a person of honor or to a good citizen regardless of words on the statute books.
"Also qualifying according to Professor Black would be `serious offense against the nation or its governmental or political processes.' Furthermore, he would include purely personal actions that would make a President unviable as a national leader... Finally, he would include actions that would `undermine government and confidence in government' such as serious tax fraud."
Fred then states:
"The President engaged in inappropriate personal conduct. It had nothing to do with his official duties, but it did involve a federal employee under his supervision, government time and government facilities. In an attempt to conceal and cover up that activity, he lied, misled and helped conceal evidence both physical and testimonial in a court proceeding. In doing so he elicited the help of other government employees."
But then after extensive discussion of the Article I charges, Fred concludes, "Make no mistake, perjury is a felony, and its commission by a President may sometimes constitute high crimes and misdemeanors... In my opinion, these statements, while wrong and perhaps indictable after the President leaves office, do not justify removal of the President from office."
So, according to Fred Thompson, there were multiple perjuries; they were felonies; they involved federal employees, time, and facilities under Clinton's supervision; and they concealed evidence in a court proceeding. Such perjury fits into each and every "high crimes and misdemeanors" category of Professor Black's impeachable offenses listed by Fred. But Fred decided to vote "no".
Given Fred's own statement in the public record, Ann make at least a debatable point when she states: "This isn't the time to be toying with any Republican who had a Clinton in his sights and ended up shooting himself in the foot."
And someone owes Ann an apology.
But she still foams at the mouth.