Posted on 11/16/2007 9:48:43 AM PST by Hostage
During Fred Thompson's time in the Senate, his voting record was quite similar to that of his friend John McCain. But one area where they diverged was on the verdict in President Clinton's impeachment trial. After that trial, the Senate voted on two impeachment Articles -- perjury and obstruction of justice. John McCain voted "guilty" as to both Articles; Fred Thompson voted "guilty" on obstruction of justice and "not gulity"" on perjury.
I don't remember the evidence well enough to opine with confidence on the merits of these votes, and as President Nixon once said, perjury is a tough rap to prove. Nonetheless, my thought at the time was that during the trial, the House floor managers who prosecuted the case had made a convincing case on both Articles of impeachment.
For the record, 45 Senators found Clinton guilty of obstruction of justice and 50 Senators found him guilty of obstruction of justice. The Republicans who found Clinton not guilty of perjury were Thompson, Chafee, Collins, Gordon, Jeffords, Shelby, Snowe, Specter, Stevens, and Warner. Of this group Thompson, Gordon, Shelby, Stevens, and Warner found Clinton guilty of obstruction of justice.
http://australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/thompson.shtml
In a nutshell, Fred Thompson boiled down the essential elements of an impeachment trial as to whether an 'abuse of presidential powers' had been committed or whether the crime was of personal nature. If it is determined that a crime was committed of personal nature, the office holder can still be tried in a court of law but not necessarily the US Senate. But is there is any abuse of power of office such as telling subordinates of the office to lie, shred evidence and so on, then a trial in the US Senate is appropriate.
A President or high office holder can commit a crime such as beating their spouse, telling the public lies or driving in a personal vehicle while intoxicated and such crime would not cause a trial to be had in the US Senate.
In the case of William Clinton, his perjury was his doing and did not involve an abuse of presidential powers. So Clinton was therefore dispensed to a US Court where he was convicted of perjury.
However, in the act of obstructing justice, Clinton did indeed use the powers of his office to cause others to commit a crime. This was an abuse of office and for this act, Fred Thompson voted to convict.
Lastly, it does not matter how many charges are brought up in a trial, only one charge that sticks is necessary to convict. In other words Fred Thompson voted to convict Clinton and nothing more needs to be said.
It is a little weird how Thompson sems to get away with as much or more than McCain yet McCain pays and Thompson doesn't. I figure it is because McCain is such an in-your-face friend back-stabber and Thompson is more sly about it.
You did your homework. A +
I don't remember the evidence well enough to opine with confidence on the merits of these votes...
...yet all he had to do was read this:
http://australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/thompson.shtml
If every senator had been half as serious in dealing with the case as Thompson was, instead of just voting on party lines, Clinton would easily have been removed from office. Even if one disagrees with Thompson’s reasoning on the perjury charge (though after reading his reasoning, I think he makes a compelling argument for a “not guilty” vote), one should at least respect the seriousness with which he undertook the process.
Thanks that is a very good summary.
I could really care less about this. The GOP has to get over monicagate or we will lose. There are more important issues to discuss other than this to win with, really important issues. I think the fact that Hillary is either stupid or complicit is inmportant, but shouldn’t be a main foucs.
No one can ever accuse either men of being pro-clinton. So what’s the point??
Do you read Powerline? They are not lazy.
When it comes to defendant Thompson, after reading posts one and two I’m voting not guilty.
You’re talking generalities, I explained specifically.
High crimes and misdemeanors! Not high crimes and misdemeanors only while abusing presidential powers. Clinton is not presidential material, and never has been, he is dishonorable.
Before we all assume that John McCain was some kind of hero in the impeachment saga, let’s not forget that he teamed up with Ted Kennedy to come up with the “bi-partisan” sham of a trial.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764613.html
The Small Fry
The first official impeached in this country was Senator William Blount of Tennessee for a plot to help the British seize Louisiana and Florida from Spain in 1797. The Senate dismissed the charges on Jan. 14, 1799, determining that it had no jurisdiction over its own members. The Senate and the House do, however, have the right to discipline their members, and the Senate expelled Blount the day after his impeachment.
Judge John Pickering of New Hampshire was the first impeached official actually convicted. He was found guilty of drunkenness and unlawful rulings, on March 12, 1804, and was believed to have been insane.
Associate Justice Samuel Chase , a strong Federalist, was impeached but acquitted of judicial bias against anti-Federalists. The acquittal on March 1, 1805, established that political differences were not grounds for impeachment.
Other officials impeached were implicated in bribery, cheating on income tax, perjury, and treason.
Thommpson is conservative-lite and that may be the best we can get at this point since everyone has squandered time, money and energy on strategy "look at us, we aren't really that conservative" type candidates rather than on true conservatives.
I still say Thompson is more or less McCain without the temper. He may be a little less conservative than McCain.
Posted by Paul at 9:44 AM
Does this belong in .. News/Activism
since this is a ‘posters’ opinion to an article in Power Line?
The author not only IS lazy but a deceiver as well!
LLS
Calling someone lazy is a generality. Saying someone didn’t do his homework on this would have been being more specific. Anyway, Thompson’s vote was wrong but I’m not the best to explain it. See Anncoulter.com for the best explanation.
Must only be a sphere where lawyers can identify. I am NOT impressed or persuaded.
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.