Fred Thompson, John McCain, and the trial of Bill Clinton

Powerline ^ | November 16, 2007 | Paul

[kevkrom]

So is it your position that all those other Senators who voted guilty were wrong?

Not at all -- see #35. It is entirely possible for reasonable people to reach different conclusions based on the same information.

The only Senators who were wrong were the ones in either party who cast their votes for political reasons rather than an honest evaluation of the merits of each case.

[trisham]

He's on the freaking INTERNET

*************

LOL! Good point. :)

[trisham]

Coulter’s is but one opinion. She’s backing a losing candidate.

[3niner]

For the record, 45 Senators found Clinton guilty of obstruction of justice and 50 Senators found him guilty of obstruction of justice.

Not a terribly competent statement. The writer appears to have meant "perjury", in the first reference to "obstruction of justice".

[3niner]

He hedged, he wanted to be seen as counting Clinton guilty but he did not want Clinton to be impeached so he voted to achieve his desired outcome.

That is simply stupid. It only takes one impeachment conviction for a President to be removed from office. What's more, Clinton was impeached, he simply was not convicted.

[3niner]

The only Senators who were wrong were the ones in either party who cast their votes for political reasons rather than an honest evaluation of the merits of each case.

This needs to be repeated. Too few people understand it.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>For the record, 45 Senators found Clinton guilty of obstruction of justice and 50 Senators found him guilty of obstruction of justice.

Obviously the author has repeated the "guilty of obstruction of justice" twice.

The historic record shows Fred was on board with convicting Clinton on the obstruction of justice charge. Good enough. Lets not forget, it takes 67 Senate votes to convict ANY President. So, its all a moot point. Glad you included Fred`s legal take on the proceedings.

[SoConPubbie]

"He hedged, he wanted to be seen as counting Clinton guilty but he did not want Clinton to be impeached so he voted to achieve his desired outcome."

Do you have any proof of that?

I did not think so!

This is a totally unfounded aspersion on Fred. Did you even bother to read his excellent piece on why he voted as he did?

I dare say you did not, because what he wrote was totally logical.

If you haven't read his article on this subject, it is posted several times on this thread.

[untrained skeptic]

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.

Thompson usually has pretty good reasoning behind his stance on things. McCain... well, not so much.

I figure it is because McCain is such an in-your-face friend back-stabber and Thompson is more sly about it.

And you're basing that on how you FEEL about the candidates?

[SoConPubbie]

"And you're basing that on how you FEEL about the candidates?"

It would appear that most of The Ghost of FReepers Past statements on this thread are solely based on his/her feelings and I dare say his/her support for another candidate.

[mission9]

The point is that the reasoning that gives Clinton a pass on the perjury charge is the same reason that keeps scumbags like Larry Craig in office, overly legalistic to the point of obsuring justice. In a sane society, these clowns would be run out of town on a rail. And because Fred Thompson is part of the apologists for it, you are too. You may even concur that it is brilliant to make that argument. Shame.

[untrained skeptic]

It would appear that most of The Ghost of FReepers Past statements on this thread are solely based on his/her feelings and I dare say his/her support for another candidate.

Maybe, but he/she gave a decent explanation and a link providing information on why he/she feels that way so people can investigate and come to their own conclusions.

You ignored the information, said he/she was wrong, and made vague references to Fred being almost identical to McCain.

Of the two, I know which person's comments I consider more credible.

[ejonesie22]

So it wasn’t just because Fred was a “bad campaigner” and such that he lost your support after that "speech disaster" you droned on about a couple of weeks ago.

If that was all it was you would only mention that as a complaint....

Well, well, well...

What "Pay Grade" is the correct scale for manure hauling?

[Norman Bates]

“actually two have since left the Republican Party”

Note: ‘Chafee of Rhode Island’ was Lincoln Chafee’s father.

[italianquaker]

Chafee, Collins, Gordon, Jeffords, Shelby, Snowe, Specter, Stevens, and Warner.Thats some company to keep.

[mission9]

Could you please address the points, and not attack me? I have made other objections to the Fred Thompson Candidacy, which were never refuted either, the FredHead zealots always attack me instead.

Tell me, Fredhead, did you at the time agree that Clinton should only have been impeached for obstruction of justice?
Or did your conversion occur because of Fred’s persuasion?

[Petronski]

The point is that the reasoning that gives Clinton a pass on the perjury charge is the same reason that keeps scumbags like Larry Craig in office, overly legalistic to the point of obsuring justice.

Admit it: you tried reading Fred's argument but couldn't follow it.

[Beagle8U]

“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.”

IMHO Fred Thompson voted in the case as a judge would if they followed the law and legal precedent based on the facts of the case, rather than party line opinion.

In this type of case the Senate is required to judge. Its not a yes/no vote on a bill.

[mission9]

Do you think that insulting my intelligence some how justify’s Thompson’s get out of jail free card for the great philanderer? Do you not see that such leniency guarantees further malfeasance in office?

[Petronski]

...Thompson’s get out of jail free card...

No such thing. Only one conviction is needed for removal from office. This is high school civics. Either you understand it or you don't.