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 +
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.
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.
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?
Must only be a sphere where lawyers can identify. I am NOT impressed or persuaded.
What is the purpose of this article. To try and pull votes from Thompson?
Boy, do I wish this were true! 95-5 would have been wonderful!
More laziness.
Thompson’s record is no more similar to McCain’s than it is to any other mostly right leaning Republican’s record.
During the eight years that Thompson and McCain served together, they cast votes on 102 CQ-defined key votes and agreed on 83 of them - or 81.4 percent of the time. They disagreed 18.6% of the time, that’s pretty high considering that both are Republicans and both are considered relatively conservative. Just as an example from one year, among the instances in which Thompson and McCain differed were votes in 2002 to effectively extend a repeal of the estate tax beyond 2010, to authorize oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and to postpone tougher automobile fuel efficiency standards. Thompson voted “aye” and McCain voted “no” in all three cases.
*****
Some key SenateMatch responses for Fred Thompson and John McCain:
“Abortion is a woman’s right”
Fred: Strongly Opposes (voted to ban partial-birth abortion)
McCain: Opposes (voted to allow partial-birth abortion)
“Sexual orientation protected by civil rights laws”
Fred: Strongly Opposes
McCain: Favors
“More federal funding for health coverage”
Fred: Opposes
McCain: Favors
“Replace coal & oil with alternatives”
Fred: Opposes (Voted to preserve budget for ANWR oil drilling)
McCain: Favors (Voted to kill budget for ANWR oil drilling
“Allow churches to provide welfare services”
Fred: Favors
McCain: Opposes
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain_VoteMatch.htm
Not a terribly competent statement. The writer appears to have meant "perjury", in the first reference to "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.
The Senate GOP should be ashamed of their performance in the impeachment trial. They never permitted the evidence to be presented, and they never permitted testamony. All that was permitted was speeches by House members. The Senate GOP left the House GOP to twist slowly in the wind.
You did an excellent analysis of the situation and this article. Thank you much.
It’s too bad no one thought to tell us Bill Clinton is a rapist. And you know they knew it as some of them went to view private files of Clinton’s and actually said it made them ill.
The “author” is a rabid Mittwit. This isn’t the first time that he’s used Powerline to post incomplete anti-Fred assertions or leave out important context.
I used to read Powerline a LOT. Haven’t touched it in months. If I want obfuscation and deletion of detail and context I can check the MSM, don’t need a blog trying to pass as conservative pulling the same stunts.
Good post on #1, btw.
Thank you for that analysis.