[kevkrom]

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.

[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.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

While I am giving my opinion of the man, let me say that he seems to me to be generally honest. I think this was a case where he saw compromise as a greater good. That's my interpretation of it based on this and other actions. I found his explanation insincere and selective. Still, this specific issue -- the Clinton trial -- would not hinder me from voting for Thompson. It was a long time ago. For that reason I'm really quite finished with this topic. I just wanted to reply to your reasonable post.

I am not voting for Thompson for other reasons. Hunter is getting my vote.

[ballplayer]

Why the obsession with the DIVERSION from the real crimes of selling out the country to the Chinese communists.
You all have fell for the Clintons Propganda

[LucyJo]

Bump.