Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: pogo101
I’m fairly sure Thompson voted to convict on one or more charges and to acquit on one.

Any source?

Even if true, the failure of the republican senate to force clinton from office for political reasons is more than enough to eliminate each one individually from further political consideration.

IMHO

91 posted on 07/10/2007 10:01:07 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]


To: WhiteGuy
Even if true, the failure of the republican senate to force clinton from office for political reasons is more than enough to eliminate each one individually from further political consideration.

Gawd, that is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen on FR.

It takes a 2/3rds vote to remove from office.

Now show us where the Senate GOP had a supermajority.

At the end of the day, Slick was not removed from office because the Dems refused to vote to do such.

97 posted on 07/10/2007 10:02:59 AM PDT by dirtboy (Impeach Chertoff and Gonzales. We can't wait until 2009 for them to be gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

To: WhiteGuy
Just a quickie from Wiki:
On February 12, 1999, the Senate voted on the Clinton impeachment. Thompson voted "not guilty" on article 1, the perjury article, but voted "guilty" on article 2, the obstruction of justice article. The Senate's vote was 45-55 on perjury and 50-50 on obstruction. Conviction on impeachment charges requires the affirmative votes of 67 senators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Thompson
101 posted on 07/10/2007 10:03:53 AM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

To: WhiteGuy
Even if true, the failure of the republican senate to force clinton from office for political reasons is more than enough to eliminate each one individually from further political consideration.
How illogical can one person be?
114 posted on 07/10/2007 10:07:29 AM PDT by Clara Lou (Fred Thompson, '08-- imwithfred.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

To: WhiteGuy
ANY SOURCE?

You’re fracking kidding me, right? You’re willing to dismiss every member of the US Senate who voted in the Clinton trial for failing to remove him from office but you don’t know how to look up Senate votes?

Dear Lord in heaven.

116 posted on 07/10/2007 10:07:59 AM PDT by brothers4thID (FDT: "Every notice that while our problems are getting bigger, our politicians are getting smaller?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

To: WhiteGuy

Good Lord, this is common knowledge. Fred Thompson voted to convict on obstruction and against conviction on the perjury charge.

His reasoning can be found here:

http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/thompson.shtml


124 posted on 07/10/2007 10:10:52 AM PDT by perfect_rovian_storm (Well Fred’s got a 60-40 lead. I intend to change that -- pissant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

To: WhiteGuy
pogo101 is correct. Thompson voted to convict on the obstruction of justice clause. He felt the perjury charge was weak. (perjury is alway hard to convict on)
732 posted on 07/10/2007 6:05:23 PM PDT by babygene (Never look into the laser with your last good eye...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

To: WhiteGuy

Which would have given us President Gore for 6 years at least. I don’t need to say more.


781 posted on 07/10/2007 7:15:18 PM PDT by beckysueb (Pray for our troops , America, and President Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson