For thought....
1997 - FRED THOMPSON WIMPS OUT JUST AS HE GETS CLOSE TO PREY
Rocky Mountain News
Sept 23, 1997
Byline: William Safire The New York Times
Why, just as the investigation into Clinton campaign corruption was hitting pay dirt, did Fred Thompson suddenly strike a deal with Democrats to shift the hearings into a softer, gentler discussion of legislative changes?
Consider the momentum building:
1. Venerable Gore, now wisely hiring criminal lawyers, was shown to be fund-raising from federal property for his own campaign, which forced Janet Reno to shake up Justice’s hapless bureaucracy - in hope of evading the law’s mandate to seek court appointment of a real prosecutor.
2. Our rogue president, after selling face time to an engaging hustler for $300,000, was shown to have directed his aide to be ``supportive’’ of the donor at the Energy Department. Mack McLarty swore this attempted fix was merely ``seeking information,’’ echoing the words of Sherman Adams to excuse his improper intercession for Bernard Goldfine in 1958.
3. One of two Clinton 1992 fund-raisers who became high officials at Energy was shown to be a perjurer. ``Somebody’s lying,’’ concluded a senator. In that connection . . .
4. DNC chairman Don Fowler was shown disremembering conversations held with a CIA operative named Bob to help sanitize donor Roger Tamraz. This triggered a CIA Inspector General investigation likely to reveal abuse of authority within the Directorate of Operations.
With all that - plus evidence of China ‘s fund-funneling - what caused Fred Thompson to veer off into legislative la-la land? His reasons:
1. The coming week’s hearings were to be Democrats’ payback time, and GOP leaders did not want to offer a chance to argue ``everybody did it.’’
2. Thompson thought he was running low on ammunition. The best witnesses - Huang, Middleton, Trie - were taking the Fifth or hiding overseas.
3. After a slow start that drew media derision, Thompson reached a level of interest and grudging respect that would be hard to maintain (ain’t gonna get no betta); soon the pack’s mantra would become ``petering out.’’
4. Thompson believes this is the time for a deep breath; to see if New York U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White’s prosecution of teamsters leads to the AFL and the White House’s Harold Ickes (whom he will depose again); to press the Freeh-Reno crowd on the Asian connection; and in three weeks, to take another look at his hand.
By thus thinking tactically - about how the hearings ``play’’ - Thompson is making a strategic blunder.
A serious Senate investigation has three purposes: first, to use its subpoena power to expose to public view, often in dull detail, the widespread wrongdoing and potential lawbreaking that corrupted a presidential election. Next, with the public educated and aroused, to shame the see-no-evil, conflicted Justice Department into action. Purpose three: to propose legislation to make certain future wrongdoing of this kind is prosecutable.
But just when the committee’s exposing purpose was getting traction - when front pages and even TV network news shows were paying attention - Chairman Thompson cut away from the chase.
Because he mistakenly thought he was running out of fresh ammunition and running out of time, the Tennessee senator switched to the general legislative purpose. It was part of a deal with Trent Lott to steal a march on the Democrats’ domination of campaign finance reform.
With Thompson taking his heavy breather, who will take up the torch? It’s up to Intelligence Chairman Richard Shelby, who plans to examine Democratic penetration of the CIA, perhaps publicly, as former DCI John Deutch urges; Dan Burton and his House committee, bedeviled by cover-upper Henry Waxman but unencumbered by deadline; 41-year-old Mary Jo White; and slowpoke prosecutor Hickman Ewing Jr., administering water torture to Webster Hubbell.
Too bad about Fred Thompson’s wimpout. Hope he catches his breath in time.
After my eight years of mulling over all this ie. Fred backing off chinagate (as this Safire article puts it) and taking into account alamo-girls 'Time Line' - I came to the following conclusions:
***
"By thus thinking tactically - about how the hearings ``play’’ - Thompson is making a strategic blunder."
My thinking here is that - Thompson, at this point in time - was realizing that not only had a few of the key witnesses already fled the country, (or struck deals), but perhaps more, if not all of them had fled the country. Hard to know what Thompson had found out about fleeing witnesses in these times before any 'hearings.'
A serious Senate investigation has three purposes: first, to use its subpoena power to expose to public view..."
And with this, Thompson by now had probably found out that all of the **113 chinagate witnesses had fled the country; hence, there would not be - anyone left to subpoena.
"But just when the committee’s exposing purpose was getting traction...Chairman Thompson cut away from the chase....a deal with Trent Lott."
By this time, I'd bet that Thompson had been informed by the House Managers that Lott had flat out told them (the House Mgers) that there 'was not going to be enough votes' in the Senate to convict Clinton on treason (or any other charges).
"Too bad about Fred Thompson’s wimpout. Hope he catches his breath in time."
Thompson, knowing that there'd be no witneses available - knew for sure at this point in time that there would could not be a conviction of Clinton for treason.
And what was left for Thompson to do (for the record)? - Not much - but to go along - -for the rest of the ride. Simply nothing else he could do with no witnesses.
So, I have to disagree with Safire inferring Thompson whimped out. I have to go with the facts that we all have available to us through our varied sources, including alamo-girls fine work - 'Time Lines' to guide us.
***
Of course, in my above, I'm responding to a William Safire article and the time line Safire offers up does not include actual dates/with months and or weeks, or perhaps I could be more precise in my above responses. And then again, my responses are truly irrelevant considering that I am just a layman and speaking from the sidelines.
[and the **113 figure I use above is after 1998; I believe the figure was 85 pre-1998 as stated in '98 Congressional Records]
[Calpernia, I've pinged alamo-girl to look on, but in doing so, we must realize that alamo-girl might not want to respond to any of this seeing that it is a newspaper reporters observations that are being discussed in this post]