“Fred voted to convict on the one charge that could be proved. Anyone saying otherwise is a LIAR!”
Ironically that would make Senator Thompson a liar. He said both obstruction of justice and grand jury perjury could be proved. His not guilty vote was based on the specious argument that grand jury perjury didn’t constitute a high crime or misdemeanor.
I have no idea where my fascination with swinging at "pitches in the dirt" comes from, but it's there, so let's play.
First, you are not bad, you are keeping focused on your task and that is a noble thing.
I choose this post to "break in" on because of this statement by you:
His not guilty vote was based on the specious argument
I find that humorous in the extreme, because if there is one thing that Fred Thompson has always been "guilty" of, it is almost thinking too much. Indeed in many circles it is what he is most famous for, reasoned opinions on points of law.
So I am going to assume, despite what that may do to both of us, that you have only read what is on CNN etc. about this. So let's try and move into a more serious approach.
Here is Thompson's statement, his opinion on the legal aspects of his decisions. Read it carefully and read it well.
Thompson Statement on Impeachment.
Perhaps there is a reason this "conversation" has occurred almost to the point of being ridiculous in these very forums alone. Perhaps when people know the mind of the man they see the reason that went into it, the desire to not inject new precedent in order to satisfy political expediency. They may see his desire to not create a "new club" which future congresses could use to beat over the head of a future President. (Indeed a great irony, especially here on FR, but I digress)
Specious is not a term the sensible will assign to his actions or the thoughts laid out above.
Even if they do not agree.
I would be interested in what say you after a careful and thoughtful examination.