“It’s also intended to be a misleading statement people by omitting the important fact that Fred did vote for a conviction on the other count.”
I wasn’t talking about other votes. I was talking about the perjury vote. There’s nothing misleading about it.
“Fred’s vote did not affect the final outcome, and it’s not an issue today.”
If Clinton had been convicted of perjury, he would have been removed from office. Senator Thompson’s “not guilty” vote affected the final outcome every bit as much as the “not guilty” votes cast by Democrats. And it is an issue today because it raises questions about Senator Thompson’s character.
Raises a question about his character? Are you serious. Good God, if we’re going to say that any disagreement on any point, no matter how technical is a reflection on a man’s character, I think we’ve hit rock bottom. However, if you want to go there, you could write a book on such Character flaws on the part of Huckabee, Romney, and Rudy. Like Rush said yesterday, none of them are conservative and that’s the biggest character flaw of all.
Hair-splitting much? He did not see sufficient evidence to support a perjury conviction but did on obstruction. To be fair and not biased you must include both votes else you are simply spewing propaganda through insinuation by omission.
Though we don't always succeed, we aim to be better than that around here.
What are the "questions" of "character" you suggest are being raised? Again, you made insinuations. Shame on you.
Since removal from office required a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Senate to convict on at least one article of impeachment, the final outcome was entirely in Democrat hands. Thompson's vote alone not to convict on just one of those two articles did not effect whether Clinton ultimately stayed or was removed.
Thompson's character should not be called into question simply because he did not see sufficiently clear evidence of perjury while still recognizing the pattern of obstruction and voting for removal on that basis.
You don't even have the character to admit you're attempting a hit-and-run on Thompson are unwilling to admit you support another candidate.
Has nothing to do with his character the fact that he voted yes on one and no on the other is a credit to his character in that he carefully weighed the evidence and voted his conscience.
Other than the fact that you're trying to imply that Mr. Thompson voted against conviction ... which he did not.
Either give the whole truth, or say nothing. To deal in half-truths is to act like a Clinton, or various other brands of liar.