bobbysoxer
|
posted on February 12, 2001 10:05:08 AM new
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/021201/clinton_pardons.sml
not bobbysoxer on eBay
[email protected]
|
njrazd
|
posted on February 12, 2001 10:42:17 AM new
Personally, I hope they drop all the impeachment stuff. We cannot move on if we are constantly bombarded by the past.
While I find several of those pardons an absolute slap in the face of America, I guess I just look at it from where it came from. I do hope they go after Denise Rich though. It appears there was some laundering going on. And Mark should still have to come up with the $48 million if he wants to return to the US. I'd take that in lieu of jailtime for him.
|
DWest
|
posted on February 12, 2001 01:17:13 PM new
I think that the Republicans should just stop their investigations. If Clinton has done anything wrong concerning the pardons, then it should be investigated by the Justice Department and criminal charges should be brought. Let the courts take care of it!
|
Pocono
|
posted on February 12, 2001 02:33:13 PM new
It's all designed to take the focus off of Bush's "screw ups" and lies.
If they keep concentrating on Bill on page 1, them sneaky Georgie can get page 2.
Typical Repulsive Republican Puke...
|
Zazzie
|
posted on February 12, 2001 02:38:36 PM new
It's an old Magician's trick---misdirection.
You are not watching what is actually happening--just what the Magician wants you to watch.
|
snowyegret
|
posted on February 12, 2001 02:49:52 PM new
There goes the surplus. 
|
inside
|
posted on February 12, 2001 03:13:08 PM new
So what if Rich was making millions dealing in oil with Iran during the hostage crisis.
|
toke
|
posted on February 12, 2001 03:20:55 PM new
Aw c'mon. What is everyone getting excited about? That pardon was bought and paid for...in the good old American way. What's the problem? 
|
Zazzie
|
posted on February 12, 2001 03:22:24 PM new
sort of like the Presidency
|
toke
|
posted on February 12, 2001 03:31:28 PM new
You think so?  Nah...I think it was horrible campaigns by awful candidates aided by inept election officials that did us in.
|
chum
|
posted on February 12, 2001 04:11:10 PM new
So what if Rich was making millions dealing in oil with Iran during the hostage crisis.
Exactly. Just like Bush and Reagan was selling weapons to them. Poor ollie was shredding papers in the White House basement. lol
|
Pocono
|
posted on February 12, 2001 05:56:23 PM new
Yea, and SO WHAT if Georgie manipulated the oil prices through his arab buddies to make it seem like the last administration was reponsible for the beginning of his orchestrated recession!
oops...forgot to add, isn't it AMAZING how the gas prices are coming down now that he is in office?
things that make you go hmmmm...
and how can we forget that he is president, due to the wrangling of one of his former "convention ho's" Catherine "Morticia" Harris?
[ edited by Pocono on Feb 12, 2001 05:59 PM ]
|
krs
|
posted on February 12, 2001 09:01:08 PM new
Dumbya had this to say not long ago:
Jan. 29, 2001...A president's right to grant...pardons is "inviolate, as far as I'm concerned," he said. "It's an important part of the office. I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but my predecessors as well." --NYT, 1/29/01
|
Pocono
|
posted on February 12, 2001 09:15:00 PM new
How about the statement about the sub mishap?
"There will be a Full and TRANSPARENT investigation into what happened"
Transparent? ...LOL
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 13, 2001 05:29:59 AM new
IMO the Marc Rich pardon does need to be investigated. I do not believe it will lead to impeachment though. But there are other pardons he made that I just can't understand either. Is this how Clinton believed we should fight our war on drugs?
On his last day in office, President Clinton commuted the sentences of twenty-one Federal drug offenders, a list of which can be found at:
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/commutationspaocht.htm
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 13, 2001 05:40:49 AM new
AND before that, he chose to pardon this turkey (according to an article from CNN) :
http://www.cnn.com/US/9911/24/turkey.pardon/index.html
|
neelieohara
|
posted on February 13, 2001 05:49:29 AM new
I like Clinton, but that Rich pardon seems hinky to me, too.
That said, however, as long as they're opening the door for impeachments for past pardons, why don't they impeach former President Bush for pardoning his Iran-Contra cronies?
Jenny
|
krs
|
posted on February 13, 2001 06:05:03 AM new
Sure, where were you when:
Having lost the election, Bush pardoned six of his Iran-Contra co-conspirators.He pardoned them on Christmas Eve because he knew every reporter in Washington and New York was home with their families and his
truth-burying pardons wouldn't get the attention they deserved.
Can you imagine the trauma to this country if a sitting president was put on trial for perjury, theft, and possible treason and arms-smuggling? And Bush's defense would've been, "I was following Reagan's orders"
So, then we would have had to drag Ronald Reagan onto the witness stand. Don't you think the GOP would do anything to avoid that?
President Bush fell on a sword for his party.
Bush threw that election so he could pardon the others and bury the truth.
Had he pardoned them with a full four years to go, he would've surely
been impeached, and Reagan's legacy trashed and the Republican party
would've had three of their last four presidents guilty of felonies.
|
mark090
|
posted on February 13, 2001 06:23:00 AM new
I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the Iran-Contra pardons. So all you Clinton bashers---in your face! And with the Bush pardons, the pardonees hadn't even been accused officiallly. Bush just did it to save his own butt, just in case they agreed to roll over on him. The Clinton scandals so actively pursued by the GOP, pale in comparison to the Iran-Contra affair. Clinton may be no better than Larry Flynt, but Bush was no better than Stalin and Saddam Hussein.
[ edited by mark090 on Feb 13, 2001 06:23 AM ]
|
sgtmike
|
posted on February 13, 2001 06:39:57 AM new
Excerpt:
"The sale of arms to Iran was done to bring about the release of Americans held hostage in the Middle East, even if doing so was contrary to the nation's stated policy and possibly in violation of the law."
May have been criminal in accordance with standing law, but to do so to save the lives of those Americans who would have surely been slaughtered, is quite different.
I suppose it was ok that the ba$tard that Clinton pardoned, before being brought to trial, was trading with Iran at the same time in manner that assisted Iran (against) the U.S. and in total indifference the American hostages.
Clinton's pardon was obviously self-serving and for his wife to be elected.
|
krs
|
posted on February 13, 2001 07:03:39 AM new
Gee, really?
Weren't the hostages in Iran already returned before the piping of money through Iran for the Nicaraguan contras in violation of specific congressional restrictions began?
Better ask Ollie.
Iran-Contra arms sales had nothing to do with any hostages at all.
excerpt:
"Now, in fact, this would not have been the first time the U.S. offered Teheran arms for hostages. In October 1980 the Carter administration had declared that spare parts for U.S. military equipment could be sold to Iran if the U.S. embassy hostages were released promptly.There was even talk among U.S. officials about pre-positioning some spare parts in Germany, Pakistan, and Algeria so that the Iranians could get the equipment as soon as possible. Republicans charged that Carter was trying to buy the hostages out in time for the election; there is some evidence that the Republicans in the meantime were engaged in an election maneuver of their own: negotiating with Iran to keep the hostages until after the election to ensure a Reagan victory.
In any event, political influence not hostages was the Reagan administration's objective. Regardless of what was in the President's mind (as it were), the National Security Council was clear that the political agenda was key.Whatever the arguments for purchasing the freedom of hostages, trading weapons to obtain their release is another matter entirely, since one is exchanging for the lives of some hostages the lives of those who will be fired on by the weapons. And trading weapons for "a strategic opening" is more reprehensible still,particularly so when the weapons are going to the country whose army is on the offensive. Reagan claimed that the weapons were all defensive in nature,but this is nonsense. Anti-tank missiles in the hands of an advancing army are offensive. And U.S. officials knew exactly what Iran wanted the weapons for: for example, as the Tower Commission noted, North and CIA officials discussed with their Iranian contacts "Iran's urgent need" for "both intelligence and weapons to be used in offensive operations against Iraq."
cleanup
[ edited by krs on Feb 13, 2001 07:47 AM ]
|
mark090
|
posted on February 13, 2001 07:31:10 AM new
In fact, there was evidence that the promise of arms to Iran was to KEEP the Hostages in Iran to further embarass President Carter and aid in the election of Ronald Reagan. The is some of the information that was to be gotten from those who were pardoned suddenly, destroying any chance for truth. Unfortunately, that is was the first causalty during the Reagan-Bush Regime. The second was the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Clinton may have fooled around with Lewinsky, but Reagan-Bush screwed Lady Liberty from behind, and made us like it....
|
krs
|
posted on February 13, 2001 07:40:38 AM new
Yes, there was strong evidence that Reagan made promises of future sales prior to his election if the Ayatolla would keep the hostages a little while longer.
But that's not all. Consider the fabled Trilateral Commission http://www.4rie.com/ and while your at it, take a peek at James A. Baker's long history of "service".
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 13, 2001 08:54:29 AM new
Sure, where were you when
Not sure I can remember, but I do know I wasn't posting on this board during that period.
|
bobbysoxer
|
posted on February 13, 2001 10:51:40 AM new
Linda_K
In general, several months before the 2000 election, Rush -I rarely listen to him but that day I tuned in- stated matter-of-factly that no matter who wins the new president will pardon Clinton.
Today on Fox News it was reported -correct me if I am wrong- that Bush wants to get on with business and leave Clinton alone. Do I see a pardon in the crystal ball?
I voted for Clinton & Gore and would again, however I think the process needs to be carried out if the allegations are true. I don't think they should change the pardon process. If it is carried out, will the states change the governors' pardons as well?
Lastly if Bush does pardon Clinton and the pardon process is changed will Congress overturn his pardon?
not bobbysoxer on eBay
[email protected]
|
mark090
|
posted on February 13, 2001 01:24:30 PM new
Now that we are talking about comparing the previous Reagan/Bush administration with the Clinton administration, where have all the Clinton bashers gone?
|
sgtmike
|
posted on February 13, 2001 02:06:30 PM new
mark090
Considering that there is no limit on how far back one dig's and that 2 wrongs make a right, I am presently looking at some comparative events that occurred while Grover Cleveland was in office. I found some issues directly linked to Cleveland that really has me PO'd.
As for staying the course to bash Clinton and Gore, there is no need, dung will eventually decompose without any application of lime. The smell does linger a little longer.
|
gravid
|
posted on February 13, 2001 02:28:21 PM new
The power to pardon is there for a reason. The government can screw up and having an individual who can undo what is wrong is useful.
All these people who want to only allow a pardon after the political system ok's it are missing the point. These people have already been through the "system". The whole point of the pardon is to have a way around the system. That is why it was given to the judgement of one person not a political process.
The Presidencial pardon is not subject to
a review process and if he takes suggestions they are just that - suggestions.
This is a new low in politics to keep hounding the President after he has left office. I hope he wrote himself a pardon and just did not say anything about it unless he needs to whip it out.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 13, 2001 03:09:35 PM new
where have all the Clinton bashers gone? While I don't consider myself a Clinton basher I, for one, was out dealing with three horses and a donkey who'd escaped from their homes and came to visit ours.
Mark090 - While my posts are definately not in favor of most of what Clinton has done, I can honestly say I will be here posting to anything I see or feel President George W does that I don't agree with. I just don't want to keep going backwards in time and discussing what happened years ago. That's just me personally. Maybe it's also because I don't vote a party line. I vote for the man who's running and how I feel he will best serve our country and my own self interests.
gravid I agree with a lot of what you shared. I believe the pardon will stand. Where I disagree with you is in just 'putting this behind us' concept.
To me, what needs to be investigated is whether that pardon was bought and paid for via the political and private donations made by Denise Rich. I don't believe the special power to pardon should be taken away from any president. I do believe any hint of wrong-doing should be cleared up.
Since there are alligations that she and her friends not only asked Clinton to grant this pardon, but may have paid money to buy his favors, then it does, IMO need to be checked into.
I understand as of today subpoenas are being issued to review her bank records. The want to see if her funds may have come from her ex-husband. She did refuse to answer 14 questions put to her in regards to this case. She did take the fifth and admit she made "very large donations" to the Clinton library before the pardon was issued. Since donations to his (and any presidents) library are kept private this concerns many. This, to me should be looked into to keep the pardon process above board.
|
krs
|
posted on February 13, 2001 03:17:34 PM new
Only the most profoundly stupid president would allow any of this to go on. A scrutiny of the pardon process is hardly what bush needs considering that he is bound to have a dire need to use the process as-is himself.
|
