Clinton - I beg your pardon?

Great Debates
1

I wonder what Clinton supporters have to say about his pardon of Marc Rich and Pincus Green on his last day in the Oval Office?

As noted here:

As noted in the above link, Rich’s wife is a major contributor to the Democratic Party - to the tune of $1 million, according to Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s “Hardball” this evening.

Rich’s lawyer, Jack Quinn, is also a White House counsel.

The authors of the above-posted link question Clinton’s ethics, given the above facts and Bubba’s near-defiance in refusing to discuss why Rich and Green were pardoned.

The link discusses how they feel presidential pardons have usually not been used enough. Certain cases (like low-level drug offenders serving ridiculously lengthy sentences) cry out for this kind of presidential intervention.

But many of Clintons’ last-day pardons seem to have done for the most crass, sleazy reasons - bones tossed to cronies, relatives, contributors, people who were helpful by keeping their mouth shut, and in ways that will help his wife, Senator Hillary, politically in New York.

The authors conclude:

Ready to go knee-jerk with your cries of “right wing vitriol?” All of the above was written by the editors of The Washington Post.

As one regular poster in this forum, in another thread, currently says, “Clinton’s record is, in certain respects, the best of all time,” I wondered what his many fans might have to say about the above?

And, if you could keep it focused and not resort to ‘defense-by-pointing-out-what-other-people-did-too,’ that would be quite refreshing. That defense never worked when my Mom was preparing to punish me, and it shouldn’t work here.

Clinton, The Last Days:

  • Cut a deal to avoid indictment, admitting that you gave false and misleading testimony in a criminal proceeding. Then immediately spin it with your typical words-don’t-mean-anything defense by saying you didn’t lie.

  • Give out indefensible, unexplainable, downright sleazy pardons, and then don’t explain them when pressed.

  • Have your staff commit vandalism to public property by destroying the W’s on computer keyboards in the White House. How cute, except we have to pay for that now.

What a way to go, indeed.

2

I think it fits in line with Clinton’s character.

The unnamed person though I think would have the exact same opinion after this. People feel that Clinton is two faced, that he is a good president, but a bad person. I think anywais:)

3

I’m a huge fan, as you know, having brought me up. And I have nothing to say one way or another, because I don’t care. I never said or believed he was a perfect man or a perfect leader, and he is in fact an excellent politician. One of the things politicians do is reward people who contribute to their campaigns. That’s what he did. It’s really not something that’s going to keep me awake nights.

He’s not the president anymore, he can’t affect your life. Why do you care?

4

Heh heh, maybe he’s doing this to keep Bush from pardoning a bunch of HIS friends when he’s done with his 4 years.

5

After RMN, the Dems could never catch up in a billion years.

IMHO.

6

Oh, please, you are SO exaggerating. It’d take a million years, tops. :smiley:

7

Talk about a tax cut for the wealthiest…

Just as I was beginning to like the guy…His final days are a sad statement about politics in America. He pardons his Whitewater friends, his brother, and a major contributor to his election campaign.

If his staff did, indeed, remove all the W’s from the keyboards, his staff ought to pay for the repairs. Last I checked destroying government property was a crime.

8

Hmmm. “I will consider it very declassé if you point out that my heroes did the same thing and actually killed an active investigation of crimes by doing so.”

OK

9

Regarding the keyboards thing; it’s actually somewhat of a tradition for the West Wing staff to play a silly prank on the incoming staff at the taxpayer’s expense. They did, indeed, hide all the W’s. I thought it was pretty clever. I dunno if they just put the W’s in a bucket somewhere so they could be easiuly replaced or actually got rid of them, though.

10

friedo - I heard that, too. But on “Hardball,” they were saying that the W’s were destroyed on some of the computers. That keyboards will need replacing. It seems to rise above the level of past ‘pranks.’

It was close to being very clever. I.E., if they had scratched the ‘W’ off all the keyboard buttons, but left the buttons themselves on.

tom - Whatever. I wanted people who have professed support for Clinton to discuss his last actions in office, that certainly appear unsupportable.

Thanks for helping prove that it’s an impossibility.

11

As a non American I find the existence of a capacity to pardon odd. That it is used, amazing.

12

Boy, you guys! Don’t you know when ol’ Milo is putting you on!

Reagan: illegal arms sales, invasions of sovereign nations, voodoo economics. Nixon: treason (sabotoged Paris peace talks), domestic espionage, corruption.

Clinton: Oval Office hanky-panky, removing “W”'s from the keyboard. Ooooooh, big, big stuff! Yeah, right!

Ol’ Milo, you master of irony you!

13

The power of Democrats to shut their eyes and swallow the line: “It was just about sex” never ceases to amaze me.
Obstruction of justice, perjury, sexual harrasment, embezzelment, fundraising from the communists…

on and on and on…
Yet all I ever see from democrats is this reference to him cheating on his wife. I wish you would follow red herrings on the SD as happily as you follow them from the DNC.

14

Well, I am no supporter of Clinton, so I don’t feel bound by that stricture. However, a discussion that immediately precludes various talking points seems to be more intended as a harangue.

As a general discussion of Clinton pardons try
Inside the decline in Christmas Eve clemency from Christmas Eve, 1999.

As particular discussions, the various political buddies of Reagan and Bush and Nixon who were “let off” by their outgoing amigos is directly pertinent to your topic. Bush’s last act nullified the entire Iran-Contra investigation, allowing people now to claim that they only “technically” violated the law because there was no trial to see how badly they had corrupted the government. That seems pertinent to me.

15

The most egregious pardon was of a couple of thieves who stole 43 million dollars and then fled the country. They have never served a day in jail, never returned a nickel of the money, but Clinton inexplicably pardoned them even though they never applied for a pardon.

No one could figure this out until it was discovered that one of the men’s wives was a huge contributor to the Democratic party. So essentially, their freedom was bought. It was a despicable pardon, and it’s been condemned by many democrats. I saw George Stephanopoulis on “This Week” call it a ‘despicable act’.

This tradition of pardoning lots of people as the last act of a president does kind of baffle me. It flies in the face of justice (and yes, I understand that almost all presidents do this, although Clinton reached new heights of offensiveness). I saw Cokie Roberts on the same “This Week” show approve of Clinton’s pardoning of his brother. After all, she said, if you can’t help your family, who can you help?

Here in Canada, if a politician pulled strings to get a family member immunity from the justice system, there would be hell to pay. We’re all supposed to be equals, so what’s with this ‘Noblesse Oblige’ crap?

Anyway, Clinton’s exit from office was a low point in an overall sordid presidency. Not only did he make all these questionable pardons, but he also managed to wrangle a deal that prevented him from being prosecuted after leaving office. Then he tried to steal Bush’s thunder on inauguration day by making a radio address and TWO public speeches. Again, many Democrats have admitted that this was petty and wrong.

His staff also seems to have reached new levels of mean-spiritedness. Destroying the W’s on all the keyboards went beyond the typical ‘pranks’ that are played on incoming administrations. Also, the White House Press Secretary is traditionally given a flak jacket by his predecessor, with a note in the pocket giving him some advice. This tradition has been going on since the Nixon administration, but this year someone stole the jacket.

16

stretching it, nonsense, hogwash, in that order

Huh? Cite please, at the very least. I’m sure you don’t mean some noble endeavor like selling our weapons to our enemies to fund an insurgency in a soveriegn country. No, you’e probably talking “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Might require a bit of back up on that one.

Ye Cats and Little Fishes! F2’s got the smoking gun! Alert the DNC/Comintern Central Committee! Of course he can back it up! No one posts that kind of thing to the SD without solid proof! Which I am sure he will post post haste, toot sweet.

A nation waits with bated breath, Freedom2!

17

elucination:

Obstruction of justice is “stretching it?”

Perjury is “nonsense?”

** - William Jefferson Clinton, Jan. 20, 2001

Sexaul harassment is “hogwash?”
Paula Jones, Kathleen Willy, Juanita Broaddrick and no doubt other women would disagree with you.

Smoking guns are rather hard to come by, when it comes to the evasiveness, stall tactics and perjury that have characterized the Clinton presidency. However, certain evidence indicates that Clinton-Gore and the DNC accepted (at least until called on it) campaign contributions whose source was ageneral in the Chinese Army.

Some might consider that “fund-raising from the communists.”

18

The great majority of those who are pardoned (excluding the obvious notable exceptions) have already been convicted and served their time in prison or otherwise faced the justice system. The pardon allows them to regain rights, but does not erase their convictions or criminal records. Furthermore, it’s a right given the President under the Constitution, so nobody is “pulling strings.” If anybody has a problem with the President exercising the powers of his office, they should attempt to amend the Constitution to rescind those powers.

Roger Clinton, since you brought him up, had pled guilty to charges of conspiracy to distribute cocaine in 1985, and served a year in Federal prison. How exactly is that “immunity from the justice system”? I’m surprised at you, Sam, because I know you’re smarter than to say something so easily refutable.

19

Milo, what is it about his middle name that fascinates you guys so much? William Jefferson Clinton, William Jefferson Clinton. OK. I admit it. You got me, fair and square. Bill has a dumb middle name.

By “stretching”, I mean precisely what you quoted: that he was playing lawyer (hell, he is a lawyer), trying to skirt the edges without falling in. Keep in mind: he should never have been asked the question in the first place! His behavior with Monica Lewinski has no bearing whatsoever on what may have happened with Paula Jones, and Starr and Co. knew it. They deliberately set up the Grand Jury situation with no other goal in mind but to present Bill with that dilemma, with the hope that they could exploit it. A game of legal “gotcha!” does not rise to the occasion. But after five years (five years!) of turning over every rock in Arkansas, they had d-for-diddly squat! Good Lord, man, they even subpoened Ms. Lewinsky’s mom, trying to squeeze out some dirt. The word that fits that is “contemptible”. You got a better one?

Your noble stance against sexual harrassment notwithstanding, who really exploited Paula Jones? Her case was vaporous, no greedy ambulance chaser would have taken on contingency. In your heart of hearts, honestly, do you really believe Bill walked into a hotel room and waved his willy at her as he walked in the door? Really?

(Ahhh, fond memories! She testifed that the Gubernatorial Member had a distinguishing characterstic, and her lawyers were actually moving to have a medical exam to confirm this! Talk about self-incrimination! Oh, and the “distinguishing characteristic”? Hung somewhat leftish. Talk about left-leaning!)

And the Chinese Commie? Finally, sir, have you no shame? “Some evidence”, indeed. What, precisely? Because I am inclined to believe, and the aforementioned legal vendetta testifies, that if there was a scintilla of hard evidence on that score, Starr and Co. would have been on it like a pack of starving jackals on Bambi! Kind of brings to mind the dark innuendos being murked about regarding Bill’s trip to Moscow in student days. Piffle, sir. Balderdash, and unworthy of consideration by adults.

Finally, if William Jefferson Clinton had been running the Ranger’s baseball team, would he have traded Sammy Sousa!

20

I’ll keep that in mind if I’m ever before a grand jury. I’ll decide how worthy the prosecution’s questions are, and from my personal judgement will determine whether I follow the rules of the proceeding or the judge’s orders.

I have a funny feeling that I would end up in jail if I did that.

Re: Paula Jones. Admittedly, she is perhaps the weakest of the three cases (as your side never admits to anything the other side says, whatsoever, I expect amazement from you on par with Charleton Heston when he saw the burning bush).

All of them taken together, however, seem to indicate a pattern. A pattern I’ve never noticed with any other president.

Re: Chinese contributions. If you don’t see as evidence information provided by a co-conspirator, who has no particular reason to lie because he’s already going down for another aspect of the criminal enterprise, that’s your prerogative, I guess.

Thwart all investigation, don’t cooperate to the point where you go up to and at times over the boundaries of the law, then refute allegations as ludicrous because there’s no evidence.

Who says Clinton doesn’t have a legacy?