Please cite exactly WHERE sua has indicated ANY desire to have a trial for Clinton. It isn’t here. And by the way, it is truly the intellectually bereft who substitute vulgarity for rationality when they realize that there “arguments” have no merit.
I’ll thank you to worry about someone else’s head and ass.
Since this country rarely sends anyone to jail without a trial, this could certainly indicate such a desire.
Oh I see…so it goes from Sua clearly expressing a desire to…could certainly indicate such a desire…
just who has his head up his ass Flymaster?
You do, Eddie. It still appears that you haven’t read the OP. Even though Flymaster has already quoted the relevant portion of my OP, it looks like I’ll have to do it again:
(emphasis added)
Do you get it now? My concern is that Rep. Burton’s desire for TV time will prevent a criminal investigation of Clinton and the others involved.
Here’s the part that may have confused you (assuming you read the thread). IzzyR, a man whose conversative credentials are unchallenged on this board (and, BTW, a man I highly respect), wrote this in response to my OP:
We had a bit of discussion back and forth where I was trying to convince him that a crime may have been committed by Clinton, Denise Rich, or someone else.
I also pointed out that if Izzy is correct and Clinton didn’t commit a crime, it is highly peculiar that Burton was holding hearings about the pardons. Never before had unethical or controversial pardons led to Congressional hearings, see Ford and Bush.
Get it now, you schmuck? I think you owe Flymaster an apology.
Sua
I know what you’re saying. If you get upset when Congress mangles legal procedure, imagine how I feel when they practice medicine.
Dr. J
Odd, Doctor J. I thought your degree was in administration. 
Couple of points…
[li]I have seen news anchors refer many times to the fact that Ford did testify in front of congress about his pardon of Nixon. They used this as the example that this is not an unprecedented action.[/li]
Since I have never heard them mention another case, I’m assuming that Ford is the only other President to answer congressional questions about a pardon.
[li]Here’s another conservative checking in here. While Sua’s blumbering op:) did not specifically call for a trial, I think it is obvious that his opinion of Clinton is at least a little tarnished.[/li]
I thought that Isreal was restrained by Isreali law from deporting any citizen against their will to face criminal charges in another country. Haven’t there been several recent cases where murderers wanted in the US fled there?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Freedom *
[li]Here’s another conservative checking in here. While Sua’s blumbering op:) did not specifically call for a trial, I think it is obvious that his opinion of Clinton is at least a little tarnished.[/li][/QUOTE]
For the record, my opinion of Clinton has not been tarnished, but I agree with Sua that IF there is ANY chance that wrongdoing has been committed here, there should be a trial. I don’t think that anything would come of such a trial, but I also don’t think that if Clinton did something wrong, he should get away with it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Freedom *
Couple of points…
[li]I have seen news anchors refer many times to the fact that Ford did testify in front of congress about his pardon of Nixon. They used this as the example that this is not an unprecedented action.[/li][/QUOTE]
I stand corrected. I withdraw that part of my criticism of Burton. Thanks.
[QUOTE]
[li]Here’s another conservative checking in here. While Sua’s blumbering op:) did not specifically call for a trial, I think it is obvious that his opinion of Clinton is at least a little tarnished.[/li][/QUOTE]
I knew my “blumbering” comment was gonna come back and bite me on the ass. Bastard :D. FTR, my opinion of Clinton has been “tarnished” for quite some time, starting with his refusal to impose sanctions against China back in '93. As for the whole Monica business, I always thought true justice mandated that Clinton should have ended up sharing a cell with Starr. (Clinton for perjury; Starr for violating Lewinsky’s civil rights by refusing her request to speak to her attorney when she was first detained.)
[QUOTE]
[li]I thought that Isreal was restrained by Isreali law from deporting any citizen against their will to face criminal charges in another country. Haven’t there been several recent cases where murderers wanted in the US fled there?[/li][/QUOTE]
I believe you are correct. What Israel will do is try the citizen in Israel for a crime committed in another country. I do not know whether Israel will try one of its citizens for something that is not a crime in Israel (which may by the situation in Rich’s case)
Sua
So it looks like it depends on the purpose of Congressional hearings. My impression is that they have historically been used for investigative purposes, to highlight abuses, using the powers of subpoena that they have. I am not 100% sure of this, but I seem to recall numerous examples of this during the Reagan years, such as the investigations of the HUD and EPA agencies, and the Iran/Contra hearings (which ultimately did interfere with the judicial process, resulting in the overturning of the North conviction). For that matter, what was the purpose of the famous Army/McCarthy hearings? And were there hearings about the Congressional check bouncing scandal? So I don’t see the current Burton hearings as a departure in any way. If it could be shown that these hearings are unique in this manner, I would agree, but I don’t see that this has been done.
As regards to other pardons, I don’t think the Bush Iran/Contra pardons are comparable, in that they were the culmination of a long drawn-out controversy, in which everyone knew where everyone stood, and not much was left to investigate. Those are comparable to the Clinton pardons of Susan McDougal (and his brother Roger, FTM) which are not being investigated. The hearings on Rich are investigative in nature. There is no obvious (legitimate) reason for Clinton to suddenly decide that “here’s a good guy to pardon”, and it is useful use congressional power to explore the reasons behind this action. This is comparable to the Ford pardon, which was widely suspected of being the result of a secret deal, made before Nixon resigned.
I do agree that Burton himself has become a very controversial figure over the years, due to his constant critism of the Clintons, and his being the person leading the hearings is no doubt provoking alot of the negative reaction from liberals. If I were running Congress, I might try to get a less polarizing figure to lead these hearings. But I might not. It might be strictly within his committee’s juristiction. And the important thing to remember is that one of the positive aspects of a two party system is that sometimes people will be motivated by political reasons to do the right thing. Such as to investigate abuses that one’s own party might cover up. This seems to be another example of such a phenomenon.
IzzyR
Your last post is very well taken, and I completely agree that Congressional hearings/investigations do have a role. But my argument is, what role?
To my mind, Congressional investigations are proper if the intent is to make new law. In the case of the game show and payola scandals of the 50’s, the question was whether Congress should amend the telecommunications laws to make these practices illegal. In the case of Iran/Contra, it was whether the National Security Council, CIA, etc., were funding the Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment. This can spill over into criminal charges (at some point, some individuals had to have been the ones to break the law in Iran/Contra or Watergate, for example), but the purpose is properly legislative.
I don’t think this is true in Burton’s hearings. This is the situation where it is accused that Clinton properly exercised his power as President due to an improper motive. That is a criminal matter. Criminal matters are in the domain of the Executive branch (in this case, the FBI), and not only is it improper for Congress to get involved, they can only act to screw up an investigation. (The exception, of course, is impeachment, where the Constitution has conferred prosecutiorial and judicial powers on Congress.)
My argument here, BTW, takes into account your ethical point made earlier. We have ethics laws - we have decided what is legally ethical and unethical. I argue that Congress can’t go beyond that - its job is to make law. Anything else is imposing personal morality. I have no problem with people applying their personal morality to the world around them. I have a problem with people using their position of authority and the resources of the taxpayer to do it.
Burton himself admits that the purpose of the hearings isn’t to make new law. He asserts his hearings are proper because “the people have a right to know.” Sure they do – if and when the information is revealed in open court. The people don’t have a right to know the facts of an ongoing investigation, for fear that public disclosure of this knowledge will result in the inability to get a conviction.
Sua
**
Um. That’s not how I recall it. Seems to me, that the Bush pardons of the IRan Contra folk came during the investigation and shortly after these same people had been ordered to testify. And, right after it was discovered that Papa Bush had kept written records during the time in question. The pardons effectively stopped the investigation by the special prosecutor, just before Casper Weinberger (one of the recipients) was due to stand trial, certainly before any/most of them had been convicted and/or served time. ( here )
OTOH, the pardons of both McDougal and Roger Clinton came after they’d served time.
In the meantime. It seems the Sue has demonstrated his issue quite well, that if there were to be criminal charges/investigations in this matter, Congress isn’t the place to do it.
:eek: SuA Really, I knew that. Ummmmm have you read the threads where I confess that my eyesight is really poor and I sometimes have a difficult time discerning a’s from e’s??? No??? Um. really. I’m very, very sorry, Sua
Honey, after that night we spent together, I am quite certain you’d never confuse me for a female.
::Sua leans back an puffs on a cigar::
Sua
::blush blush::
I’m so flattered that you remember.
It goes beyond that, doesn’t it? When an investigation is public, it puts a taint on the subject’s reputation that is not erased by a result of lack of prosecution. Even when there are no substantive facts to back the allegation, the damage is permanent. Furthermore, a public investigation puts pressure on the investigator to find something, anything, whatever it takes, to show that his efforts were appropriately spent. Even the most fair-minded investigator would have a tough time looking like he might not have checked everything out thoroughly - best to just keep things going. Starr certainly lacked the integrity to admit it, and Ray nearly did too.
But on the other hand, we now have the precedent that Presidents are not only not above the law, they’re beneath it, even after leaving office. That goes along with the traditional pattern of the Republican wolf-cryers:
The blind squirrels are still looking for that acorn.
Oh yeah, now I remember: “Presumption of innocence” was the term we used to use. Pity it doesn’t mean anything anymore when applied to someone the investigating party just happens to hate. The part of the Constitution regarding the rights of the accused is now just as dead as the three-fifths rule, and people like Dan Burton are to blame.
Now, before the mods declare this thread too high-minded to stay in the Pit instead of GD, here goes:
Yes, fuck you, Dan Burton, and fuck your mistress and your out-of-wedlock child and the house you set them up in with your campaign funds. Fuck all of you vindictive hypocrites trying to cover your own asses by finding something someone else did. Fuck every one of you people who wanted to overturn 2 straight elections (and succeeded a third time) just to get back at someone you hate, Constitution and basic fairness be damned. Fuck all of you who’ve done worse things yourselves but declare any inquiry into that subject to be irrelevant and simple political spin. Fuck all of you who’ve forced fair-minded people to endlessly defend someone who has his human faults like the rest of us, even when we’d rather not, in order to avoid being thought of as being as low as you. Fuck all of you whom future historians will be astonishedly shaking their heads at as they ask “What the HELL were those people THINKING???” Fuck all of you who have so viciously violated the very spirit the Constitution was based on, and undermined the democracy so many have fought and died for, just to slake your own bloodlust.
Other than the first point above, I respectfully concur with my learned colleague, Justice Sponte.
No matter how much things change, they are always the same.
Quick point.
Conservatives would argue that this is EXACTLY the MO of the liberal press corps.
I’m not up for argueing whether either side is right, I’m just observing how much of the same exact stuff I see on both sides.
What is this ridiculousness. They are going to impeach Clinton for what: Freeing more Jews than anybody else since World War II?
wring -
For somebody who claims to not be a Democrat, you seem awfully incapable of acknowledging, let alone denouncing, anything remotely negative that anyone from that party, particularly Clinton, did or does.
Come out of closet already.
So, how do you feel about the pardon of Marc Rich, particularly in light of the political contributions of his ex-wife to the Clintons and the Democratic Party?
Is there anything ethically troubling, as far as you are concerned, with accepting millions in political contributions from someone so closely connected to a person on whom you will be making a pardon decision? How 'bout who is represented by your White House attorney?
How do you feel about the 47 pardons that bypassed the traditional route of the Justice Department and went directly to the White House in the waning weeks of the Clinton presidency, resulting in little or none of the traditional Justice Department comment and recommendation before the pardon decisions were made?
How do you feel about the fact that the current Justice Department doesn’t have any of the documents that were used in the review and decision-making on these pardons? They were apparently taken and no one knows where they are, though speculation is they were taken to Arkansas along with other documents for the Clinton Presidential Library.
Thoughts?
See if you can respond to any of those questions without making a reference to any Republican, living or dead, or using the words “Iran,” “Contra,” “Bush,” or “Reagan.”
I’m with Sua’s OP thoughts (though obviously coming at it from a different perspective).
There is a possibility, an appearance, of criminal wrongdoing. The prudent (and typical) thing to be done is for appropriate law enforcement to investigate and see if there is indeed a criminal case.
As for all of the political grand-standing, who is it for? George W. Bush has gone on record showing his disinterest. What’s Congress’ fascination?
Investigate. If there was a quid pro quo regarding “political contributions” and pardon decisions, arrest Clinton like you would any other law-breaker. If not, well, the Constitution says a president can pardon people. Let’s hope it’s a power that more honorable presidents of any political party exercise with more dignity and responsibility in the future.