Dan Burton, kindly pipe down and let the professionals handle this

The BBQ Pit
41

Milo.
A. are you seeking out my posts??? I posted most of my thoughts on the pardons in your thread.

B. In this thread I added the information that due to the pardon, Rich can be sued for damages by the government, something that had been unavailable w/o the pardon and agreement that went with it.

C. My other comment in this thread is to suggest that there’s another reason (other than criminal complicancy) that a person may decide to ‘take the fifth’ in this case, obviously, you’d rather she ignore her own constitutional rights. I also went on to flirt with Sua Ya gonna call me out on my thoughts about the night of passion we spent together, too?

D. I suggest you get over yourself. You keep claiming that I’m a dyed in the wool democrat. well, since I never noticed you looking over my shoulder in the voting booth, and I don’t legally belong to any political party, best of luck proving this. I’ve voted (in major races) for Dems, Reps, and Independants. I even started a thread over my disappointment with the “w” keys being missing. And besides, what difference could it possibly make to you? I’m also short. you can’t prove or disprove that either. My arguments about the elections were not ever based on stuff I’d read on the party website, but based on news stories.

E. And, for the record - again, since you apparently didn’t catch it in your own thread. Given what we know about this pardon, I probably wouldn’t have done it. But so what? It wasn’t up to me. From what I’ve seen, later, however, there’s a lot of attention given to the ex-wife’s donations. Lots of big numbers being bandied about. Of course, according to some places, some of these donations went to the Democratic Party itself, the library donations in particular happened nearly a year ago and more, etc. and she’s the ex wife. He’s remarried. Are you suggesting that anyone who is at all (or was) related to anyone who is trying to get a pardon should refrain from any and all political donations for… what? how long? two years? four years? ever???
( ex wife’s donations )
Is it suspicious? Hell. I’ve said so. But, I was far more outraged at Papa Bush’ pardons of Casper et al which effectively gutted the further inquiry into Iran Contra and Papa Bush’s possible involvement in same. I know you don’t want to hear about other party’s wrongdoing, but halting an on going investigation that might implicate the person who did the pardoning??? Sheesh. No, you’d rather focus on allegations that Clinton’s motive for pardoning Rich was a sum of $$ that was less than what was spent by either political party for the last couple of months of the Senate Race in Michigan? And didn’t go into his personal account, but into the party as a whole, various other campaigns, and yes, god forbid, his library.

Here’s a news flash : Your candidate won.

As for the rest of your questions etc - Like any other poster here, I respond to threads that interest me. The fact that I answered this one does not mean that I’m interested in absolutely every single little item you read on the Republican Party’s homepage. and, frankly, next time you want my attention, call out in your own thread, eh?

42

Dan Burton…mere mention of that name makes my blood boil. I have not forgotten how this jerk called President Clinton a “scumbag” for having a tryst with Monica Lewinsky, the week before it was revealed that not only did Burton cheat on his wife as well, he fathered a bastard child by HIS little whore. This hypocrite has a lot of nerve attacking Clinton again.

43

In absolute agreement, Freedom, not that I’m conceding that the press corps is liberal ;). Ah hell, who am I kidding.

Milo, thanks for your support of my OP. I think, however, that your criticism of wring is off-base. A person can critize (even viciously) a politician of one stripe without necessarily being affiliated with the opposing party. As one example, I know plenty of republicans who are deeply embarrassed by Jesse Helms.
(FTR, I’m not defending wring just because we’ve been intimate. :D)
Sua

44

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
To my mind, Congressional investigations are proper if the intent is to make new law…In the case of Iran/Contra…but the purpose is properly legislative.

[quote]
I don’t think this is correct, either in general or in the specific examples that I’ve cited.

Again, I simply don’t think this is correct. The idea that one should not sell pardons for money is a very basic one, and not one person’s idea of morality. It is an abuse of government, and we would all benefit from the practice of exposing such things. If you are to assert that Congress has no role in such matters, I’d like to see a more thorough treatment of Congressional hearings than you’ve provided. But it doesn’t seem all out of line to me. Nor to too many other people either, apparently. I heard Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) on the radio the other day, and he thought the Congressional investigation was proper.

Trixie

I have not followed the career of Dan Burton too closely. But I seem to remember that he did not call Clinton on anything having to do with sex. He was actually calling for the impeachment of Clinton before the Monica scandal even broke, for numerous other scandals.

45

And it’s not just Burton. Democrats in Congress are getting into the act as well

46

Trixie, don’t be too hard on ol’ Dan, considering how he discredits the very efforts he supports. His firebreathing approach has gone a long way to making anything said against that antichrist Clinton look like wolf-crying, even on the rare occasions when there’s been some nugget of fact underneath. Besides, he’s provided some much-needed comic relief while doing so.

BTW, did anyone ever hear him announce his findings from that experiment he ran, shooting a canteloupe in his back yard to try to re-create the “murder” of Vince Foster?

47

SuaSponte, you know I love you like a brother, man, so there’s a coupla things you said that I gotta set you straight on.

First, re the media being “liberal” - I think a more accurate description might be “arrogant and insular”. If they were so sycophantically supportive of Clinton, why did we hear the name “Monica” on the news every night in 1998? Why have all occasions when somebody got mad at him been so lovingly reported in every little detail that would be none of our business for a private person? Seems to me that the Beltway media see themselves as the real permanent power structure, with elected or appointed officeholders being the trained monkeys periodically brought in for their amusement. Party affiliation just doesn’t seem to affect their behavior all that much. IMNSHO as always.

Second, re some Republicans being embarrassed by Helms (and presumably Lott, DeLay, Armey, Burton, etc.). Sorry, guys, that’s your party’s leadership. Now, who made them the leaders? The rank-and-file members. Who put the rank-and-file members in office? You did. Why? If you don’t like it, it’s your fault, nobody else’s. If you don’t like the policies your party is taking, what are you doing about it? Are you supporting candidates who take a more moderate position themselves, and will not automatically vote to continue the same leadership? Or are you even considering voting for a party that actually represents your interests more closely? Are you voting for the same party you always have out of simple name recognition, or out of conviction? Does that little letter next to your name on your voter registration define your beliefs for you, or do your beliefs define your choice of party? Do you know what the term “good Germans” means?

48

As always, consider the source. A general rule I apply is that any statement made by a politician more than 24 hours after the initial news is almost certainly carefully-considered spin, not genuine belief.

49

This article provides a different perspective than what the media is reporting. I know it’s from a liberal columnist, but I’ve always found him to be fairly well documented. I may be being spun, but the article made me stop and go “hmmmm” a couple of times.

The article also provides this link to a rather interesting article on the man he terms the “anti-Clinton Clouseau.”

50

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by IzzyR *

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
To my mind, Congressional investigations are proper if the intent is to make new law…In the case of Iran/Contra…but the purpose is properly legislative.

[quote]
I don’t think this is correct, either in general or in the specific examples that I’ve cited.
IzzyR, I guess this comes down to what is the role of Congress. According to the Constitution, the role of Congress is to make laws. Hearings are often necessary to that function, as Congress needs to gather information in order to decide what laws should be made. If hearings are held that are not designed to aid Congress in the making of laws, or in determining whether the laws they have already enacted are sufficient to their stated purpose (i.e., whether a new law needs to be written), I submit that they fall outside of Congress’ constitutional mandate.
All the examples you gave, HUD, EPA, Iran/Contra, Army/McCarthy, and the check scandal, all fell into this type of hearing. HUD and EPA were about the revolving door of bureaucrats becoming lobbyists, and led (directly or indirectly I can’t remember) to new ethics laws prohibiting bureaucrats from lobbying their former agency for a few years after they left. Iran/Contra was about (a) whether the Boland Amendment was sufficiently strong and (b) whether the executive branch was usurping the legislative branch’s “power of the purse-strings”. Army/McCarthy actually started out as McCarthy (grandstandingly) trying to “investigate” whether the Army’s loyalty oaths and other protections against the damn Commies were sufficiently strong. And remember, with the check scandal, the conduct of the check-kiters wasn’t illegal until afterwards, when new law was made (BTW, the check scandal was a special case - Congress has the constitutional authority to police itself.)

I don’t think that we are disagreeing here. My point is that, if Clinton sold pardons for money, it is a crime under laws that already exist. I do assert that Congress doesn’t have a role in such matters, because investigating crimes is the role of the FBI, the Department of Justice, and all the other myriad law enforcement agencies. Do you think that Congress should properly hold hearings to investigate who murdered someone in D.C., or should it let the Metropolitan police department investigate it?
That’s what is going on here. Clinton is suspected of a crime, and the investigations of crimes are not in the purview of Congress.

If, after Clinton is investigated and/or tried, it is determined that his conduct did not constitute a crime, Congress would have every right to (and should) hold hearings in order to gather evidence to strengthen federal bribery and ethics laws. But Dan Burton should wait until the law enforcement and judiciary process runs its course, and should not be playing Sgt. Joe Friday.

Elvis, I would respond to you now, but Ed is on. I’ll get back to you tomorrow. :wink:

Sua

51

Dammit, I swear to god that I previewed.

52

Personally, I was intrigued by the long skinny quotes. I never knew you could make lines that thin:)

So we agree then.

:slight_smile:
Now…

The the bank records of Denise Rich are going to be examined to see if she got transfers from her Ex, and then passed the money along to Clinton. This would be illegal because…

It would be foreign money.
Did anybody in this country donate to his campaign?

53

Sua

I don’t agree with you about the rationale for the past hearings. However, I am, like you, unwilling to provide any evidence to back up my assertions. So we’ll have to leave it here.

I guess any Congressional hearing could technically be described as having a possible relevance to future laws. There’s no limit to what these Congress people might pass laws about. But that does not make it the real purpose.

Also, I don’t think it is significant (for this thread) to discuss what the Constitutional role of Congress is. You may well be right about that. It’s very likely that Congress has taken a far more prominent role in our nation’s affairs than the writers of the Constitution envisioned. But sometimes things evolve over the years, and roles expand and change. It might be a good idea for Congress to limit it’s role more (just ask any conservative ;)). But if Congress has in recent history held hearings similar to those held by Burton (about which we evidently disagree, as mentioned), than it’s not appropriate to suddenly take Burton to task for departing from the Congressional role spelled out in the Constitution.

54

IzzyR, fair enough. I agree that neither of us should be looking for cites, etc. – this is the freaking Pit, goldurnit!!

However, there is something new that may intrigue you – According to today’s New York Times, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Manhattan has opened a preliminary criminal investigation into the Rich pardon. With that investigation going, I think it would be (metaphorically) criminal if Burton grants Denise Rich immunity now.

Sua

55

I believe Dan has stated that no immunity will be extended to Denise in the near future in order to allow Mary Jo White and the FBI to conduct their investigation…

56

What the FUCK is THIS ??? You flame me all across the Great Debates board, and now that you’ve hounded me down in the friggin’ PIT of all places, you’re AGREEING with me?

Try going back to the SD home page and rechecking what the various boards are FOR, and quit abusing this one.

“So we agree then” … sheesh …

57

Let me explain why I think these hearings are a waste of time.

Do I believe that Clinton is ‘above’ this sort of ethical/moral/legal behavior. Hell no. My position is not that “Clinton would never take a bribe”.

My position is more along the lines of:

  1. Denise Rich is a long time supporter of the Democratic Party, and has the legal right to donate $$. THe numbers being bandied about are cumulative totals for a period of 10 years (see link previously given).

  2. Even if her former husband gave her $$, I tend to doubt that there will be anything remotely resembling a smoking gun (ie a notation on the bottom of the check “cash for pardon”). Since they had/have children together, and even if they didn’t, this, too in not illegal. Understanding, too, that if he gave $100K on Monday and she then gave $100K to Clinton on Tuesday, that would go a long ways to making their case. however, it would not prove their case, nor, do I believe that it’s likely that these folks were that stupid. Especially for the amounts being stated - $400K to his library fund over the course of more than a year to a guy who’s current asking price for a single speech is $100K???

  3. Yes, I understand that if it can be shown that Mr. Rich gave specific sums of money to Denise with the expressed intention that these same moneys be given to Clinton, in order to secure a pardon, this would violate many laws.

  4. how in the hell do you think that can be proven? Given that she already has a record of making donations, he has alternative reasons for giving $$ to her and if nothing at all else, Clinton has spent the last eight years of his life seeing every single memo, check, word, letter, dress etc he’s ever touched examined at length by experts.

See, that’s where I think this whole supposition falls down. Clinton, even his detractors will admit, is a very smart guy. He certainly has his failings, but he’s a quick study. I believe that the Lewinksy episode proved to him that physical evidence will be heard and believed, always.

58

wring,
I’m with you right up to here:

If the reasons Marc Rich say he gave money to Denise are proven to be pretextual, than a case can be made for bribery, etc. This is proven in court a lot - bribes these days are rarely wads of cash in brown paper bags. They’re “personal service contracts”, excessive payments for goods, etc. A combination of direct and circumstantial evidence can knock down the pretext.

But I don’t hink that Congress has the expertise to knock it down. Law enforcement agencies (and the courts) do.

Sua

59

Ok, hadn’t gotten to the point of “gee, Mark, why did you give Denise that $200,000???, ummmmm vet bills???”

I see your point. So, absent some specific cost she had (‘the second mansion needed a new roof’) or unless ole Mark has been in the habit of tossing a couple hundred tho towards his ex-wife every now and then (parenthetical - and how come my ex never seems to feel that way??? I’m still looking for the $10 he owes me for Ben’s prescriptions from last week), the presumption would be on, then, right?

But you and I are back in agreement on the Congress lacking the expertise. But then, ole Bill would still have his golden plated deniability, wouldn’t he? ‘gee how was I supposed to know…’ :rolleyes:

60

on the Clinton pardon, as this seems to be the thread that deals with it: From the NY Times.

Amazing.