# marc rich pardon **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 13, 2001, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marc-rich-pardon/61791 "2001-04-13T05:45:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![djf750](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ea666f/32.png) [@djf750](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/djf750)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2001, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marc-rich-pardon/61791/1 "2001-04-13T05:45:42Z")
what ever became of this? what happened to the hearings they were conducting in washington? why did this just stop being an issue? has anyone heard anything about this lately? has clinton slithered out of another one? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2001, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marc-rich-pardon/61791/2 "2001-04-13T11:31:34Z")
It turned out that Clinton was well within his rights on all of his pardons. The snakes running the “investigation” slithered back into their nests with hopes of finding easier prey in the future. -They did leave a lawyer or two on the prowl for undiscovered loopholes in the legal codes that they could for further attacks on president Clinton… ---
**Author:** ![Zoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/6de8d8/32.png) [@Zoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoff)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2001, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marc-rich-pardon/61791/3 "2001-04-13T12:56:48Z")
I’ll volunteer to answer this like a grownup without using snake analogies. The hearings have concluded, but Mary Jo White, the prosecutor in New York is still investigating the Rich pardon (among others). This issue has sort of fallen off the front pages, but the investigation isn’t closed. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2001, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marc-rich-pardon/61791/4 "2001-04-13T14:49:50Z")
> [@](#): > > I’ll volunteer to answer this like a grownup without using snake analogies. I think you missed the spirit in which the question was posed. Or perhaps you think OP’s use of the term “slithered” implies a desire to gather unbiased information which anyone who bothers to look at a newspaper already knows ? ---
**Author:** ![Zoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/6de8d8/32.png) [@Zoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoff)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2001, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marc-rich-pardon/61791/5 "2001-04-13T15:16:41Z")
Lighten up, Squink. I was alluding to both the question and the answer. Maybe I should have been more explicit. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2001, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marc-rich-pardon/61791/6 "2001-04-13T16:39:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Maybe I should have been more explicit. No, just less insulting. If a person expects a civil answer, they can at least take the trouble to ask a civil question. ---
**Author:** ![KeithB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/48db29/32.png) [@KeithB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KeithB)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2001, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marc-rich-pardon/61791/7 "2001-04-13T17:09:46Z")
As far as I can tell, they are trying to see if any bribery codes were violated. However, I do not think any charges would stand up in court. The Constitution gives the president the power to pardon. I think he _can_ sell pardon’s if he wants and be perfectly legal/constitutional. It would be a slimey thing to do, but if he wants to live with the political fallout, that is his choice. ---
**Author:** ![Zoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/6de8d8/32.png) [@Zoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoff)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2001, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marc-rich-pardon/61791/8 "2001-04-13T17:18:03Z")
Sorry I hurt your feelings, Squink. The problem is, everybody tries to turn GQ into a little soapbox. The OP shouldn’t have added the last little dig, but most of the question was straightforward. Your “answer”, however, was not an answer but a rant. Sentence one sort of answered the question (even though the investigations involved more than whether the Pres has an absolute right to pardon). Then you slide right into your opinion. Or is it really a fact that the investigators slithered back to their nests to find more prey? That sounds a whole lot like opinion to me. Every time there is a GQ about anything remotely political, you can rest assured somebody’s going to have to come in and throw out pure opinion. The same thing happens with religious GQ’s. Let’s keep the GQ’s about questions that have an objective answer. And yes, I know I’ve strayed from the OP, but this seemed the best place to address the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2001, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marc-rich-pardon/61791/9 "2001-04-13T17:39:48Z")
[Moderator watch ON] Thank you, **Zoff**. Just to make this official, both **djf70** and **Squink** were in the wrong to use serpentine analogies in GQ. However, we’re all adults here, and I’d like to think that we can discuss such matters in a rational way, despite getting off to a bad start. I trust that I won’t see any more such comments when next I open this thread.