I though Bill Clinton’s comment that “The Republicans one because they got the counting stopped,” was unnecessarily divisive and stupid on a number of levels.
Al Gore’s concession speech, and the spirit it was offered in earned him the admiration of the country. It’s the kind of thing people will remember in four years, and the best of American politics. Bill Clinton’s comment was against both the spirit, and the specific request of Al to “move forward.”
Ole Brother Billy seems to be running a little fast and loose with the Presidential powers here in his final days, in order to create a legacy. What he seems to be doing IMHO opinion is creating a mess for others to sort out and furthering the gulf between Democrat and Republican.
If there is a pretty good possibility you might be in need of a pardon in a couple of weeks, it’s probably not the smartest thing to shoot one across the bow of the only guy who can give it.
While Gore’s concession speech may have been admirable, Clinton’s comment has the virtue of being more accurate. Not having to play the political game any more leaves you open to be more honest about what you actually think. There are a lot of us out here who think that Bush doesn’t have any sort of freakin’ mandate to appoint a lunatic to be attorney general and two anti-environmentalists to head the interior and energy departments.
What specifically do you object to? I think he is using his powers to do things he probably ought to have done long ago. As oldscratch will fondly point out, the Clinton-Gore environmental legacy ain’t all that pretty. But, it is definitely looking up. (And, boy, it is certainly looking pretty compared to what we are going to be dealing with the next 4 years.)
Clinton has been fairly clear in stating that he don’t want no freakin’ pardon (whether this is true or not, I honestly don’t know).
I think no matter what Bill Clinton says or does in his last couple weeks (barring something completely bizzarre or outrageous), President Bush will pardon him if he’s indicted.
I think his reasoning would be that it would not be healthy for the country, especially in the eyes of the world, to put a former president on trial. He’d probably see it as weakening the country that he is president of.
Plus, with the increase in presidential investigations and special prosecutors over the last 25 years, it would probably be in his best interest to continue the tradition of pardoning your predecessor.
Even though Clinton says he would not ask for one, and Bush says he won’t give him one, if it came down to it, he would do it.
Also, it just occurred to me that letting President Clinton actually stand trial would be REALLY divisive. I think most americans would want him pardoned, and the democrats would be especially outraged, as they view the entire investigation as a political witch hunt. The outrage among the democrats would likely spur them to stuff the coffers like never before, resulting in a tough time at the polls for republicans in '02 and '04.
President Clintons comment was nothing more than a simple statement of fact. If the statement happens to be divisive, it’s only because the GOP and the supreme court have perverted the meaning of democracy in their insane quest for power.
Insane quest for power??? To my mind, thinking a dimpled chad is evidence of voter intent is slightly skewed, and I’m a Democrat. ‘Undervote’ my arse.
As I understand it, the Prez thinks a pardon hangs a lable of ‘guilty, but gets away with it’ around his neck that he doesn’t get with an aquittal (or a lack of criminal charge).
“Landslide” George would like nothing better than to pardon Clinton (or, at least, that’s what he would think if he were as smart a politician as Slick Willie, which he ain’t).
Bill sez “Bring it on” because he knows the case is a mess, even if he lost, which isn’t likely, he could keep it on appeal forever. No prosecutor in his right mind will get anywhere near this case. And if they come after him, it’s just further proof of the Javert-like fanaticism of his enemies.
So here’s the scenario: Ken Starr’s successor, whats-his-face, will bring an indictment. Shrub gives a heart-felt speech about putting the past behind us, forgive and forget, bind all those old wounds, and let’s get on with the business of dragging America back to Mayberry. Issues pardon. Whats-his-face gives press conference, says he could have put Slick away for years, but, hey, a pardon is a pardon. In a final gesture of magnanimity, he shreds all the evidence. All the evidence.
Why is it so unlikely that Clinton would lose? Didn’t he say, under oath, that he had no sexual relations with Monica? And didn’t he get at least a blow job from her?
There’s a good possibility that I’m missing something, so in advance I’d like to request that you not get nasty in correcting me. (Ha, fat chance.)
Ah, my dear PeeQueue! Far be it from me, or any of the esteemed posters of this Board, to be anything but cordial and polite, esp. when it concerns the earnest ignorance of such as yourself.
There are enough legal tangles in this case to give Perry Mason a stroke. I won’t bore you with it all. No doubt, in the SDMB archives, an exhaustive exposition of these issues can be found.
One (just one, mind you) of the issues that has yet to be entirely resolved, legally: is it legal to lie in response to a question that you should not have been asked in the first place.
Secondly, is the Starr teams careful set up: they appear to brought about a grand jury for no other purpose but to get Slick Willie in front of it so that they could ask The Question. The judge in the Jones case had already stated that Bill’s sexual behavior after the fact was not relevant to the Jones case.
Like I said, no prosecutor in his right mind would touch this case. Bill’s lawyers will tie knots in their underwear without breaking a sweat.
My bet: Shrub, in a gesture of the compassion that Republicans are universally admired for, will pardon Bill whether he wants it or not. They have nothing whatever to lose, and a chance to appear open and magnanimous by forgoing something they ain’t got in the first place.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that Bill’s legal bills amounted (last year) to some $4.5 million. Is he still soliciting the public for help, or are these high-powered law firms content to do it all “pro bono”?
Of course, this would not be the first time that the Clintons have stiffed people!
Let’s remember, the Florida Supreme Court simply ordered for recounts to continue using existing legislature to count votes where the intent of the voter could be determined. They said nothing about counting or ignoring dimpled chads, to avoid the accusations of “judicial activism” that they got slapped with by the USSC previously.
Technically, the United States Supreme Court remanded the case back to Florida so that uniform standards could be set. Unfortunately, since they only gave the FSC two hours to set the standards and finish the recount, the effective upshoot was to abort the recount effort and hijack the election for Dubya – an act of blatant judicial activism over state’s rights, all from a court that’s consistently argued against those acts.
But then, hypocrisy is always okay when you’re a Conservative, I guess…
By golly, egkelly, you’ve put your finger right on it! Yes, the massive Clinton legal bills are precisely relevent to…ahhh, that is, it has crucial bearing on…what, exactly?
Just to add to what elucidator already said in response to this, it seems there are very few people convicted of perjury, from which I get the impression the standards of proof must be pretty high. And, while you might think that a blow job constitutes “sexual relations” and that the clear meaning of “is” includes not only the very present moment but also the recent past, this is the sort of thing that is wishy-washy enough that I imagine a perjury conviction would be extremely hard to get.
Well shee-it! Looks like I caught me a whole passel of self-righteous and indignant liberals with just one post.
Sheesh.
jshore
More accurate? You don’t know that for a fact. That is your opinion. It is also beside the point. I am neither asking nor debating whether it is true or not, I am asserting that it was a stupid thing for Bill Clinton to say what he did.
Excuse me, but WTF does that if to do with the OP?
There’s also a lot of people here who think the earth was created in 7 days. How come you didn’t see fit to mention that fact as well? Next thing you know you’re going to start complaining about externalized costs!
Where’d you get the warranty on that crystal ball, Bub? Fallacies R Us?
Squink:
Bwahahahahahahah! Sheee-it! This one’s two little, better through it back! I’m not even gonna bother with this drivel. Fletch As I’ve mentioned, the verity of the statement is not at issue. However, based on your insistence, why not post some evidence supporting your assertion? Or should I just accept under authority your statement that Al Gore would’ve won if it weren’t for those meddling Republicans.
I can’t go on.
Worthless.
Scylla, my statement of just the facts jack applies to the pardon offer. Bring on the facts, this country has spent millions attempting to bring down Clinton, why stop now? Let the debacle continue, the country needs to see this horse ridden into the ground, and identify those responsible and see punishment handed out. Bring back Ken Starr and associates, take this mess to court and lets put the all the chips on the table and see what comes out of this.
Risking invoking the ire of Dubya and not receiving a pardon by firing a shot across his bow? You have to be kidding! Clinton should insist the process continue.
