Seeing as how the last thing on Earth that Bush wants right now is to provide Democrats with a rallying point and since any trial (with all pretrial haggling) could easily stretch out for two years and ensure a lot of angry Democrats come the next Congressional election, do you think that Bush will take action to ensure that no charges are filed?
Pardon him for what? Sorry, but I really don’t know.
Peace,
mangeorge
Well, I believe a prosecutor is going after Monica Lewinsky again, so they can try to get Clinton once he’s a private citizen.
Also, one of my paranoid cyber-buddies believes that a public pardon could be a good way to sully the reputation of Clinton and Gore. You can give someone a blanket pardon for whatever they did while in office. He believes that it could kill Gore’s reputation since people will always presume that he committed a crime while in office.
How ever I don’t think Bush or the GOP could be that low and dirty.
Wouldn’t any act against Clinton go against the double jeopardy law?
An aside, kinda, but can a presidential pardon be declined?
Peace,
mangeorge
The first charge that comes to mind is perjury. I am sure the Repub could dig up more if they had control of the Justice Dept.
Didn’t Ford pardon Nixon for all crimes he may have committed while president? I would think something similiar is in order if Congress turns up the heat on Clinton.
And no, it would not be double jeapordy, he never faced a trial to see if he was guilty of perjury. In fact, I think there is currently a process in place to disbar him.
Personally, I do not want Clinton tried and put in jail, no matter what he did. I mean, if he personally accepted Communist Chinese money and then handed them (himself) all the nuclear secrets, I still don’t want it trotted out in public.
mangeorge -
The charges I have heard discussed have included: perjury;
subornatin of perjury; making false statements (I do not know how this differs from perjury)(or why every polititian in the US isn’t already charged with this); obstruction of justice and conspiracy to do the above.
Hillary has stated to the press that if she were indicted and pardoned (one assumes by Gore) that she would turn down the pardon, so I assume that it can be done. Remember though, that Clinton has already spent a fortune on lawyers, it would have to be difficult for him to reject a pardon even if one assumes that he is completely innocent.
guinastasia -
Clinton was impeached, not indicted. If he had lost he would have been removed from office, but it would not count as a criminal conviction and he would not face any criminal penalty; jail/fine etc.
I think the only likely sanction on Clinton at this time is that he may be disbarred. And I don’t think a pardon protects him from that.
Frankly, I think it’s time to let Bill get on with his life. He shouldn’t have lied to Congress, but c’mon guys - he lied about getting a hummer in office, while his wife was staring at him. He should do time for this?
Let’s all admit that that the attacks on Clinton were just hardball politics - the Republicans used his poor judgement to hang him, thus preventing him from getting any major liberal programs passed. He’s gone soon, he won’t be able to change your life. Let him get on with his.
Frankly, after the last month of seeing Al and Dubya, I’m starting to think fondly of Clinton. I didn’t agree with many of his policies, but he was kinda fun to have around. And in comparison to our two latest hopefuls, he was actually a pretty good statesman.
He was a totally different man when first elected, though. Let’s hope Dubya can grow into the office like Bill did.
Wait, its low and dirty to give someone a pardon? So Bush is a cock to some for NOT pardoning and a cock to the rest FOR the Pardon? Gotta love politics! Where’s Captain Kirk when you need him?
This all boils down to PR moves.
Bush should pardon Clinton to show that he’s united this country, and really wants to move on.
Bush shouldn’t “pre-pardon” Clinton though. The farther Dubya stays from this issue the better off he is. He should only padron if neccessary.
Basically:
If it doesn’t come up, then don’t bring it up. If it does, then he needs to pardon him.
Read this December 8, 2000 article at CNN. The full article is pretty interesting.
The article says it is even possible for Clinton to pardon himself. They guy who wrote the article is John Dean, a former counsel to the President of the United States and a Findalaw columnist.
I think that if the REPUBLICANS, not just the president elect Shrub do not let Bill Clinton crawl off into the sunset then the one half of this nation that is sick to death of all the foaming and ranting will never reconcile themselves to bipartisanship. I for one am tired of hearing about him and his whores. I am tired of hearing about how he lied to a bunch of tight assed old men sitting around in congress with bikini panties on under their three piece suits. (And wishing they were as lucky) I am sick and tired of the constant digging into every single penny, incautious word, or sigh that the Clinton’s and Gore’s make. They’re gone…are you now satisfied?
When Dubya is sworn in then the Repubs need to let it go. And if Dubya does not have the balls to stand up and publically call off his pack of raving hyenas then he will not stand a snowballs chance in hell of ever occupying the White House more than 4 years. (Barring some huge and wonderful coup like saving the world single handedly. No Jr. Daddy can’t help.) People are sick of hearing about sour business deals and blow jobs. I am sick of hearing about what a bitch and a carpetbagger Hillary Clinton is. She won you sour old farts! She knows how to work that thang! You did a disservice to our country 8 years ago when you didn’t allow her to be a working first lady. Not every presidental wife should be as vapid as Nancy Reagan. But then the old fart squad doesn’t want to allow but a few token gals in anyway.
Dubya will have to keep his promise to unite the country through bipartisanship. He will not be able to do it if he does not direct his constituents to move past Clinton and their hatred for him.
Needs2know
Sincerely. The rest of the world already has enough ammunition for democracy-world-leader ridicule right now. We want to add an arrested former President to that list? Even staunch conservatives I know say Junior will pardon Willie for this reason.
I think disbarring is in order due to the perjury stuff, but even that will be a move for politico-legal hopefuls looking to get a name for themselves. The sooner all of this shite is put behind, the better.
I wonder if any Republicans are wanting Willie crucified still for fear of his return as First Gentleman?
It is difficult to discern, in needs2know’s post above, just what the logical underpinnings of his debate are. For example, he refers to Clinton lying to “…a bunch of tight assed old men sitting around in congress with bikini panties on under their three piece suits. (And wishing they were as lucky).” I am not sure on what he bases this assertion, or, indeed, what relevance it has to the issue at hand - that of Bush ultimately pardoning Clinton.
So far as I can see, there are two possibilities: a pardon issued before any criminal indictment or trial, and a pardon issued after substantive legal process has begun.
It is widely thought that Robert Ray, the responsible independent counsel, may move to indict Clinton for perjury after he Clinton leaves office. The possibility of a need for a pardon is thus not remote.
While I supported impeaching Clinton - in my view, perjury ought to be an impeachable offense - and I support his disbarment, for the same reason, I doubt that similar perjury, if committed by a private citizen, would be prosecuted. It certainly could be, but prosecutorial discretion would usually tilt away from going after someone like this.
For this reason, I think it would be fair to pardon Clinton, even preemptively.
But the OP asks not what I think, but what Bush is likely to do.
In the interests of unity, and in the recognition that no justice would be served by the criminal prosecution of the man, I think it’s very likely that Bush would also pardon Clinton, if the need arose. I think it unlikely that Bush will move to “pre-emptively” pardon him, however.
- Rick
What I mean by my statements is that we should not have been prying into his private sexual affairs and then making a big hootenanny about him lying about it in the first place. And if every man in congress had been subjected to such National Enquirer politics then we’d be in for more than a few big shocks about our elected leaders and their PRIVATE sexual practices. I could care less about how many congressmen, cabinet members or any other elected officals are whoremongering, crossdressing, whip snapping, shoe sniffing, sex fiends. It was ridiculous to put the country though that witch hunt in the first place. It did us no good. Republicans can spout off all they want about taxpayer money but their bullshit smut digging has cost this country more than just a little political embarassment, it cost real money to keep Ken Starr and his muckraking going.
Get over it! Clinton is leaving office. If you must punish him for whipping your asses in two elections then go right ahead, be my guest. But next time even if you have the good sense to put up a decent well liked man like John McCain I will not back him because I don’t like the company he keeps.
The Republicans will need to shed this “holier than thou” image they have been laboring under if they don’t want another 4 years of rabid polarization between the two parties. Are we clear on this now.
As for Bush I don’t think he has a clue personally, but perhaps one of his many advisors will let him know that he needs to direct his party to stop throwing mud. Frankly I don’t think “party boy” should have the nerve to criticize anyone else’s personal practices. Perhaps he will spare the hypocracy and call off his dogs.
Needs2know
I remember my advisor telling us about a guy he talked to who was a reporter. There apparently are private clubs for all the old fart senators to go to with their 20 year old, silicone-riddled, bleached, tanned toys…and it’s considered common and even expected. They’re ALL as bad as Clinton-look at Newt Gingrich! They’re all whoring around. It wasn’t the fact that he lied (and about a frigging BLOW JOB for cryingoutloud)-it should NEVER have been brought up in the first place.
Kenneth Starr has some issues, I think. I don’t even WANT to know what his private life is like.
I mean, geeze, look at the Iran Contra Scandal-THAT was a hell of a lot worse than what Clinton did. I say if they go after Clinton for that, the Dems should make a point of bringing up Bush Sr’s name in connection with the Contra scandal. Tit for tat.
I’d completely forgotten about the lying thing. About things that really should never have been asked imo.
I’m afraid we may look back rather fondly at ol’ Bill.
Ya know, I was taught that it was in poor taste to talk “Out of School”.
And thanks for the answers to my buttinsky question. 
Peace,
mangeorge
Okay, this is off my original topic but now I’m curious. There are men (and some women) all around the country who are being sued for sexual harassment. Some rightly and some wrongly (I assume). Do all of these people have a right to lie under oath and suffer no consequences? And what about me; I sometimes give expert testimony, is it okay if I lie?
Remember that this lie (if it was a lie) was designed to help Clinton win a lawsuit.
Or did the whole thing just get “blown” out of proportion; and if so what would have been an appropriate response?
I said this in another thread, but it’s more on topic here:
As far as Clinton goes, he didn’t even commit perjury. Perjury, as I understand it from Court TV discussions about Mark Fuhrman, has to be material to the outcome of the case. The Judge that threw out the Paula Jones case did not question whether the event, “boorishly” asking for oral sex, had happened. She said that the case was groundless because Jones showed no damage to herself stemming from her refusal. If the truth of Jones’ claim was not the issue in the case, then any testimony that would try to prove the claim, through “pattern of behavior,” was not material to the case. No materiality, no perjury. The Judge’s error, in my view, was that she let that area of testimony in in the first place, if she was even considering throwing the case out for the reason she did.
IIRC, the House charges against Clinton did not include perjury. I find it difficult to understand how he could be charged with trying to cover up something which wasn’t a crime. If the case had been about overdue library books (people get thrown in jail for them in Jeb Bush’s state) and Clinton had done exactly the same “coverup,” no one would have ever heard of it.
Remember, Paula Jones’ only claim of damage from the incident was that she did not get flowers one secretaries’ day. Some lawsuit. JDM
JDM -
Very well argued! I’m no lawyer; so I won’t comment on whether this will hold up or not; but assuming that all you say is true, and at the same time remembering that Clinton has nothing to gain from a legal battle except pride and lawyer’s bills -
Should Bush pardon Clinton for the good of the country?
Should Bush pardon Clinton for Bush’s own benefit?
Should Clinton accept the pardon.
Personal opinion - If I were Bush I would give him a pardon for both reasons cited above and if I were Clinton I would accept the pardon; if for no other reason than that Americans have short memories and the sooner the whole business is forgotten the better.