PDA

View Full Version : Clinton Pardons... For the Record


recxjake
07-02-2007, 06:54 PM
1

HolmeZz
07-02-2007, 06:55 PM
ROFL The "Clinton did it" defense.

That's usually an admission that what the current administration has done is wrong.

Mr. Laz
07-02-2007, 06:56 PM
yep ...... that's right


Bush = Clinton

Brock
07-02-2007, 06:56 PM
captain obvious to the rescue

NewChief
07-02-2007, 06:58 PM
Clinton issued 140 pardons as well as several commutations on his last day of office (January 20, 2001).

Bolded the difference maker. I'm sure Bushie will have plenty of questionable one on his last day as well with which you can draw parallels with Clinton. That's tradition. What isn't tradition is interfering with a legitimate investigation by letting LIbby know that if he just keeps his mouth shut about anything incriminating, he'll get immediately commuted then pardoned.

Sully
07-02-2007, 06:58 PM
I covered this in my 3rd post in the first thread... but thanks for playing.

memyselfI
07-02-2007, 07:02 PM
Bush warned that he expected his White House staff to meet the highest ethical standards, avoiding not only violations of law, but even the appearance of impropriety.

"We must remember the high standards that come with high office," he [George W. Bush- Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2001] said. "This begins careful adherence with the rules. I expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries [that] define legal and ethical conduct.


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/22/213715.shtml

Ugly Duck
07-02-2007, 07:19 PM
Monkeyboy didn't pardon Scooter.... he commuted his sentence. This way Scooter can still claim teh 5th and can't be forced to testify. If Bozo had pardoned Scooter, the convict would have been compelled to tell the truth. The neocon regime don't take too kindly to truth-tellin.'

ClevelandBronco
07-02-2007, 07:37 PM
Monkeyboy didn't pardon Scooter.... he commuted his sentence. This way Scooter can still claim teh 5th and can't be forced to testify. If Bozo had pardoned Scooter, the convict would have been compelled to tell the truth. The neocon regime don't take too kindly to truth-tellin.'

I must be missing something. Testify in what?

jAZ
07-02-2007, 07:45 PM
Law-And-Order Party indeed.

64 Chief
07-02-2007, 08:15 PM
Clinton committed perjury and became a multimillionaire. He also sold pardons. Libby's faulty memory pales in comparison to the former prez's overt actions.

HolmeZz
07-02-2007, 08:22 PM
Clinton committed perjury and became a multimillionaire. He also sold pardons. Libby's faulty memory pales in comparison to the former prez's overt actions.

Faulty memory. ROFL

My God, I love political spin.

penchief
07-02-2007, 08:23 PM
Quit trying to justify this bullshit by bashing Clinton. I can tell you're in the Rudy camp.

These fuggers think they are above the law in every respect. And the recent Supreme Court rulings are giving them a second wind.

Let's not forget what this is all about. This scumbag lied about the White House intentionally revealing the name of an undercover anti-proliferation CIA agent in its attempt to discredit the claims of a loyal public servant who happened to be telling the truth about their lie.

Not only did Libby lie to hide the truth. This entire presidency is most likely implicated in the initial act, as well as the cover up. I'm sick of this shit and you should be too. But no, you want to keep sucking the patriarchal teet. You like sucking that Dubya/Rudy teet.

Cave Johnson
07-02-2007, 08:45 PM
Who knew Rexy had his own successories poster....

BucEyedPea
07-02-2007, 09:00 PM
Marc Rich, a fugitive, was pardoned of tax evasion, after clemency pleas from Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, among many other international luminaries. Rich, Marc's former wife, was a close friend of the Clintons and had made substantial donations to both Clinton's library and Hillary's Senate campaign. Several months after her last donation, emails reveal Republican attorney "Scooter" Libby asked her to approach Clinton about pardoning Marc Rich. Clinton agreed to a pardon that required Marc Rich to pay a $100,000,000 fine before he could return to the United States. According to Paul Volcker's independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels of oil.[14]

Yup! And Scooter Libby was Rich's attorney here. So is he a lefty or a righty?
They are ALL corrupt.

penchief
07-02-2007, 09:08 PM
Yup! And Scooter Libby was Rich's attorney here. So is he a lefty or a righty.
I say a lefty. They are ALL corrupt.

I'm a lefty. Am I corrupt?

You're a righty. Are you corrupt?

IMO, corruption has nothing to do with political philosophy or ideology. I believe it has more to do with how far one will go to promote (or impose) a particular philosophy.

So I'll take this time to disagree with you one more time. These guys are not lefties. They are right-wing corporate fascists, IMO.

How can anyone say they are liberals when the things they do inspire righties and greed-mongers while at the same time pissing off lefties to the point of despair?

I think we have to look at this objectively. There REALLY IS such a thing as right-wing fascism and we are watching it unfold right before our very own eyes.

Logical
07-02-2007, 09:09 PM
Clinton committed perjury and became a multimillionaire. He also sold pardons. Libby's faulty memory pales in comparison to the former prez's overt actions.

Who believes this is VoldemorTOM. I do.

BucEyedPea
07-02-2007, 09:11 PM
penchief,
I edited. They= politicians...that is on both sides of the aisle not the people of either political stripe.

Brock
07-02-2007, 09:20 PM
penchief,
I edited. They= politicians...that is on both sides of the aisle not the people of either political stripe.

Jesus, somebody who gets it.

PunkinDrublic
07-02-2007, 09:23 PM
I'm glad I don't live in Iowa and have my taxes paying for your little hitler youth club at your school.

penchief
07-02-2007, 09:27 PM
Jesus, somebody who gets it.

What do you think I said in the very same post she responded to? It's not the political persuasion, it's the lengths one will go to.

And this administration has clearly exhibited the desire to go to whatever lengths are necessary. Which appears to include the intentional undermining of this country's laws in order to feed its desire for total control.

Brock
07-02-2007, 09:36 PM
What do you think I said in the very same post she responded to? It's not the political persuasion, it's the lengths one will go to.

And this administration has clearly exhibited the desire to go to whatever lengths are necessary. Which appears to include the intentional undermining of this country's laws in order to feed its desire for total control.

Nothing personal, but all of your posts basically say the same thing without any real facts to back up the histrionics.

jAZ
07-02-2007, 09:42 PM
Who believes this is VoldemorTOM. I do.
It's getting to be very easy.

penchief
07-02-2007, 09:57 PM
Nothing personal, but all of your posts basically say the same thing without any real facts to back up the histrionics.

That's because they are based on my observations. It's not about talking points. It's about what they do. When everything they do points in the same narrow direction every single time........it's time for people to get a clue.

Tell me one thing this administration has ever done to favor the people of this country over corportate interests. Just one thing.

Name one thing they've done to expand our individual freedoms, civil liberties, or personal privacy. Now....name all the things they've done to diminish them.

Name one thing this administration has done to promote peace, or calm a tense international situation, or cooperate/negotiate on something that they didn't necessarily agree with. Now name all the things they have done to stir the pot, promote chaos, and undermine the existing status quo ultimately resulting in instability.

They believe in divide and conquer. They believe in using the power they acquire to acquire more power, domestically and internationally. They don't want power to promote the general welfare (that is obvious). Otherwise, the general welfare would have been promoted rather than being eroded.

Their track record speaks for itself. Secrecy, military aggression, political derision, torture, domestic spying, invasion of privacy, lies, executive privelege gone haywire, etc....If you can give me examples to counter my claims I may come toward your way of thinking more. But from where I sit, this administration has a solid record that does little for the American people or this country's political traditions while doing everything they can to undermine everything this country has stood for up until now.

recxjake
07-02-2007, 10:27 PM
Updated!!!

dirk digler
07-02-2007, 10:33 PM
BFD.

I don't care so much about the commute as I do the timing of this. The guy lied and a jury convicted of him of it. He should serve some time.

Also Clinton pardoned just as many as his predecessors besides the elder Bush who didn't pardon very many people.

On Jan. 20, 2001, I granted 140 pardons and issued 36 commutations. During my presidency, I issued a total of approximately 450 pardons and commutations, compared to 406 issued by President Reagan during his two terms. During his four years, President Carter issued 566 pardons and commutations, while in the same length of time President Bush granted 77. President Ford issued 409 during the slightly more than two years he was president.

BigMeatballDave
07-02-2007, 11:24 PM
Gee, I'm glad there is no hypocracy from the left in this thread...

Logical
07-02-2007, 11:57 PM
Updated!!!Well you ruined your own thread. I won't bother looking for comments with that much data to scroll through and frankly who cares.

patteeu
07-03-2007, 07:26 AM
Law-And-Order Party indeed.

The Republicans have a long way to go before they lose that label to the democrats.

Cochise
07-03-2007, 08:43 AM
pardoning Marc Rich was much worse than pardoning Scooter Libby, no matter what.

BucEyedPea
07-03-2007, 09:04 AM
pardoning Marc Rich was much worse than pardoning Scooter Libby, no matter what.
Yet, it was Scooter Libby, his attorney that helped him get that pardon.
These guys are all connected in DC.

StcChief
07-03-2007, 11:45 AM
pardoning Marc Rich was much worse than pardoning Scooter Libby, no matter what.
No if and or but about it... Wasn't he a last day outta office pardon, trying to sneak it.

Wonder how much Rich paid for that one.

Cochise
07-03-2007, 11:50 AM
No if and or but about it... Wasn't he a last day outta office pardon, trying to sneak it.

Wonder how much Rich paid for that one.

They donated a million dollars to his presidential library, I believe. So that's a starting point for what the ability to return to the United States without being arrested cost him.

64 Chief
07-03-2007, 05:39 PM
If you liberals succeed in criminalizing politics, a lot of your heros will be in jail.

BigMeatballDave
07-04-2007, 01:51 AM
pardoning Marc Rich was much worse than pardoning Scooter Libby, no matter what.Here is an interesting twist...During hearings after Rich's pardon, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who had represented Rich from 1985 until the spring of 2000, denied that Rich had violated the tax laws, but criticized him for trading with Iran at a time when that country was holding U.S. hostages. In his letter to the New York Times, Bill Clinton explained why he pardoned Rich, noting that U.S. tax professors Bernard Wolfman of Harvard Law School and Martin Ginsburg of Georgetown University Law Center concluded that no crime was committed, and that the companies' tax reporting position was reasonable. [New York Times, February 18, 2001][2]. In the same letter Clinton listed Libby as one of three "distinguished Republican lawyers" who supported Rich's pardon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich

BigMeatballDave
07-04-2007, 01:55 AM
Yet, it was Scooter Libby, his attorney that helped him get that pardon.
These guys are all connected in DC.Yeah, they sure seem to be...

MadMax
07-04-2007, 02:38 AM
How bouts Sandy Berger shovin classified docs down the socks???? LOL funny nothin happens to a man who basically comits treason.

StcChief
07-04-2007, 12:04 PM
How bouts Sandy Berger shovin classified docs down the socks???? LOL funny nothin happens to a man who basically comits treason.
yeah.... forgot about that clown.

penchief
07-05-2007, 07:11 PM
How bouts Sandy Berger shovin classified docs down the socks???? LOL funny nothin happens to a man who basically comits treason.

Wait......weren't those just COPIES he stuffed down his socks? Was he trying to erase history before it was written? I don't think so.

Big difference, Mr. Max.

One dude is trying to evade library security. The other dude is trying to lie to his employer about embezzlement.

Chief Henry
07-06-2007, 09:46 AM
The Republicans have a long way to go before they lose that label to the democrats.



ROFL

Chief Henry
07-06-2007, 09:56 AM
How bouts Sandy Berger shovin classified docs down the socks???? LOL funny nothin happens to a man who basically comits treason.


Sandy Burglar agreed to not practise law anymore. He gave up his law license. I wonder what kind of information he's protecting Billary from :hmmm:

It could very well be the information that NAILS Billary to the wall on not BUSTING Osama when Billary had the chance.

That just goes to show you how desperate he was to protect Billarys lack of actions in obtaining Osama Bin Laden before 9-11.

penchief
07-06-2007, 02:21 PM
Sandy Burglar agreed to not practise law anymore. He gave up his law license. I wonder what kind of information he's protecting Billary from :hmmm:

It could very well be the information that NAILS Billary to the wall on not BUSTING Osama when Billary had the chance.

That just goes to show you how desperate he was to protect Billarys lack of actions in obtaining Osama Bin Laden before 9-11.

Oh, so that's what it is.

Chief Henry
07-06-2007, 03:04 PM
Oh, so that's what it is.



Insert crickets chirping right here _______

penchief
07-06-2007, 07:14 PM
Insert crickets chirping right here _______

The chirping crickets commenced after your post, which symoblizes the absurdity of debating someone that always whips out the Clinton card each and every time instead of addressing the issues at hand.

First off, I am one that has never defended Clinton's actions. I just felt that he should never have been pursued over such irrelevent nonsense when there was a country to run. I felt that the republican congress betrayed the American people when they handcuffed this country and paralyzed the government over a blow job.

But it really wasn't just about a blow job. It was about finding a way to derail the the general direction of the country while they figured out a way to regain power. They were not interested in serving the will of the people, only the power quo (which had a vested interest in defeating anything that would limit their ability to consolidate power and maximize profitibility). Human dignity sometimes has a way of interfering with greed.

So, while I have never defended Clinton's actions I have always felt that the actions of the republican congress were even more despicable and contained an element of treason. Party before country is not how I was raised.

That said, the colossal abuses of power by this conglomerate of greed and ideology that currently sits in the White House has done more to erode the history, traditions, and integrity of this country than a thousand Clintons ever could have done.

Just take a look around. Has it ever looked shittier? Has this administration even done one single thing right? Do they even care? Or do they only want to stick to the gameplan?

mlyonsd
07-06-2007, 07:23 PM
The chirping crickets commenced after your post, which symoblizes the absurdity of debating someone that always whips out the Clinton card each and every time instead of addressing the issues at hand.

First off, I am one that has never defended Clinton's actions. I just felt that he should never have been pursued over such irrelevent nonsense when there was a country to run. I felt that the republican congress betrayed the American people when they handcuffed this country and paralyzed the government over a blow job.

But it really wasn't just about a blow job. It was about finding a way to derail the the general direction of the country while they figured out a way to regain power. They were not interested in serving the will of the people, only the power quo (which had a vested interest in defeating anything that would limit their ability to consolidate power and maximize profitibility). Human dignity sometimes has a way of interfering with greed.

So, while I have never defended Clinton's actions I have always felt that the actions of the republican congress were even more despicable and contained an element of treason. Party before country is not how I was raised.

That said, the colossal abuses of power by this conglomerate of greed and ideology that currently sits in the White House has done more to erode the history, traditions, and integrity of this country than a thousand Clintons ever could have done.

Just take a look around. Has it ever looked shittier? Has this administration even done one single thing right? Do they even care? Or do they only want to stick to the gameplan?

I agreed with a lot of what you said until you started to hyperventilate there.

Can you honestly say the Bush administration has done everything absolutely wrong?

penchief
07-06-2007, 07:42 PM
I agreed with a lot of what you said until you started to hyperventilate there.

Can you honestly say the Bush administration has done everything absolutely wrong?

What have they done right?

kc hopeful
07-06-2007, 08:12 PM
Unbelievable that Bill Clinton would say any critical of Bush in this matter.

I mean it's laughable.

(Susan McDougal, Roger Clinton, Henry Cisneros.....)

penchief
07-06-2007, 08:27 PM
Unbelievable that Bill Clinton would say any critical of Bush in this matter.

I mean it's laughable.

(Susan McDougal, Roger Clinton, Henry Cisneros.....)

I don't disagree. But the crux of the issue is not the number of pardons rather what any particular pardon really means. And in this particular case, honest governance and governmental transparancy are the issues unavoidably being dragged into the debate. And rightfully so.

The point that seems to be constantly overlooked is that Clinton was pursued for allegations that had been raised long before he ever became president and were irrelevent to his duties. It started with Whitewater and continued through Paula Jones. Those are not issues that should have been the priority of our congress. Congress had more important business to conduct than drudging up old allegations for the purpose of fighting a "cultural war" just because they couldn't accept losing the White House.

On the other hand, the abuses of this White House have occurred as a matter of U.S. policy and have been implemented via the mechanisms of our government. That is one huge friggin' difference. And that is exactly what makes it such a huge difference.

While Clinton may have abused his power, this administration has repeatedly and regularly abused OUR power. When will it get too much for us to take it anymore? Can it become too late to correct our course? I don't know but I think we're getting close to that tipping point.

bigfoot
07-06-2007, 11:34 PM
I don't disagree. But the crux of the issue is not the number of pardons rather what any particular pardon really means. And in this particular case, honest governance and governmental transparancy are the issues unavoidably being dragged into the debate. And rightfully so.

The point that seems to be constantly overlooked is that Clinton was pursued for allegations that had been raised long before he ever became president and were irrelevent to his duties. It started with Whitewater and continued through Paula Jones. Those are not issues that should have been the priority of our congress. Congress had more important business to conduct than drudging up old allegations for the purpose of fighting a "cultural war" just because they couldn't accept losing the White House.

On the other hand, the abuses of this White House have occurred as a matter of U.S. policy and have been implemented via the mechanisms of our government. That is one huge friggin' difference. And that is exactly what makes it such a huge difference.

While Clinton may have abused his power, this administration has repeatedly and regularly abused OUR power. When will it get too much for us to take it anymore? Can it become too late to correct our course? I don't know but I think we're getting close to that tipping point.

Chinagate? Has Bush done anything to us anymore damaging than this?

Bush has me plenty upset about a number of things-but the commuting of Libby's sentence ranks, for me, pretty far down on the list.

BucEyedPea
07-06-2007, 11:39 PM
I just felt that he should never have been pursued over such irrelevent nonsense when there was a country to run. I felt that the republican congress betrayed the American people when they handcuffed this country and paralyzed the government over a blow job.
The bold parts are what I liked about it.

Human dignity sometimes has a way of interfering with greed.
I don't get the greed part. Maybe power and gotcha politics but not greed.
Did they make a lot of money off of this?

a1na2
07-06-2007, 11:47 PM
All presidents have the authority to commute sentences or give pardons. Every president in the country's history, less two, have pardoned various numbers of people. Carter out pardoned Clinton. Bush I pardoned 77, Reagan pardoned 506.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonspres1.htm

Go to the link and see for yourselves. There have been favors done through the history of the country.

BTW, one of the two presidents didn't pardon anyone because he died before he had been in office for more than a month. Garfield was president for less than a year. All others used the power to pardon as granted in the constitution.

I'm pretty sure that Bush II's pardons and commutations are substantially less than those of Clinton beings you are all assuming that Clinton is the only president that anyone would want to consider.

Those presidents that pardoned more than Clinton follow:

BY NUMBER
Franklin D. Roosevelt 3687
Woodrow Wilson 2480
Harry S. Truman 2044
Calvin Coolidge 1545
Herbert Hoover 1385
Ulysses S. Grant 1332
Lyndon B. Johnson 1187
Dwight D. Eisenhower 1157
Grover Cleveland * 1107
Theodore Roosevelt * 981
Richard Nixon 926
William McKinley * 918
Rutherford B. Hayes 893
Warren G. Harding 800
William H. Taft 758
Andrew Johnson 654
Benjamin Harrison 613
John F. Kennedy 575
Jimmy Carter 566
Bill Clinton 456

BucEyedPea
07-06-2007, 11:49 PM
I think the folks here know it's a President's authority to commute or pardon.
It's the perception of cronyism that bothers folks and that Libby doesn't do even a small amount of time before a pardon on commutation happens.

penchief
07-07-2007, 12:18 AM
The bold parts are what I liked about it.


I don't get the greed part. Maybe power and gotcha politics but not greed.
Did they make a lot of money off of this?

Money is what drives their agenda.

a1na2
07-07-2007, 08:18 AM
I think the folks here know it's a President's authority to commute or pardon.
It's the perception of cronyism that bothers folks and that Libby doesn't do even a small amount of time before a pardon on commutation happens.


You do realize that cronyism is probably a part of many of the pardons given during the history of the country ... at least I hope you aren't saying it's only of late that we have that in politics. In one way or another it's been around for a long time.