I am watching yet another show about the Rich pardon. I think that something very fishy happened here, with money going to Sen. Clinton's campaign and to the Dem party overall. I think what Bill did was not a good move. However, shouldn't a President have TOTAL and complete power over a Presidential Pardon? Ford pardoned Nixon, and at the time it was very unpopular. But now it is viewed as a great thing (By many). I think that even though I think Clinton pardoned Rich for very SHady reasons, he still had the Right and Power to pardon whomever he wanted. Anyone else feel that way? Just wondering. ------------------ "Her Box Started Buzzing Ever Since She Heard The CRÜE"
I think clinton knows what he did was wrong. Why else would he choose to do it the last day of his term. ------------------ May I have another Snowball Clutch? Please may I? Ill be a good little mole.... I promise.
I don't consider the pardon of Nixon a great thing or Oliver North and I'm not so sure I totally agree with the pardons Clinton made either. Pardons are fine, but they should be done ONLY with people not involved with the political system. There are plenty of people all over the country who plead for pardons, many of which didn't have the money for their own defense and live in states where DNA testing is not yet allowed but there is a good chance it would overturn their conviction. These pardons seem ceremonial and political in nature and that is never a good thing. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
Free Ruben Carter!!! Free Ruben Carter!!! ------------------ President of the why in the Hell isnt Langhi playing club!!!
North wasn't pardoned, though, his conviction was overturned on appeal because his immunized testimony helped convict him. Cap Weinberger was the only major Iran-Contra figure to get a Presidential Pardon, depending on how one looks at Robert MacFarland, I suppose (and here's a trivia question. Who was Weinberger's lawyer? None other than Bob Bennett, President Clinton's lawyer in the impeachment stuff). And here's something to consider on the Iran-Contra stuff. No one was ever even charged with breaking the law in regards to the actual arms-for-hostages-and-funnel-the-money-to-the-Contras thing. The charges were all along the lines of Obstruction of Justice (in the case of Cap Weinberger. This charge was dismissed by District Court Judge Thomas Hogan before trial), lying to Congress and Obstruction of Justice (in the case of John Poindexter. All five counts were later overturned by the appeals court) and Obstruction, destroying documents and accepting an illegal gratuity (in the case of North. All convictions were later overturned because of the questions surrounding his immunity given by Congress). If anything, one could make the case that Mr. Bush pardoned Cap Weinberger to prevent further overzealous prosecution by the Independent Council Lawrence Walsh. I question whether Mr. Weinberger even needed to be pardoned (the charges had been dismissed), but Bob Bennett apparently pushed for a pardon to completely keep Walsh from going after Weinberger. Bush pardoned five others who were tied to Iran-Contra. Robert MacFarland (for National Security Advisor), Elliot Abrams (former Assistant Sec. of State), Duane Clarridge, Alan Fiers and Clair George (all CIA Officers). ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited February 15, 2001).]
I've always been a huge Clinton supporter, if only for the fact that he's been persecuted since day one. But he's gone too far here. The Rich pardon, and on a smaller level, the pardon of the drug dealer in California, were incredibly stupid politically and ethically. For someone who was so concerned with preserving his legacy, this was a stupid move. But that also leads me to believe that maybe there were merits for pardons that we didn't see here. I mean, why, after all the crap he's been through, would Clinton do this? Anyway, I agree with Jeff. Presidential pardons should be non-political in nature, but then you could be getting into areas of free speech rights. ------------------ "Knickerbocker Please!" Not sure if you want to see Hannibal? visit www.swirve.com, and we'll tell you how to feel!! [This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited February 15, 2001).]
My question now, is WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? What can you do AFTER THE FACT??? Why are all these people b*tching now? Can they take these "questionable pardons" and PUT THEM BACK IN PRISON??? I don't think so. What's done is done. I don't agree with the Rich pardon or the Minnesota Coke Ring Leader pardon (I don't remember the guys name) essentially these folks bought or had someone buy their pardons, were pardoned, and now what? are they going to PUT THEM BACK IN PRISON?? I don't think so. It just goes to show you, with enough money and pull, almost ANYONE can buy a presidential pardon. Free Leonard Peltier!! rH ------------------ The Psychedelic Groove House of Rockets Basketball Love!
Well, we certainly couldn't complain before he made the pardons, could we? If we're going to complain -- and we're going to -- now is the time to do it. As for sending them back to prison, I think it may be in the realm of legal possibility. If they could prove that a pardonee gave money with the express understanding that he'd be pardoned in return, he could go to prison for bribing a government official. They won't actually be able to convict, of course. More importantly, though, we're complaining because it looks like there was corruption here and one should be upset by corruption in government. At the very least, it should be explored to see if there actually was corruption or not. And, if there was corruption, it would be best for us if that corruption is punished as a deterrent to future corruption. Whether that punishment is exacted in jail-time, public backlash or congressional backlash will be determined by the forensics of the process. And I think that is a good and healthy thing: our political system, like our legal system, is a confrontational one in which the result is democratically determined, if not just. What will result is some people will remain democrats and will explain away Clinton's questionable activities; others will be reaffirmed in their republicanism by his misdeeds; some may switch allegiances as a result of his actions; and those like myself will have even more ammunition for thinking that you must be particularly evil if you want to be a politician in the first place. This state of affairs was apparently desired when we signed on to a democratic mode of government. So: Democrats defend him; Republicans crucify him; and forget about what is right and just and fair. ------------------ RealGM Rockets Draft Obligations Summary Gafford Art Artisan
I think Clinton did it because he is CRAZY and has gotten away with so much that he feels he is invincible. Seriously, it messes with your head when you live such a charmed life. He knows nothing will ever happen to him and probably thought that it would not even go as far as it has, because he is Bill Clinton: Captain Grease monkey. Really quite simple. ------------------ Big A, little a bouncing B, The System might have got you, but it won't get me.
What can be done about it now??? Well..let's see..a governor was put in prison for selling pardons. It's abuse of a privilege, without a doubt! If it is shown that the administration did not follow the proper procedures and did, in fact, receive a quid pro quo, then Clinton is in big trouble. And then Bush will pardon him to spare the nation the embarassment. No one..I mean no one..is backing Clinton on this. All his closest impeachment buddies are calling this unethical, an embarassment, and brain-dead. Chuck Schumer has turned on him, for God's sake!!! ------------------
All presidents should have to get any and all pardons that they are going to grant finalized 1 month before an election that could end their term. This will ensure that "questionable" pardons may impact that president or his party in the upcoming election. In addition, all pardons should have to have a detailed written record as to why he/she was pardoned. With regards to Rich, Clinton has said (on more than one occasion), "Wait until all the facts come out and you'll know why he was pardoned" (that was paraphrased). In my opinion, all the facts should be out BEFORE the pardon is granted and made available to the public. After all, most pardons are allowing convicted felons or fugitives the opportunity to roam our streets. It is necessary to complain after the fact so that changes can be implemented for future situations. ------------------
I know some dogs that are smarter than people. Take a Lab for example ... You could take a ball and pretend to throw it. After about the fourth or fifth time of running out there and looking for that ball, that Lab is going to learn to watch your hand and really see if you are going to throw the ball. But when it comes to Clinton ... ------------------ its all good and fun till someone gets hurt ... then its absolutely hilarious!
Damn straight we should be upset by corruption in government but let's remember, there has been corruption in our government for a long time. We all know it didn't start with Clinton, it just continued with him as it will continue with dubya and all future presidents. Look at dubya's cabinet... almost all are affiliated with big business in some way. There are definately conflicts of interest there that could lead to corruption. Let's face it. We have a corrupt government and nothing's gonna change. rH ------------------ The Psychedelic Groove House of Rockets Basketball Love! Come and chat with us on game nights in CC.net chat! [This message has been edited by rockHEAD (edited February 15, 2001).]
I'd like to see restrictions placed on presidential pardons similar to what we have in Texas. A Texas governor has to seek the advice of the State Board of Paroles before giving a pardon. If the president had to get someone else to buy into the decision (perhaps the senate judiciary committe, a committe from the justice department)it would make it very hard to repeat this. ------------------ Stay Cool...
I really don't understand the point of giving a single person (even the President) the power to pardon anyone of crimes committed. We have laws, and a system in place to interpret and enforce them. And there are avenues within the system to address injustice. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe abuse of the power has clouded the once practical purpose of it. At the very least, it would make sense for there to be some kind of accountability for the pardons: whether that be detailed justification before a pardon is allowed, or some kind of judicial oversight. ------------------
rockhead -- That sort of logic flies in the face of any sort of law enforcement whatsoever. People will always rape/murder/steal/assault/etc...so we shouldn't worry about enforcing the law because they're always gonna do it. Huh?? We should do everything we can to discourage corruption and crime...hopefully that will dissuade others from trying it in the future, despite the fact it definitely won't dissuade ALL others from doing it in the future. This reminds me of another impeachment argument...that we should be more forgiving. Huh??? Who else is entitled to that kind of "forgiveness" under the law??? No one...so again, we're hearing this argument for carving out special exceptions for those who should be held to higher standards. I simply don't understand that kind of thinking. You can't rant and rave about corruption in our government, but the US isn't even close to the kind of corruption that goes on in other govts around the world. Hell, bribery of govt officials is just part of business in most Latin American countries. Their businessmen think our laws stamping out that kind of thing are silly...the consensus here is that they're fair. ------------------
Right on, Rockhead! You're just the sort of man we need to root out corruption wherever we find it! Really, how is your defeatist attitude really going to help us run a workable government? Yes, there was corruption before Clinton. There will always be corruption no matter what you do to stop it. But there are degrees of severity. It is possible to be waaaay more corrupt than the US system currently is. The first thing we want to be sure to do is maintain our vigilance so that we don't slide down the slope into greater corruption. Saying it doesn't matter and we shouldn't try is only going to show the unscrupulous that they can get away with it. The second thing is to tweak the system where we can to make corruption more difficult and less profitable. This is something the US has been doing for a long time -- in fact, it was a concept the country was formed on: eliminating royal power, forming a bicameral Congress, the 3 branches of government, innocent until proven guilty, due process of law, and the whole bit. I would say it was a proud tradition that has helped make this country the efficient, powerful thing that it is and something we should keep up, even when it becomes tiresome. ------------------ RealGM Rockets Draft Obligations Summary Gafford Art Artisan
