http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010221/aponline182540_000.htm ------------------ "Her Box Started Buzzing Ever Since She Heard The CRÜE"
The Rich accusations make me furious, personally. Clinton's article in the NyTimes should have dispelled all the doubts. The Republicans, afterward, were pretty much left with the "he should have stayed within the judicial process" grounds. Why? The judicial process had failed in this case. That's what pardons are *for*, as the Rhenquist court has repeatedly stated (in order to justify allowing fewer appeals in capital cases). ------------------ Why is it that everytime BC defeats a major conference opponent, that opponent promptly goes on a losing streak? PS. Notre Dame sucks
http://www.msnbc.com/news/532560.asp?cp1=1 The stories are flooding in. The one above about Roger. Haven, The NY Times article was a joke. It had lies in it just as we have come to expect from Bill. I personally think a President should be able to Pardon ANYONE they want. However, if a Pardon is BOUGHT, then that is disgusting. ------------------ "Her Box Started Buzzing Ever Since She Heard The CRÜE"
LOL! Doubts about what? That Clinton has any shame? It's hilarious how many things he said in that piece that were out and out lies. When Tim Russert is basically calling you a liar on the Today Show, you've got problems (but we already knew that). That's so funny that you'd say an editorial from Clinton removed doubts. LOL! The guy got elected twice on pure B.S.! That's his specialty! Looks like he fooled another one.
Just like Dubya, only Clinton didn't need the help of his father and his father's crooked political hacks/cronies, his brother, his cousin, the Florida secretary of state, and 5 Supreme Court Justices! ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker
One other thing.... Doesn't Hugh Rodham look like Wayne Newton after a major-league Popeye's Fried Chicken binge??? ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker
TheFreak: Even my more conservative political science professor think the Rich scandal was silly. Objectively speaking, Rich should never have been indicted. Some may argue that CLinton should have allowed the courts to take care of it, but the same Supreme Court with that wonderful conservative bias is on my side this time ------------------ Why is it that everytime BC defeats a major conference opponent, that opponent promptly goes on a losing streak? PS. Notre Dame sucks
It's hilarious how many things he said in that piece that were out and out lies. Do you have any specifics? I'm just curious because this seems to be a big mess of he-said / another-he-said and I keep hearing conflicting things. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
shanna--there's a part in there where Clinton references either Dick Cheney or Cheney's lawyers in an effort to legitimize what he did, and the Cheney team says this simply did not happen. I'm not sure what he was referring to--like I said, I'm just going by what Tim Russert said on the Today Show. Maybe if you read the piece you might know what they were talking about. Pretty specific, eh? LOL. Looks like I exaggerated.
Maybe if you read the piece you might know what they were talking about. Pretty specific, eh? LOL. Looks like I exaggerated. I dunno -- you may actually be right. I've heard a couple of times that several things in that piece were lies. The only specific I've heard was the one you mentioned about the Cheney lawyers. It's hard to believe he'd make something like that up, but you never know. I wish some truly independent group would do a non-biased finding of the facts. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
Here is the whole article. I think what people are talking about is the "three republican lawyers" that supposedly okayed the pardons. As to being Cheney's lawyers, that is news to me. Maybe I too missed that part in the article. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/002987.html ------------------ Everything you do, effects everything that is.
bobrek you mentioned that it did not happen and that a later op/ed piece would clarify. I never saw that piece. Did you happen to see it and if you did, could you post a link? Thanks ------------------ Everything you do, effects everything that is.
To me, the bottom line is that this whole thing proves yet again that 99.99% of all politicians are sleazebags, and Presidents have been making ill-advised pardons for years. Check out this blast from the past... Two days before leaving office, former President George H.W. Bush granted clemency to Aslam P. Adam, a Pakistani heroin dealer, who had been sentenced to 55 years in a North Carolina prison. Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) had taken an earlier interest in this case. The pardon was arranged by Bush's legal counsel C. Boyden Gray, who had been instrumental in impeding Lawrence Walsh's investigation of Iran-Contra. If one includes the six pardons of Iran-Contra conspirators, plus this highly questionable one for a drug smuggler, at least 10% of Bush's 66 total pardons were for Iran-Contra and/or drug related activity. Magistrate Paul Taylor warned in 1989 when he denied a move to deport in lieu of further imprisonment, "Deportation of a Pakistani national back to the very country from which the heroin was shipped...defies all logic and makes a mockery of the laws which were designed to prohibit drug importation and punish serious offenders." The more things change, the more they stay the same. Maybe if this country ever gets around to electing a Libertarian for president things will change. Certainly not before. ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker
I saw part of Tim Russert's comments this morning. I missed most of it -- which is why I was waiting for TheFreak to respond. On what I did see, he commented on how the past 8 years of the Clinton administration has forced them to read between the lines on any statement on any controversy by Clinton or his staff. (He referenced the Lewinski speech.) Russert pointed out that Clinton said very plainly that he was not aware that Hugh Rodham recieved money for pushing for the pardon. He did not deny knowledge of Rodham working on the pardon, and stopped short of saying what influence his brother-in-law had. Russert pointed out that it would have been obvious that if Rodham, an attourney, was working for a client on a pardon case, he would be paid. He also pointed out that the case did not receive the attention of the White House office until Rodham presented it to them. ------------------ Stay Cool...
Oh and lawyers have always told the truth. Huh? Right! ------------------ Everything you do, effects everything that is.
I never saw the "corrected" editorial piece but the following explains the inaccuracies: "Burton said the former president was ``in error'' when he wrote that three prominent Republican attorneys -- including Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby -- reviewed and advocated ``the case for the pardons.'' Libby, Leonard Garment and William Bradford Reynolds, all of whom represented Rich at one time, have denied they had anything to do with the pardon efforts. John Podesta, Clinton's White House chief of staff appearing on ``Meet the Press,'' said the former president meant the three GOP attorneys had advocated the underlying case against the indictment, not worked on the pardon itself. Joe Lockhart, Clinton's former press secretary, said on ABC's ``This Week'' that the president noticed the disputed reference ``was a very poorly worded sentence'' after he had submitted it." ------------------
