[jholmes]

Two weeks ago I was all but buying into the spin that the investigation into the Clinton pardon mess was just partisan politics as usual. The Republicans were out again on the witch hunt to try and tar and feather Slick Willie one last time. Give it a rest boys.

Now, however, this seems to be a fairly serious crime. If Senator Clinton's brother and aides used their access to the president to lobby for pardons, that's bad. If they did it for money that's criminal. If the amounts of cash that are being bandied about are anywhere near correct then there should be hell to pay. $200,000?? $400,000??

I'm not surprised that Clinton says he did nothing wrong and that there was absolutely no quid pro quo. He also said he never had sex with that woman... you know the story. So why should anyone believe him? You can't trust him to tell the truth, even under oath. Hillary says she is heartbroken and knew nothing about this. Sure, and those people in the travel office needed to be fired and those missing records just magically appeared on the table one day. Can anybody in the country still believe a word these people say?

The big problem is - what possible law has been broken? The founding fathers never dreamed there'd be a President corrupt enough to abuse his power for personal gain and the benefit of his in laws and golfing buddies. And Bill laughs all the way to the Marc Rich wing of his really nice Presidential Library.

[witulski]

Doesn't bother me one bit. I'd never heard of any of these people before they were pardoned and still don't know who they are after they've been pardoned.

[shiny]

You have hit the nail on the head. Unless there was a crime committed, all of these investigations are fruitless. You and everyone in the world could disagree with the pardons, however, the only opinion that matters when it comes to pardons is the President's. Congress can't overturn the pardon, public outrage will do nothing to overturn the pardon. If you or anyone else is outraged that someone was paid to influence the President to get a pardon, then you should be equally outraged at religious groups, big business, charities, and old people because all of these groups pay money to someone to try and gain influence, it is called lobbying.

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by shiny:
... If you or anyone else is outraged that someone was paid to influence the President to get a pardon, then you should be equally outraged at religious groups, big business, charities, and old people because all of these groups pay money to someone to try and gain influence, it is called lobbying.

Yeah, the investigations are probably going nowhere. Which means the only option left is public outrage.

The First Amendment specificaly proclaims "the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." All these groups you mention have legitimate concerns but you equate them to the tax fugitive and drug dealers that Clinton pardoned. You need a reality check.

[witulski]

I have a feeling that there are plenty of tax fugitives and drug dealers amongst the conventional "lobbyists" in this country.

[Scott_H]

You have hit the nail on the head. Unless there was a crime committed, all of these investigations are fruitless.

Yes but unless there is an investigation then we'll never know

Clinton pardoned....

• A drug kingpin that Hugh Rodham got $200,000 to lobby for. Hugh was in the whitehouse for the last two weeks with Senator Clinton and she says she knew nothing about it. Yea right! Also the kingpins father spread money all over LA and the dem's.
  
• A super Rich guy that fled the country and renounced his citizenship. His ex wife donated $$$,$$$ to Clinton's "library" and also some Hillary�s Senate run.
  
• Three men that cheated us out of millions in grants/loans. These men were part of a Jewish community that voted 90% for Hillary. Normal these type of communities vote more conservative. Hillary Clinton sat in on the meeting about the pardon of these men but claims she said nothing. Yea right.
  
• A man in jail for mail order fraud. He is currently under investigation for selling herbal "medicine" with false claims. The guy is super rich. I think Hugh got $200,000 from this guy to??? The FBI is not sure if they can continue to investigate this guy because of the pardon.
  
• A woman that got grant money (millions) from the fed to help battered women and children. She spent the money on furs, cars and gifts for her grown children. She got 5 years. Turns out she's a friend of Jesse Jackson.
  
• Roger Clinton got a pardon too. This guy is known to by guilty of his crime. He has not �repented�. He was just arrested for drunk driving and disorderly conduct.
  

I would be VERY interested to see what the Supreme Court thought about the constitutionality of a pardon that was paid for. Also if the deal was money for pardons then that is a crime and we need to do send people to jail for it. The only way we will know what happened is by paying for an investigation.

[shiny]

The question is this: how could this ever get before the Supreme Court? Clinoton has stated that he granted the pardons on the merits. Because the pardon power is an executive discretionary power, neither the Supreme Court nor the Congress can compel the President to defend his decision. That would be an issue of the seperation of powers. Also, the Constitution has no mechanism whereby the Supreme Court nor the Congress can overturn a Presidential Pardon. If you see a mechanism or explanation whereby the Supreme Court could justify overturning the pardon, please tell me. Remember, any bribery laws would be subordinate to the Constitutional provisions that deal with pardons, thus they cannot control or nullify the pardon. Clinton could possibly be indicted for bribery (very unlikely, you have to prove that the contributions where a quid pro quo, well you run into first amendment issues of freedom of speech with campaign contributions), but the pardons cannot come be overturned because that power is not in the Constitution.

[shiny]

Here are some questions for you? What are the criteria for granting a pardon? Where did you get these criteria, are they in the Constitution? Is the President obligated to follow these criteria?

[shiny]

I think this article explains why the whole pardon conversation is fruitless.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/02/15/pa...bar/index.html

[Gregg]

Ah, shiny, I see where you're posting from. That explains it.

If Bill Clinton says the Marc Rich case was decided "on the merits" we can be sure that the merits were ignored. It hinges on the meaning of "on". Maybe they got a bunch of cartons of Merit cigarettes, which could then be used for other purposes when they were done "deciding".

Hillary said she "knew nothing" about her brother's efforts to win pardons for anyone. If Bill didn't know either, those guys got ripped off. They could have been pardoned without the help of the First Brother-in-law. Well, they got their money back anyway.

[Scott_H]

It works this way. Drug Kingpin gets a pardon because his dad paid for it. Comes out via FBI investigation that those are the facts. Local Sheriff decides that because the pardon came from a bribe that it is null and void. Arrests drug Kingpin and put him back in jail. It goes to court.........two years later USSC says that the framers never intended the pardon power to be for president line his pockets and that it goes against the entire spirit of The Constitution and thus are Unconstitutional.

You can make up other variants.

If Clinton sold pardons, that's a crime. If crime is hard to prove that's no reason not to investigate it. If Hillary traded pardons for votes we can kick her out. The rules of the Senate are different than a court of law.

[Scott_H]

Clinton Pardon Scandal Round Up.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=85000633

[Fred CHOTTIN]

Just a question:
How much Bill Gates will pay in bribes or "support" to friends in Washington to avoid the split of his company?

------------------
Fight against the Dark Force (Microsoft)

[Scott_H]

That's funny 'cause Gates and M$ were a bit politically stoopid. They didn't have a big presence in politics before being the court case.

That said I think there's little to be done about it now. The Judge has ruled. The only way anything can be done about it is to have the Attorney General botch the appeal.