Author Topic: Should President Bush Pardon... (Read 1783 times)

john9001 · « **Reply #60 on:** March 07, 2007, 12:32:57 PM »

Marc Rich S. D. N. Y. 1984 superseding indictment Wire fraud, mail fraud, racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, criminal forfeiture, income tax evasion, and trading with Iran in violation of trade embargo, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1341, 1962(c), 1962(d), 1963, and 2; 26 U.S.C. § 7201, 50 U.S.C. § 1705, and 31 C.F.R. §§ 535.206(a)(4), 535.208 and 535.701

Denholm · « **Reply #61 on:** March 07, 2007, 12:47:33 PM »

Proof that President Clinton was correct when he stated, "I made a few mistakes during my presidential term."

Kieran · « **Reply #62 on:** March 07, 2007, 04:16:06 PM »

I keep thinking of Sandy Berger in all of this...

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #63 on:** March 07, 2007, 04:32:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
I keep thinking of Sandy Berger in all of this...

Why would Bush pardon Sandy Berger?

bj229r · « **Reply #64 on:** March 07, 2007, 04:56:35 PM »

Sandy Berger obviously lied to investigators, (and since all this has blown over even MORE stuff has come out) but that's not the same as lying to a grand jury

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #65 on:** March 07, 2007, 05:03:37 PM »

You do remember what Sandy Berger did, right?

bj229r · « **Reply #66 on:** March 07, 2007, 05:45:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
You do remember what Sandy Berger did, right?

Oh yah. And absolutely NOTHING happened to him. NOW it looks like he pilfered and destroyed some non-duplicated originals

Kieran · « **Reply #67 on:** March 07, 2007, 08:57:07 PM »

Let me say first Libby needs to go to jail. He broke the law and that's that.

WRT Sandy Berger, doubly so. Sandy Berger destroyed archived material belonging to the federal government for the purpose of erasing Clinton's (and perhaps his own) responsibility for 9/11. In addition, he was aiding the Kerry camp during the '04 election. Sounds like a two-fer to me.

So, if conventional wisdom holds, at least three crimes occurred:

1. He stole and destroyed evidence for any possible future investigation
2. He lied to authorities when questioned about the crime
3. His "information gathering" aided Kerry in an illegal attempt to sway a national election (shades of Watergate!)

As I recall the worst he got was a vicious finger-wagging in his face and a stern "Don't do that anymore, young man!" Yes, he was fined $50,000, but I doubt a penny of that came out of his pocket.

I'm sure someone will straighten me out here directly. After all, if he had been guilty of half of this stuff he would have gone to prison... right?

Shuckins · « **Reply #68 on:** March 07, 2007, 10:05:39 PM »

Take note of the number of people pardoned by Clinton who were convicted of distributing or attempting to distribute cocaine and other hard drugs.

Note also that some of those pardoned for those crimes had ties to the Eastern District of Arkansas. Have you ever heard of the town of Marianna? Look it up. During the eighties and nineties a very large percentage of the illegal drugs moving into the eastern half of the U.S. traveled through that town in eastern Arkansas.

Rumors about Clinton's ties to organized crime have been circulating since the first day he entered the political arena. There's more to the man than an engaging smile and an overactive libido. A lot of the man's friends and associates have fallen on their swords over the years to protect him.

The large number of unsavory characters and hard-core criminals that he gave midnight pardons to ought to raise the eyebrows of any objective observer. It absolutely reeks of corruption.

One of my associate instructors at the unit where I work attended Ouachita Baptist University in the 1970s and one of his instructors was James McDougal. He was friends with both James and Susan and was on a field trip to Washington, D.C. with them when James proposed to her. He knew both of them quite well.

This friend of mine is an ex-serviceman, Gulf War vet, and no fan of George Bush. When discussing his friendship with the McDougals one day I asked him if Susan was banging Clinton and whether or not he thought she took the fall for him in the Whitewater scandal.

He said "Absolutely."

lukster · « **Reply #69 on:** March 07, 2007, 10:19:26 PM »

Democrats have proven many times over that they care about legality, propriety, or morality only when they can attack republicans. When it comes to their own all misdeeds are forgiven, winked at, or even praised.

Kieran · « **Reply #70 on:** March 08, 2007, 06:19:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Democrats have proven many times over that they care about legality, propriety, or morality only when they can attack republicans. When it comes to their own all misdeeds are forgiven, winked at, or even praised.

Same for Republicans. Open your eyes.

Gunthr · « **Reply #71 on:** March 08, 2007, 07:20:22 AM »

If Libby lied under oath, I agree that he should be convicted, and if I were a juror who saw evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed purjury, I'd vote guilty.

However, I personally would have no problem with Bush granting Libby a pardon because the whole thing stinks of a political fishing expedition with no underlying crime, which the prosecutor appears to have been well aware.

I'm pretty tired of the hoardes of lawyers in Washington using the Justice system as a political club - both Democrats and Republicans. Ann Coulter's recent commentary on the subject illuminates the problem from her standpoint:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20070307/cm_ucac/shootingelephantsinabarrel

lukster · « **Reply #72 on:** March 08, 2007, 07:26:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Same for Republicans. Open your eyes.

Not the same. Nixon resigned, what about Clinton? More recently other republicans have resigned in disgrace while democrats guilty of far worse remain in office with no pressure to resign.