pardon payments to hillary rodham clinton's brother.
February 21, 2001 8:14 PM Subscribe
pardon payments to hillary rodham clinton's brother. there isn't a way to spin this that isn't ugly.
They will all be forgotten a year from now, unless this somehow blows up to Watergate-like proportions. But that leaves plenty of time for Bill and Hillary's lives to get turned upside down. And it could very well alter how those two spend the rest of their lives.
posted by aaron at 10:01 PM on February 21, 2001
posted by aaron at 10:01 PM on February 21, 2001
It's funny, but there are people that are so hateful of Republicans, that they will use the most convoluted logic to explain away this one. Or else, they resort to the old standby of pointing the finger at someone else (usually a Republican). Jesus Christ would catch Hell from these people if he was Jesus H. Christ, R-Heaven. No matter WHAT HAPPENS or how much evidence shows up, it's always dismissed as lies and smokescreens.
Clinton can do anything he wants, cause he is surrounded by those who would cover for him...sad sad thing.
posted by Capn_Stuby at 10:03 PM on February 21, 2001
Clinton can do anything he wants, cause he is surrounded by those who would cover for him...sad sad thing.
posted by Capn_Stuby at 10:03 PM on February 21, 2001
Dave: I think Clinton's pardons go beyond appearances of impropriety. He pardoned a person that was under investigation. He pardoned a person that fled the country to avoid prosecution. He pardoned a drug kingpin. He pardoned his brother. He pardoned several Whitewater figures.
You say that "If one of those attempts (or any action that might be perceived as such an attempt) happens to coincide with an actual granted pardon..." Don't you understand? The former president is not trustworthy, he's an admitted liar who only confesses to his lies once the proof is irrefutable. Maybe all of these pardons are coincidental. But when someone is as bald a liar as he is, people are going to be suspicious and rightly so. Especially when he doesn't give any reasons for his actions (not that he is legally responsible to do so).
posted by bbrown at 10:42 PM on February 21, 2001
You say that "If one of those attempts (or any action that might be perceived as such an attempt) happens to coincide with an actual granted pardon..." Don't you understand? The former president is not trustworthy, he's an admitted liar who only confesses to his lies once the proof is irrefutable. Maybe all of these pardons are coincidental. But when someone is as bald a liar as he is, people are going to be suspicious and rightly so. Especially when he doesn't give any reasons for his actions (not that he is legally responsible to do so).
posted by bbrown at 10:42 PM on February 21, 2001
Not any more he isn't. That's why even Washington Democrats and the media are turning on him: They had to defend all his crazy actions for eight years, even when they didn't want to, for the good of the party. Now they don't have to fear getting in trouble when they too make clear their disgust.
posted by aaron at 10:42 PM on February 21, 2001
posted by aaron at 10:42 PM on February 21, 2001
Where did they come from?
Repubs start flaming Clinton
bible quotes follow.
posted by Neb at 11:28 PM on February 21, 2001
Repubs start flaming Clinton
bible quotes follow.
posted by Neb at 11:28 PM on February 21, 2001
Simply put: do away with a monarch-like right to wave a wand and grant pardons...the "right" is a snare waiting to happen and smacks of feudal lords or Roman rulers giving thumbs up or down. Do the crime serve the time. The Nixon pardon a sure indication of how terrible the system is.
posted by Postroad at 4:48 AM on February 22, 2001
posted by Postroad at 4:48 AM on February 22, 2001
it is funny how the republicans that are blowing this out of proportion forget so quickly the questionable pardons that fellow republicans gave in the past (weinburger, nixon).
mind you, i am not in any way defending what clinton did here, just pointing out the hypocrisy involved with those living in glass houses....
plus, this will all be forgotten in a year.
posted by saralovering at 6:16 AM on February 22, 2001
mind you, i am not in any way defending what clinton did here, just pointing out the hypocrisy involved with those living in glass houses....
plus, this will all be forgotten in a year.
posted by saralovering at 6:16 AM on February 22, 2001
Granted I've never liked the guy nor his wife, however "and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States." Anything else that you feel is outdated or has been abused by Clinton just feel free to edit some said document and hope no one will abuse the power granted to him. Return some respect and dignity to the office. Bush can fulfill that little request. Al Gore surely would not have. Could you see Gore handeling a press conference regarding his former boss' actions? Would this even be news if he were in office? I hope I'm not the only one that hates to see what is happening to the Constitution. Perhaps, the more you look at Clinton and his so called "legacy" the more you will find yourself saying "How did he become President?" Not just those he faced on the Rep. side but how people could support such a person.
posted by brent at 6:29 AM on February 22, 2001
posted by brent at 6:29 AM on February 22, 2001
Two things:
1. The former president is not trustworthy, he's an admitted liar who only confesses to his lies once the proof is irrefutable.
If you think you haven't been lied to by every President in your lifetime--and often about much more serious issues of National Security than this one--you are sadly naive. Kennedy was a liar. Johnson was a liar. Nixon was a big liar. Even Ford and Carter. Reagan had that Clintonesque quality of smiling while he lied, charming you in the process. And Bush (I) and Clinton were liars, too. It's how the game is played, and to think otherwise is foolish.
2. do away with a monarch-like right to wave a wand and grant pardons...
NO NO NO! This is the worst option imaginable. It's bad enough that now the word "impeachment" can now be thrown around so lightly. It's bad enough that it's now acceptable to grill the president about his penis! Now we're going to dismantle the Constitution? This country needs a cooling off period, before we get into some serious trouble.
posted by jpoulos at 7:08 AM on February 22, 2001
1. The former president is not trustworthy, he's an admitted liar who only confesses to his lies once the proof is irrefutable.
If you think you haven't been lied to by every President in your lifetime--and often about much more serious issues of National Security than this one--you are sadly naive. Kennedy was a liar. Johnson was a liar. Nixon was a big liar. Even Ford and Carter. Reagan had that Clintonesque quality of smiling while he lied, charming you in the process. And Bush (I) and Clinton were liars, too. It's how the game is played, and to think otherwise is foolish.
2. do away with a monarch-like right to wave a wand and grant pardons...
NO NO NO! This is the worst option imaginable. It's bad enough that now the word "impeachment" can now be thrown around so lightly. It's bad enough that it's now acceptable to grill the president about his penis! Now we're going to dismantle the Constitution? This country needs a cooling off period, before we get into some serious trouble.
posted by jpoulos at 7:08 AM on February 22, 2001
The difference between the lies of former presidents and the lies of Clinton is the purpose. With few notable exceptions, the lies of prior presidents centered around matters of political (or, occasionally public) interest. They lied in order to obfuscate on policy matters that they were unwilling or unable to explain to the public at large.
Clinton's lies have been all about self-interest. He lies not about policy matters that he cannot explain, but about his own misdeeds that he will not explain. Then he and his supporters act all indignant about the fact that he was even questioned, and throw out all manner of straw men to derail discussion of the issue at hand. We have seen this in every instance and even in this thread it has reared it's ugly head again.
This habit of ignoring, deflecting or attempting to excuse away Clinton's self-serving corruption it is becoming really tiresome.
posted by Dreama at 8:20 AM on February 22, 2001
Clinton's lies have been all about self-interest. He lies not about policy matters that he cannot explain, but about his own misdeeds that he will not explain. Then he and his supporters act all indignant about the fact that he was even questioned, and throw out all manner of straw men to derail discussion of the issue at hand. We have seen this in every instance and even in this thread it has reared it's ugly head again.
This habit of ignoring, deflecting or attempting to excuse away Clinton's self-serving corruption it is becoming really tiresome.
posted by Dreama at 8:20 AM on February 22, 2001
Jpoulos writes:
If you think you haven't been lied to by every President in your lifetime--and often about much more serious issues of National Security than this one--you are sadly naive.
Saralovering writes:
it is funny how the republicans that are blowing this out of proportion forget so quickly the questionable pardons that fellow republicans gave in the past (weinburger, nixon).
You two must be very young because the old "everybody does it" argument really doesn't hold water. Other people have gotten away with murder, should I be allowed to? Other people have gotten away with theft, should I be allowed to?
The fact that pardon power has been abused in the past reflects nothing on the fact that that power is being abused now.
Sheesh.
Oh, and Dreama, ding that.
posted by amanda at 8:38 AM on February 22, 2001
If you think you haven't been lied to by every President in your lifetime--and often about much more serious issues of National Security than this one--you are sadly naive.
Saralovering writes:
it is funny how the republicans that are blowing this out of proportion forget so quickly the questionable pardons that fellow republicans gave in the past (weinburger, nixon).
You two must be very young because the old "everybody does it" argument really doesn't hold water. Other people have gotten away with murder, should I be allowed to? Other people have gotten away with theft, should I be allowed to?
The fact that pardon power has been abused in the past reflects nothing on the fact that that power is being abused now.
Sheesh.
Oh, and Dreama, ding that.
posted by amanda at 8:38 AM on February 22, 2001
I think Clinton's pardons go beyond appearances of impropriety. [examples] .... Don't you understand? The former president is not trustworthy
And I maintain that neither is any elected or appointed official in the federal government. There is so much power, so much at stake, that this kind of thing will always go on, no matter how hard we try to stop it. The best thing we can do is try to restrict the power of the federal government and to diminish the influence it has over everyday goings-on. That's the only way to reduce corruption, impropriety (real or imagined), and dirty deals in the federal government.
As for some of the pardons he issued, the pardon of his half-brother is completely reasonable: Roger Clinton plead guilty on a felony drug charge involving a tiny amount of cocaine in 1984. He's long since served his time and learned his lesson. Bill Clinton probably knows better than most people how his brother is doing. Restoring Roger Clinton's right to vote seems pretty reasonable, seventeen years later.
Onto another topic, I think the power of the President to pardon whomever he wants for whatever reason is very useful and shouldn't be taken away. There are lots of cases in which procedure and process put in place by bureaucrats and the judiciary at the behest of legislators causes harm certain individuals far more than is reasonable, and there should be one person with the power to resolve such cases. It's not always going to work out right, but it's an important balance to the power the courts and the legislature have over details of people's lives.
For Dreama's benefit: If Clinton pardoned Rich or Vignali because of direct or indirect monetary gain, then yeah, that was wrong. What do we do about it? What if he was totally innocent and honest in these cases, and because of his reputation, the mere appearence of impropriety is enough to convict him in your eyes? Are you certain that he did something "wrong" here besides choosing people to pardon that you, or even most people, wouldn't?
posted by daveadams at 8:45 AM on February 22, 2001
And I maintain that neither is any elected or appointed official in the federal government. There is so much power, so much at stake, that this kind of thing will always go on, no matter how hard we try to stop it. The best thing we can do is try to restrict the power of the federal government and to diminish the influence it has over everyday goings-on. That's the only way to reduce corruption, impropriety (real or imagined), and dirty deals in the federal government.
As for some of the pardons he issued, the pardon of his half-brother is completely reasonable: Roger Clinton plead guilty on a felony drug charge involving a tiny amount of cocaine in 1984. He's long since served his time and learned his lesson. Bill Clinton probably knows better than most people how his brother is doing. Restoring Roger Clinton's right to vote seems pretty reasonable, seventeen years later.
Onto another topic, I think the power of the President to pardon whomever he wants for whatever reason is very useful and shouldn't be taken away. There are lots of cases in which procedure and process put in place by bureaucrats and the judiciary at the behest of legislators causes harm certain individuals far more than is reasonable, and there should be one person with the power to resolve such cases. It's not always going to work out right, but it's an important balance to the power the courts and the legislature have over details of people's lives.
For Dreama's benefit: If Clinton pardoned Rich or Vignali because of direct or indirect monetary gain, then yeah, that was wrong. What do we do about it? What if he was totally innocent and honest in these cases, and because of his reputation, the mere appearence of impropriety is enough to convict him in your eyes? Are you certain that he did something "wrong" here besides choosing people to pardon that you, or even most people, wouldn't?
posted by daveadams at 8:45 AM on February 22, 2001
You two must be very young because the old "everybody does it" argument really doesn't hold water. Other people have gotten away with murder, should I be allowed to? Other people have gotten away with theft, should I be allowed to?
Amanda, it's more like, "Your buddy allegedly tortured and killed five first-graders and you said nothing about it, but when my buddy later allegedly tortured and killed five second-graders, you jumped all over me about it, asking how I could justify being friends with this guy."
posted by daveadams at 8:59 AM on February 22, 2001
Amanda, it's more like, "Your buddy allegedly tortured and killed five first-graders and you said nothing about it, but when my buddy later allegedly tortured and killed five second-graders, you jumped all over me about it, asking how I could justify being friends with this guy."
posted by daveadams at 8:59 AM on February 22, 2001
What if he was totally innocent and honest in these cases, and because of his reputation, the mere appearence of impropriety is enough to convict him in your eyes?
Let's unlock the nonsequitur second half of that from the first half. There is the chance that this was indeed all legitimate. I have never said otherwise. It seems highly unlikely, but it is possible.
The "mere appearance" (what a joke) of impropriety is not enough to convict, it is enough to merit further investigation.
Are you certain that he did something "wrong" here besides choosing people to pardon that you, or even most people, wouldn't?
No, which bolsters the need to examine the situation even more. We don't know all of the details. The people who do aren't talking, are talking in circles, or are presenting their cases in one-sided forums that don't allow for the dissection that the matter deserves.
I have not said that Clinton received a quid pro quo for the Rich pardon. I have said that there is enough question to to warrant ferretting out the facts to find the origin of the stench that's clinging to this case like slime on a snail.
posted by Dreama at 10:03 AM on February 22, 2001
Let's unlock the nonsequitur second half of that from the first half. There is the chance that this was indeed all legitimate. I have never said otherwise. It seems highly unlikely, but it is possible.
The "mere appearance" (what a joke) of impropriety is not enough to convict, it is enough to merit further investigation.
Are you certain that he did something "wrong" here besides choosing people to pardon that you, or even most people, wouldn't?
No, which bolsters the need to examine the situation even more. We don't know all of the details. The people who do aren't talking, are talking in circles, or are presenting their cases in one-sided forums that don't allow for the dissection that the matter deserves.
I have not said that Clinton received a quid pro quo for the Rich pardon. I have said that there is enough question to to warrant ferretting out the facts to find the origin of the stench that's clinging to this case like slime on a snail.
posted by Dreama at 10:03 AM on February 22, 2001
i can't believe no one is pointing out the inaccuracy in this statement:
The difference between the lies of former presidents and the lies of Clinton is the purpose. With few notable exceptions, the lies of prior presidents centered around matters of political (or, occasionally public) interest. They lied in order to obfuscate on policy matters that they were unwilling or unable to explain to the public at large.
i see. bush sr. obviously pardoned weinberger to protect the public's interest. bullshit. i'm sorry, but i don't know where you get off saying that the horrible liberals on mefi target conservatives and ignore their own principles to bend over backwards for clinton in light of that amazing piece of coverwork.
so because george bush was "unwilling or unable to explain to the public at large" that he sold arms to iraq, he pardoned the guy that would have testified against him like, two weeks before he would have gone to court? i'd rather my president got money in exchange for a pardon than that he covered his own ass with one.
posted by pikachulolita at 10:40 AM on February 22, 2001
The difference between the lies of former presidents and the lies of Clinton is the purpose. With few notable exceptions, the lies of prior presidents centered around matters of political (or, occasionally public) interest. They lied in order to obfuscate on policy matters that they were unwilling or unable to explain to the public at large.
i see. bush sr. obviously pardoned weinberger to protect the public's interest. bullshit. i'm sorry, but i don't know where you get off saying that the horrible liberals on mefi target conservatives and ignore their own principles to bend over backwards for clinton in light of that amazing piece of coverwork.
so because george bush was "unwilling or unable to explain to the public at large" that he sold arms to iraq, he pardoned the guy that would have testified against him like, two weeks before he would have gone to court? i'd rather my president got money in exchange for a pardon than that he covered his own ass with one.
posted by pikachulolita at 10:40 AM on February 22, 2001
They [past Presidential liars] lied in order to obfuscate on policy matters...Clinton's lies have been all about self-interest.
Right, Clinton's actual lies were mostly about how he used his penis. Do you actually feel that Reagan's lies about secret deals with terrorists, illegal arms sales, and misappropriating enormous sums of money are less reprehensible? My god!
And, Amanda, since we're in the habit of making assumptions about one another, I'll assume that you must be extraordinarily naive to believe that government officials should be 100% honest and forthcoming with the American people all the time.
posted by jpoulos at 12:54 PM on February 22, 2001
Right, Clinton's actual lies were mostly about how he used his penis. Do you actually feel that Reagan's lies about secret deals with terrorists, illegal arms sales, and misappropriating enormous sums of money are less reprehensible? My god!
And, Amanda, since we're in the habit of making assumptions about one another, I'll assume that you must be extraordinarily naive to believe that government officials should be 100% honest and forthcoming with the American people all the time.
posted by jpoulos at 12:54 PM on February 22, 2001
And, Dreama, these endless "investigations" [read: persecutions] of Clinton have done much more harm to the nation and to the Presidency than anything Clinton himself did. These self-righteous conservatives, with their personal vendettas against the Clintons, have been tearing this country apart in the name of justice for nearly 10 years. It's bullshit, pure and simple.
Under any normal circumstances, I'd say that investigating these pardons would be perfectly reasonable, but the Right has used up all its "benefit of the doubt" points. The man is gone, and your buffoon has (illegitimately) taken his place. Let it (and the country) REST!
posted by jpoulos at 1:00 PM on February 22, 2001
Under any normal circumstances, I'd say that investigating these pardons would be perfectly reasonable, but the Right has used up all its "benefit of the doubt" points. The man is gone, and your buffoon has (illegitimately) taken his place. Let it (and the country) REST!
posted by jpoulos at 1:00 PM on February 22, 2001
Gee, Jpoulos, seems like I hit a nerve. However, what does your point about expecting honesty from our government have to do with this discussion? The question is, is selling presidential power -- granted to you by the people -- to the highest bidder and your buddy an abuse of power?
And, blaming the Republicans for what Clinton does is so hilarious. It's like you all think he's *not* the biggest, fattest, least-ethical target on the horizon. He's like a blimp, floating 5 feet off the ground with a big sign that says, "shoot me!" Couldn't he play just a little harder to get?
What any of this has to do with Republican presidents past or present is beyond me.
posted by amanda at 1:37 PM on February 22, 2001
And, blaming the Republicans for what Clinton does is so hilarious. It's like you all think he's *not* the biggest, fattest, least-ethical target on the horizon. He's like a blimp, floating 5 feet off the ground with a big sign that says, "shoot me!" Couldn't he play just a little harder to get?
What any of this has to do with Republican presidents past or present is beyond me.
posted by amanda at 1:37 PM on February 22, 2001
The question is, is selling presidential power -- granted to you by the people -- to the highest bidder and your buddy an abuse of power?
And I think we would all agree that yes, it is. The question should be, did Clinton sell the pardons? I think questioning the accusers is completely within reason. There's no doubt that many of Clinton's accusers (from way back in the 80s, believe me, this Slick Willy stuff was around Arkansas, too) have had less-than-pure motives and have often (quite seriously) accused him of things that he did not do or have misrepresented his actions (often quite similar actions to other past and present government officials) as "abuses of power." Most of the accusations are baseless, and yet the fact that accusations have been brought up is often used as evidence later that perhaps there's something to it this time.
What any of this has to do with Republican presidents past or present is beyond me.
As for what it has to do with past or present Republican presidents: you're a hypocrite if you don't hold Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, et al. to the same standards. George HW Bush made some pretty questionable pardons, too. Where's your outrage?
posted by daveadams at 2:12 PM on February 22, 2001
And I think we would all agree that yes, it is. The question should be, did Clinton sell the pardons? I think questioning the accusers is completely within reason. There's no doubt that many of Clinton's accusers (from way back in the 80s, believe me, this Slick Willy stuff was around Arkansas, too) have had less-than-pure motives and have often (quite seriously) accused him of things that he did not do or have misrepresented his actions (often quite similar actions to other past and present government officials) as "abuses of power." Most of the accusations are baseless, and yet the fact that accusations have been brought up is often used as evidence later that perhaps there's something to it this time.
What any of this has to do with Republican presidents past or present is beyond me.
As for what it has to do with past or present Republican presidents: you're a hypocrite if you don't hold Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, et al. to the same standards. George HW Bush made some pretty questionable pardons, too. Where's your outrage?
posted by daveadams at 2:12 PM on February 22, 2001
Why am I hearing only about Clinton in the news lately? What is Bush getting away with while the country's attention is diverted?
Suddenly, I'm suspicious.
posted by annathea at 3:11 PM on February 22, 2001
Suddenly, I'm suspicious.
posted by annathea at 3:11 PM on February 22, 2001
he pardoned the guy that would have testified against him like, two weeks before he would have gone to court?
Weinberger would not have been able to testify against GHW Bush without implicating himself. Had he not been pardoned, he would've just exercised his 5th Amendment rights and Bush wouldn't have been touched. The pardon was still a matter of protecting policy interests, not personal interests.
Do you actually feel that Reagan's lies. . . are less reprehensible?
Did I say that? Don't put words in my mouth.
The question should be, did Clinton sell the pardons? I think questioning the accusers is completely within reason. There's no doubt that many of Clinton's accusers (from way back in the 80s, believe me, this Slick Willy stuff was around Arkansas, too) have had less-than-pure motives and have often (quite seriously) accused him of things that he did not do or have misrepresented his actions (often quite similar actions to other past and present government officials) as "abuses of power."
Many of the people who are raising the issue of the Rich pardon (like all of the Congressional democrats who are now equally outraged) have nothing to do with Clinton accusers from years past.
And even for those who do, it still begs the question -- exactly how much should be ignored before action is taken? We have someone who we know to be liar, who we know has abused the privileges of his position in the past. There is mounting evidence that yet again, something inappropriate and potentially illegal took place.
How much should we ignore? How much has to be uncovered piecemeal by various sources before Clinton's remaining (dwindling) supporters are willing to stop looking the other way? What level of sleaze does Clinton have to sink down into before his supporters counter every legitimate complaint about him with "But President Blah did blah and blah and blah." and address the issue at hand?
posted by Dreama at 3:26 PM on February 22, 2001
Weinberger would not have been able to testify against GHW Bush without implicating himself. Had he not been pardoned, he would've just exercised his 5th Amendment rights and Bush wouldn't have been touched. The pardon was still a matter of protecting policy interests, not personal interests.
Do you actually feel that Reagan's lies. . . are less reprehensible?
Did I say that? Don't put words in my mouth.
The question should be, did Clinton sell the pardons? I think questioning the accusers is completely within reason. There's no doubt that many of Clinton's accusers (from way back in the 80s, believe me, this Slick Willy stuff was around Arkansas, too) have had less-than-pure motives and have often (quite seriously) accused him of things that he did not do or have misrepresented his actions (often quite similar actions to other past and present government officials) as "abuses of power."
Many of the people who are raising the issue of the Rich pardon (like all of the Congressional democrats who are now equally outraged) have nothing to do with Clinton accusers from years past.
And even for those who do, it still begs the question -- exactly how much should be ignored before action is taken? We have someone who we know to be liar, who we know has abused the privileges of his position in the past. There is mounting evidence that yet again, something inappropriate and potentially illegal took place.
How much should we ignore? How much has to be uncovered piecemeal by various sources before Clinton's remaining (dwindling) supporters are willing to stop looking the other way? What level of sleaze does Clinton have to sink down into before his supporters counter every legitimate complaint about him with "But President Blah did blah and blah and blah." and address the issue at hand?
posted by Dreama at 3:26 PM on February 22, 2001
The question should be, did Clinton sell the pardons?
I think that question is being asked.
As for what it has to do with past or present Republican presidents: you're a hypocrite if you don't hold Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, et al. to the same standards.
I do!
George HW Bush made some pretty questionable pardons, too. Where's your outrage?
Well, that's not the topic of this thread. Why do you think I don't have outrage?
posted by amanda at 3:35 PM on February 22, 2001
I think that question is being asked.
As for what it has to do with past or present Republican presidents: you're a hypocrite if you don't hold Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, et al. to the same standards.
I do!
George HW Bush made some pretty questionable pardons, too. Where's your outrage?
Well, that's not the topic of this thread. Why do you think I don't have outrage?
posted by amanda at 3:35 PM on February 22, 2001
Why am I hearing only about Clinton in the news lately? What is Bush getting away with while the country's attention is diverted?
Well, helicopters piloted by Americans getting paid by the U.S. got in a gunfight with Colombian rebels; people who freaked out about our drug policy vis-a-vis Colombia when it became apparent that we were funding the repressive and bloodthirsty Colombian military (fighting a civil war against repressive and bloodthirsty Marxist rebels) can now freak out again, but nobody else will notice.
And I have a feeling that Bush was behind that Steely Dan victory at the Grammies, but you won't see Dan Rather announcing that, either.
posted by snarkout at 5:26 PM on February 22, 2001
Well, helicopters piloted by Americans getting paid by the U.S. got in a gunfight with Colombian rebels; people who freaked out about our drug policy vis-a-vis Colombia when it became apparent that we were funding the repressive and bloodthirsty Colombian military (fighting a civil war against repressive and bloodthirsty Marxist rebels) can now freak out again, but nobody else will notice.
And I have a feeling that Bush was behind that Steely Dan victory at the Grammies, but you won't see Dan Rather announcing that, either.
posted by snarkout at 5:26 PM on February 22, 2001
I bet Bush was a big Dan fan back in his "white period"
posted by cell divide at 5:37 PM on February 22, 2001
posted by cell divide at 5:37 PM on February 22, 2001
Amanda, do you have anything of substance to say, or just "that's not relevant"?
what does your point about expecting honesty from our government have to do with this discussion?
i was responding to something that bbrown said earlier, if you must know.
posted by jpoulos at 6:11 PM on February 22, 2001
what does your point about expecting honesty from our government have to do with this discussion?
i was responding to something that bbrown said earlier, if you must know.
posted by jpoulos at 6:11 PM on February 22, 2001
If a political argument breaks down into finger pointing and accusations of "You did it too", but both parties agree that the actions are wrong, then the system should be changed. Why not amend the constitution to override a presidential pardon on a two thirds vote of the Senate or House of Representatives? Something does appear to be wrong with the pardon process, of course we are only presented with the highly questionable pardons that appear to be the results of bribes. Hopefully a few middle class or poor people were pardoned also. It would be interesting to see the list of people pardoned and their corresponding net assets or donations/services to their respective parites.
I was really hoping Clinton would pardon all federal prisoners convicted of modest drug offenses. Not just his brother.
posted by AndrewJackson at 9:09 PM on February 22, 2001
I was really hoping Clinton would pardon all federal prisoners convicted of modest drug offenses. Not just his brother.
posted by AndrewJackson at 9:09 PM on February 22, 2001
Amanda, do you have anything of substance to say, or just "that's not relevant"?
Now, how is that relevant?
*snark*snark*
I slay me.
posted by amanda at 10:27 PM on February 22, 2001
Now, how is that relevant?
*snark*snark*
I slay me.
posted by amanda at 10:27 PM on February 22, 2001
« Older Woah. | EBay has had another software glitch Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I don't see how it's possible to avoid any appearance of impropriety in any set of presidential pardons anymore. Given what's at stake in such matters, attempts will often be made to secure pardons by any means possible. If one of those attempts (or any action that might be perceived as such an attempt) happens to coincide with an actual granted pardon...
But such stories will have been forgotten a year from now, so what does it matter?
posted by daveadams at 8:29 PM on February 21, 2001