Pardon Me? by Hero

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Pardon Me?

POSTED BY: HERO
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:51
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1161
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:59 AM

Quote:

Former President Clinton requested to testify before House Committee
Mon Mar 26 2007 17:22:23 ET

Washington, D.C. - Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX) today asked Former President Bill Clinton if he would be available to testify at the Democrats' Thursday hearing on presidential pardon authority.

"Former President Clinton is no stranger to controversial pardons, most notably the pardon of Marc Rich on his last day in office," stated Ranking Member Smith. "I can think of no better person to address this issue."

At Thursday's hearing of the Judiciary's Crime Subcommittee entitled, "The Appropriate Use of the Presidential Pardoning Power," Democrats are expected to explore what is and is not the appropriate use of pardons, despite a president's plenary power to issue pardons.

President Clinton granted pardons or commuted the sentences of nearly 500 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose wife donated $450 thousand to the Clinton Library. Other pardons included a person accused of cocaine trafficking and a former Democratic committee chairman indicted on political corruption charges.

The Constitution gives the President the absolute authority to grant clemency, commutation, and remission of fines for offenses. Despite this absolute authority, presidents are not immune from criticism and even congressional attempts to restrict pardon authority.

"Mr. Clinton's exercise of his pardon authority would be of real interest to Members of the Subcommittee," concluded Smith. "I hope he will lend his expertise

So the Democrats want to get a head start on the last big scandal Bush will face...his end of term pardons. They must have forgotten Clinton's pardon for votes/money/sex policy in 2000 and 2001.

So another committee wasting time trying to legislate away Presidential power. Never mind that every other time Congress has tried this it has failed. Ignore the unbroken string of Supreme Court decisions going all the way back to 1817 that say that the President can pardon a person for ANY reason...even political reasons (which in that particular case was really a nice way of saying "for money"). Thats why the Clinto probe went nowhere...there is no crime in pardoning Mark Rich for millions or Jewish kids for a 96% Hillary turnout in a vital Jewish district or anything else.

It simple, the Supreme Court looks at the Constitution and it gives the President the power and their are no "buts" or "ifs" or "consents" required...except that of the person receiving a pardon...a person must accept it for it to be valid (this is in essence an admission of guilt which can have other side effects...like disbarrment).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:43 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Other pardons included a person accused of cocaine trafficking and a former Democratic committee chairman indicted on political corruption charges."

If it doesn't say 'convicted' does that mean they were found not guilty? Or what?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:05 AM

SHINYED

The "cocaine trafficking"...refers to Hillary Clinton's brother...right?

Clinton's pardons were scathing, but he was the President.

Clinton's firing of 92 Fed. Prosecutors was scathing, but he was the President.

Clinton's blunderings of Waco & Ruby Ridge were scathing, but he was the President.

Clinton's pardoning of Marc Rich, the single greatest convicted criminal embezzler of all time...stole the life savings from thousands....he was pardoned 'cause Clinton was the President.

If Madame Torquemada Pelosi wants to keep the Inquistion going on until Election Day, I humbly suggest the Dems pick themselves a new bitch. Americans put Dems in control of Congress to stop the war in Iraq...not spend 100's of millions of tax dollars on witch hunts on minor figures...who said what?...who forgot what?....who lied?...who did what?...It's a big waste of time & money considering the REAL issues we face in these trying times.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:15 AM

CITIZEN

But Clinton...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:34 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

... snicker ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 7:05 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:

Originally posted by ShinyEd:
Americans put Dems in control of Congress to stop the war in Iraq...not spend 100's of millions of tax dollars on witch hunts on minor figures...who said what?...who forgot what?....who lied?...who did what?...It's a big waste of time & money considering the REAL issues we face in these trying times.

Posting to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:13 AM

SOUPCATCHER

Marc Rich's attorney who got him the pardon was I. Lewis Libby, who now needs a pardon as repayment for obstructing the investigation enough to protect the Vice President. I wonder if this works downstream as well. When Libby gets pardoned, we'll need to keep track of his lawyer and see if they'll need a pardon from the next President.

Oh, and Hero, you forgot to include a link for your article. Here it is: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm Does Drudge rock your world the way he rocks Mark Halperin's?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:18 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Marc Rich's attorney who got him the pardon was I. Lewis Libby ..."

Maybe this was a case of 'pay it forward' ? You know, I'll scratch your back so someone will scratch mine in the future?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:27 AM

SOUPCATCHER

"Maybe this was a case of 'pay it forward' ? You know, I'll scratch your back so someone will scratch mine in the future?"

I'd be interested to know how much money Marc Rich contribued to Libby's legal defense fund (the one that was being operated by Tucker Carlson's father and Fred Thompson, among others). How sucky would it be for Libby if Rich didn't contribute a dime?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:35 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

Oh, and Hero, you forgot to include a link for your article.

Yeah, but I quoted the whole fracking article...cause it was short.

This pardon business is nothing new. Every couple of decades (since the Civil War anyway) Congress tries to restrict the President's pardon powers, then the Supreme Court comes along and says, "nope, he can pardon anyone who will accept it" and then we forget about it for a while. Just a waist of time and a way to go after Bush before he does anything questionable (with his pardons) while ignoring the terrible example set by Clinton.

Its another silly non-issue like the US Attorneys.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:42 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Its another silly non-issue ..."

UUHHHhhh,

Then why'd you start a thread on the topic? Just wondering.

Oh, and you never did clear up those confusing points in the article - when they talked about 'accused' and 'indicted' but failed to say 'convicted'. I was wondering how that went, historically speaking.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:09 AM

SOUPCATCHER

"Yeah, but I quoted the whole fracking article...cause it was short."

The link provides the detail of where the information came from. Drudge provides an important service of getting Republican Party talking points directly into the mainstream media. He's kind of like a cutout. I treat information on his site the same way I do the e-mails I receive from the GOP: "Okay. So this is how the Republican Party thinks the topic should be presented so as to paint the Republican Party in the best possible light."

"Its another silly non-issue like the US Attorneys."

Because pressuring US Attorneys to stop investigating Republicans (when the evidence points to corruption) or to start investigating Democrats (when there is no evidence of wrongdoing) and then firing them when they won't play ball and then lying to Congress on why they were fired is a silly non-issue. That's your story and you're sticking to it. Got it. Although it sure doesn't look good that someone is trying to plead the fifth rather than testify to Congress. Smells like someone thinks they are guilty of something.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:49 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Consider the following:

A person can commit a crime, a felony let's say and get arrested. Then he is tried by a jury and convicted of the crime. Even an Appeals Court can uphold his conviction.

Then...a few months or years later the POTUS can just step in ( yes, I know there's a so-called "vetting" process with the AG )and pardon that convicted criminal.. SO..in reality the President IS ABOVE the Law?....State Governors too...right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:47 PM

SERGEANTX

accidental post

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 4:21 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
a few months or years later the POTUS can just step in ( yes, I know there's a so-called "vetting" process with the AG )and pardon that convicted criminal

The President can only pardon Federal crimes. State governors pardon powers are limited by their State Constitutions. Some have unlimited power, others, like Texas, have almost zero power.

Lets see, "a well timed offer of pardon..." come on, its in the Federalist Papers. Its a traditional soveriegn power and as such there was debate over who should be given the power. Adams won the argument.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:51 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Hero...thanks for addressing my post with your considerable knowledge of the subject. I really didn't know the scope of the pardon power before.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE