Clinton should never have Pardoned Marc Rich...it was wrong , Wrong WRONG !!!!
- Thread starter Siren
- Start date
Rosebud
Little One
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2000
- Posts
- 3,517
he is wrong once again...
I don't mind that he was getting blown by Monica...damn the girl must have felt powerful.
I just dissagree that he did it in the oval office and on our time...and most of all that he lied under oath....\
Admit it Siren...if someone lied under oath and you could prove it in court...wouldn't you strive to do just that.
I don't mind that he was getting blown by Monica...damn the girl must have felt powerful.
I just dissagree that he did it in the oval office and on our time...and most of all that he lied under oath....\
Admit it Siren...if someone lied under oath and you could prove it in court...wouldn't you strive to do just that.
G
Guest
Guest
if you only knew 10% of what clinton got away with it would curl your hair.
JadedHeart
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2000
- Posts
- 554
Rosebud said:
He should never have been asked that question in the first place.
FBI said:
The same can be said for every man that has ever held the office.
Well...
This pardon does smell especially rank. But there ain't a doggone thing anyone can do about it. Correction--nothing that Congress can do. Congress has no power, zilch, to contradict a Presidential pardon. They can ask Clinton to testify and Clinton can tell them to go suck an egg and ain't nothing Congress can do. All the hearings, all the usual Republican sharks trolling for Clinton's blood, it's just smoke. They can't do anything about it.
The Department of Justice CAN go after a President because of a questionable pardon, but it ain't easy. And if you've noticed, the Bush White House hasn't said a word about the pardon. And why is that? Because Marc Rich's lawyer is a big player in Republican circles, and has close ties to the Bush family. This lawyer says Rich is a great guy, he got screwed by the SEC, it's all about nothing. The fact that the prosecutors didn't get to tell Clinton about this seems rather besides the point, since neither side would listen to a bunch of underpaid, hard-working government lawyers trying to protect the public. They ain't gonna contribute millions in soft money, now are they?
That's the real problem with this whole situation--how cozy everyone is, how money alone buys you influence, and what total contempt these people (from both parties) have for their alleged constituents, and how power trumps justice every time.
This pardon does smell especially rank. But there ain't a doggone thing anyone can do about it. Correction--nothing that Congress can do. Congress has no power, zilch, to contradict a Presidential pardon. They can ask Clinton to testify and Clinton can tell them to go suck an egg and ain't nothing Congress can do. All the hearings, all the usual Republican sharks trolling for Clinton's blood, it's just smoke. They can't do anything about it.
The Department of Justice CAN go after a President because of a questionable pardon, but it ain't easy. And if you've noticed, the Bush White House hasn't said a word about the pardon. And why is that? Because Marc Rich's lawyer is a big player in Republican circles, and has close ties to the Bush family. This lawyer says Rich is a great guy, he got screwed by the SEC, it's all about nothing. The fact that the prosecutors didn't get to tell Clinton about this seems rather besides the point, since neither side would listen to a bunch of underpaid, hard-working government lawyers trying to protect the public. They ain't gonna contribute millions in soft money, now are they?
That's the real problem with this whole situation--how cozy everyone is, how money alone buys you influence, and what total contempt these people (from both parties) have for their alleged constituents, and how power trumps justice every time.
Andra_Jenny
Mentally Divergent
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2000
- Posts
- 2,865
Our founders feared an aristocracy. The American aristocracy is not based so much on family as franchise. The Clinton's want desperately to be part of that aristocracy. They are like white trash trying to move into society. I really think they were trying to buy respect from those who consider them not a lot better than lackies who will be cut loose when they can no longer serve thier master's interests.
Ambrosious
Weaver of Written Worlds
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2000
- Posts
- 6,346
Found at www.boortz.com
Did you know that about 47 of Clinton's last-minute pardons faced absolutely no review by the Justice Department? A record, folks. A grand record. Investigators can't even find files on these pardons!
You heard yesterday on the show that Denise Rich -- the taunt-faced ex-wife of fugitive Marc Rich, refused to answer questions about any role she may have played in talking Bill Clinton into pardoning her ex. We already know that Denise Rich raised over $1.3 million dollars for the Democratic Party and Hillary's Senate campaign. Now the news is coming out that Denise Rich made what is called a "massive donation" to the Clinton Foundation --- his presidential library fund!.
Remember, now. Rich was on the FBI Top Ten most wanted list when Clinton issued the pardon. He is the largest tax thief in the history of the country. He even renounced his U.S. Citizenship!
OK ... so just what questions did Denise Rich avoid? What were the questions she refused to answer --- plead the Fifth?
Among others, we have:
Were all political contributions made by you between 1992 and the present made with your own money?
Were you reimbursed for any political contribution made by you?
Were you ever provided with money by any individual so that you could make a political contribution?
Are you aware of any communications with Marc Rich or his advisers that suggested to you that either you or your children would benefit financially as a consequence of your support of Marc Rich's pardon?
How much money have you given or pledged toward the Clinton library?
Did you ever discuss a presidential pardon with Marc Rich? If so, describe the substance, place and time of such discussions.
Did you ever discuss a pardon for Marc Rich with President Clinton? If so, describe the substance, place and time of such discussions.
Please list all gifts that you have given either to former President Clinton or to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
By pleading the Fifth Amendment in response to these questions, Denise Rich is saying that the answers could lead to a criminal prosecution.
The Rich pardon was bought and paid for, friends. Clinton sold a pardon. He sold his office. He sold his office for personal gain.
The good thing here? With every day, every new story, every new revelation --- more and more Americans are coming to the conclusion that Bill Clinton is corrupt to his very core. He's a liar. He's a crook. And he's probably a brutal rapist.
Did you know that about 47 of Clinton's last-minute pardons faced absolutely no review by the Justice Department? A record, folks. A grand record. Investigators can't even find files on these pardons!
You heard yesterday on the show that Denise Rich -- the taunt-faced ex-wife of fugitive Marc Rich, refused to answer questions about any role she may have played in talking Bill Clinton into pardoning her ex. We already know that Denise Rich raised over $1.3 million dollars for the Democratic Party and Hillary's Senate campaign. Now the news is coming out that Denise Rich made what is called a "massive donation" to the Clinton Foundation --- his presidential library fund!.
Remember, now. Rich was on the FBI Top Ten most wanted list when Clinton issued the pardon. He is the largest tax thief in the history of the country. He even renounced his U.S. Citizenship!
OK ... so just what questions did Denise Rich avoid? What were the questions she refused to answer --- plead the Fifth?
Among others, we have:
Were all political contributions made by you between 1992 and the present made with your own money?
Were you reimbursed for any political contribution made by you?
Were you ever provided with money by any individual so that you could make a political contribution?
Are you aware of any communications with Marc Rich or his advisers that suggested to you that either you or your children would benefit financially as a consequence of your support of Marc Rich's pardon?
How much money have you given or pledged toward the Clinton library?
Did you ever discuss a presidential pardon with Marc Rich? If so, describe the substance, place and time of such discussions.
Did you ever discuss a pardon for Marc Rich with President Clinton? If so, describe the substance, place and time of such discussions.
Please list all gifts that you have given either to former President Clinton or to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
By pleading the Fifth Amendment in response to these questions, Denise Rich is saying that the answers could lead to a criminal prosecution.
The Rich pardon was bought and paid for, friends. Clinton sold a pardon. He sold his office. He sold his office for personal gain.
The good thing here? With every day, every new story, every new revelation --- more and more Americans are coming to the conclusion that Bill Clinton is corrupt to his very core. He's a liar. He's a crook. And he's probably a brutal rapist.
I agree, the Rich pardon sucks. It is almost as bad as when George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger from Iran/Contra charges. Charges, which coincidentally enough, required Bush himself to be on the list of potential witnesses for the criminal trial.
I also don't like the Rostenkowski pardon or a whole bunch of others. But for perspective, of the 18 presidents who served in the 20th Century, Clinton ranks 15th in number of executive pardons granted. FDR was first and foremost and revered Harry Truman probably pardoned the most out and out scoundrels. Unless you give Ford a huge credit for pardoning Nixon.
Having lived long enough to see Richard Nixon lauded as a statesman and Ronald Reagan discussed as a great leader, I suspect that Slick Willie will eventually be forgiven and honored in my lifetime. We get nostalgic for the most stupid things.
I also don't like the Rostenkowski pardon or a whole bunch of others. But for perspective, of the 18 presidents who served in the 20th Century, Clinton ranks 15th in number of executive pardons granted. FDR was first and foremost and revered Harry Truman probably pardoned the most out and out scoundrels. Unless you give Ford a huge credit for pardoning Nixon.
Having lived long enough to see Richard Nixon lauded as a statesman and Ronald Reagan discussed as a great leader, I suspect that Slick Willie will eventually be forgiven and honored in my lifetime. We get nostalgic for the most stupid things.
Clinton's Legacy: A man who can be bought isn't worth the price.
Despite all the rhetoric you want to throw around regarding Iran-Contra, with the million of dollars the Democrats wasted in that witch hunt, they got no legitimate convictions. The only conviction they got (Oliver North) was overturned on the first appeal. The Democrats wasted vast sums persecuting the Reagan administration and got nothing for it beyond their own political satisfaction.
The Clinton investigations yielded numerous convictions which Clinton overturned with pardons wasting more of taxpayer dollars.
The pardons passed out like party favors (albeit expensive ones) are merely the continuation of the Clinton ethic manifest for the past 8 years. If you got enough money and give him enough, you can have anything he has access to.
Siren, if you're not concerned about the sexual harassment which was Willie's trademark behavior, why a concern here? Criminal behavior is criminal behavior, isn't it? Why quibble over a little thing like the magnitude of the crime?
The people who voted for him should be proud of their standard bearer. They got exactly what they voted for and knew what they were voting for when they voted unless they're as stupid as the south Florida voters who can't read a ballot!
You say he should never have been asked the question. Why not? He was testifying in a civil case which resulted from his own misconduct while governor of Arkansas. The question was directly related to that case. It was as relevant as asking OJ about the cut on his hand.
And it seems the impeachment "jury" was of the same caliber as the OJ jury which is how he was exonerated. I love seeing my tax dollars so well spent!
It never ceases to mystify me why people will continue to excuse the criminal behavior of a pig like Clinton. What else could you expect of an asshole who had a party after his impeachment? Do you have no standards? Or are your standards different because he is a hard core collectivist?
The Clinton legacy: probably best defined as the first man to ever infest and infect government who can claim no redeeming qualities whatsoever, no accomplishments on his own and couldn't make a decision without consulting the latest polling data.
Despite all the rhetoric you want to throw around regarding Iran-Contra, with the million of dollars the Democrats wasted in that witch hunt, they got no legitimate convictions. The only conviction they got (Oliver North) was overturned on the first appeal. The Democrats wasted vast sums persecuting the Reagan administration and got nothing for it beyond their own political satisfaction.
The Clinton investigations yielded numerous convictions which Clinton overturned with pardons wasting more of taxpayer dollars.
The pardons passed out like party favors (albeit expensive ones) are merely the continuation of the Clinton ethic manifest for the past 8 years. If you got enough money and give him enough, you can have anything he has access to.
Siren, if you're not concerned about the sexual harassment which was Willie's trademark behavior, why a concern here? Criminal behavior is criminal behavior, isn't it? Why quibble over a little thing like the magnitude of the crime?
The people who voted for him should be proud of their standard bearer. They got exactly what they voted for and knew what they were voting for when they voted unless they're as stupid as the south Florida voters who can't read a ballot!
You say he should never have been asked the question. Why not? He was testifying in a civil case which resulted from his own misconduct while governor of Arkansas. The question was directly related to that case. It was as relevant as asking OJ about the cut on his hand.
And it seems the impeachment "jury" was of the same caliber as the OJ jury which is how he was exonerated. I love seeing my tax dollars so well spent!
It never ceases to mystify me why people will continue to excuse the criminal behavior of a pig like Clinton. What else could you expect of an asshole who had a party after his impeachment? Do you have no standards? Or are your standards different because he is a hard core collectivist?
The Clinton legacy: probably best defined as the first man to ever infest and infect government who can claim no redeeming qualities whatsoever, no accomplishments on his own and couldn't make a decision without consulting the latest polling data.
Andra_Jenny
Mentally Divergent
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2000
- Posts
- 2,865
Uncle Bill
nice diatribe, but lets face facts. If he runs again in 2004 (which I fully expect) he will still get about 45% of the vote and if a strong third candidate gets in place for him again, well, you ain't seen nothin' yet! Once the pig is back, just like O.J., Luttrell (sp), and Allen, he'll know what he can get by with and more importantly, which brass ring he can grab for next!
nice diatribe, but lets face facts. If he runs again in 2004 (which I fully expect) he will still get about 45% of the vote and if a strong third candidate gets in place for him again, well, you ain't seen nothin' yet! Once the pig is back, just like O.J., Luttrell (sp), and Allen, he'll know what he can get by with and more importantly, which brass ring he can grab for next!
CelestialBody
Starlet of India
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2000
- Posts
- 7,904
Re: Uncle Bill
I'm truly in awe of your understanding of what I've posted.Nogard said:
What I find sad is that there were no objections to his perjuring himself, to his suborning perjury by another (in the same civil suit), about his selling the Lincoln bedroom for campaign contributions, to the violations of campaign laws, and to acts which amount to treason. Of course I'm discounting the objections of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that did object and mounted the impeachment effort.
Where was this outrage when he and his minions were persecuting and employing character assassination of those who did provide evidence and make efforts to expose his criminal behaviors and have him held accountable?
Why then this sudden and irrational outrage over his exercise of legitimate authority? He had the Constitutional authority to grant pardons and he did. What's the big deal now? Where was all this outrage when he was committing crimes under color of authority? If crimes he committed were no big deal (everybody was saying it's just about sex, that's his personal and private life), why the outrage over his exercise of legitimate authority?
Doesn't anyone else see the ludicrous and ridiculous dichotomy and hypocrisy?
Thumper
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2000
- Posts
- 4,184
Misconceptions
Sexual Harassment...not proven, ever. Paula Jones case was thrown out because it lacked any merit. She appears to be just a gold digger. She got what she wanted...money. I love it that it wasn't even enough to pay her legal fees.
The Paula Jones allegations and the Monica Lewinski affair are in no way similar. Monica initiated and encouraged the activities. Paula Jones alleges what amounts to sexual imposition. Apples and Oranges.
The special prosecutor was set up to investigate Whitewater how is it they decided to expand their scope of authority to include every allegation they could come up with?
Rapist. If it was rape why didn't she speak up? I have no respect and give no credence to any woman that won't press charges if she is indeed assaulted.
So the lack of convictions means the Republicans can do no wrong? Iran Contra resulted in no convictions simply because George Bush pardoned all the key players before it was fully investigated.
I too find the Marc Rich pardon disgusting...
I am dismayed at mankind's infinite capacity for greed..
Ceo's, politicians, corporate exec's ad infinitum.
Money=power and power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Want to know something else disgusting...
I hear the CEO of one of the "bankrupt" power companies in California makes 21 million a year. How is it that a bankrupt company can afford to pay one man that much money. And obviously a man that can't keep his company solvent. Just curious how many of the rank and file had to forgo a raise this last year or were laid off?
America the Beautiful....make me laugh...
Sexual Harassment...not proven, ever. Paula Jones case was thrown out because it lacked any merit. She appears to be just a gold digger. She got what she wanted...money. I love it that it wasn't even enough to pay her legal fees.
The Paula Jones allegations and the Monica Lewinski affair are in no way similar. Monica initiated and encouraged the activities. Paula Jones alleges what amounts to sexual imposition. Apples and Oranges.
The special prosecutor was set up to investigate Whitewater how is it they decided to expand their scope of authority to include every allegation they could come up with?
Rapist. If it was rape why didn't she speak up? I have no respect and give no credence to any woman that won't press charges if she is indeed assaulted.
So the lack of convictions means the Republicans can do no wrong? Iran Contra resulted in no convictions simply because George Bush pardoned all the key players before it was fully investigated.
I too find the Marc Rich pardon disgusting...
I am dismayed at mankind's infinite capacity for greed..
Ceo's, politicians, corporate exec's ad infinitum.
Money=power and power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Want to know something else disgusting...
I hear the CEO of one of the "bankrupt" power companies in California makes 21 million a year. How is it that a bankrupt company can afford to pay one man that much money. And obviously a man that can't keep his company solvent. Just curious how many of the rank and file had to forgo a raise this last year or were laid off?
America the Beautiful....make me laugh...
Andra_Jenny
Mentally Divergent
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2000
- Posts
- 2,865
I was wrong, shame on me. For some reason i had it in my head that the limitation was on 2 consecutive and not on 2 total terms.
I still do not think anything will really stick and he does plan to have a white house office in 4 years.
Sorry to get facts wrong.
I still do not think anything will really stick and he does plan to have a white house office in 4 years.
Sorry to get facts wrong.
Common Ground?
I'm still baffled by this declaration of common ground. Where is it? The Liberals defended all of his crimes, disregard for law, his total and complete lack of principles, his totally absent morality, his blatant obstruction of justice, and his vicious personal and governmental (IRS, etc.) attacks on those people who presented evidence that demonstrated his guilt.
Now they are outraged by his exercise of a legitimate authority granted by the Constitution. The fact that he abused and sold this authority should be no surprise to anyone with even the most rudimentary perception of reality. And that it now outrages his supporters of the past 8 years is the epitome of hypocrisy on their part.
So why the outrage now? This is what baffles me. That this is not perceived as dichotomy and hypocrisy is mystifying. It's not as if we were dealing with a man of honor and principles and suddenly there's an aberration of behavior in which some outrageous acts are committed. We're dealing with a man whose entire history of political office residence is a record of corruption, dishonesty, and lawlessness.
Why such outrage suddenly now that he is out of office and the damage he can do further is severely limited? After all, he can no longer sell nuclear weapons design information to the Chinese communist government. He can no longer provide them missile guidance technology giving them the capability to target U. S. cities. He's already done that, been paid for it and spent the money.
Why now, when he is out of office and we are no longer subject to his criminal acts and abuses of power as the resident of the White House, is there any outrage at things about which no remedial actions will ever be taken?
It is truly pathetic that I am considered the radical because my attitude toward criminals, toward their general disrespect for the lives and property of others and toward those who praise, defend and seek to exonerate them is consistent and unwavering.
When this outrage occurs at a point in time when it's totally and completely a waste of mental effort, I can see no point to it whatsoever. Beating a dead horse gets you nowhere. The fact that after tolerating and supporting 8 years of similarly consistent and egregious abuses of power, the Liberals are suddenly outraged by this one final act is ridiculous. Were he still in office, I have severe doubts that there would be any such outrage based on recent history where there was no expense spared to protect this thug.
Those who now are riled at me because of my consternation have earned the scorn which they incur by their irrational defense of an indefensible thug.
I'm still baffled by this declaration of common ground. Where is it? The Liberals defended all of his crimes, disregard for law, his total and complete lack of principles, his totally absent morality, his blatant obstruction of justice, and his vicious personal and governmental (IRS, etc.) attacks on those people who presented evidence that demonstrated his guilt.
Now they are outraged by his exercise of a legitimate authority granted by the Constitution. The fact that he abused and sold this authority should be no surprise to anyone with even the most rudimentary perception of reality. And that it now outrages his supporters of the past 8 years is the epitome of hypocrisy on their part.
So why the outrage now? This is what baffles me. That this is not perceived as dichotomy and hypocrisy is mystifying. It's not as if we were dealing with a man of honor and principles and suddenly there's an aberration of behavior in which some outrageous acts are committed. We're dealing with a man whose entire history of political office residence is a record of corruption, dishonesty, and lawlessness.
Why such outrage suddenly now that he is out of office and the damage he can do further is severely limited? After all, he can no longer sell nuclear weapons design information to the Chinese communist government. He can no longer provide them missile guidance technology giving them the capability to target U. S. cities. He's already done that, been paid for it and spent the money.
Why now, when he is out of office and we are no longer subject to his criminal acts and abuses of power as the resident of the White House, is there any outrage at things about which no remedial actions will ever be taken?
It is truly pathetic that I am considered the radical because my attitude toward criminals, toward their general disrespect for the lives and property of others and toward those who praise, defend and seek to exonerate them is consistent and unwavering.
When this outrage occurs at a point in time when it's totally and completely a waste of mental effort, I can see no point to it whatsoever. Beating a dead horse gets you nowhere. The fact that after tolerating and supporting 8 years of similarly consistent and egregious abuses of power, the Liberals are suddenly outraged by this one final act is ridiculous. Were he still in office, I have severe doubts that there would be any such outrage based on recent history where there was no expense spared to protect this thug.
Those who now are riled at me because of my consternation have earned the scorn which they incur by their irrational defense of an indefensible thug.
Re: Uncle Bill. We earned your scorn for agreeing that the pardons were wrong?
I never cease to be amazed at the skills people develop to misconstrue ideas and expressions of principle. It seems to me it would be extremely condescending to try to explain something so painfully simple.Siren said:
