Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2008 at 7:17 am
Leave it to our local Rush Limbaugh wannabes, Gary and perspective, to use this an opportunity to bash Clinton, who has been out of office for 8 years. I guess since they could not bash Obama with the pardon issue, they fall back on old reliable Bill Clinton.
Isn't it kind of pathetic that every discussion on Bush/McCain/Palin turns into an opportunity for those two to denigrate democrats. There is nothing as whiny as a republican who feel he has been insulted
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2008 at 8:45 am
"Bush has taken a stingy stand on pardons, granting fewer of them—just 157, and none of them high profile—than any president in modern history" (from the link in a post, above).
If the title of this thread was "Bush sets record for fewist pardons", then I might not have bothered posting. However, considering the source of lead post, I figured it was yet another attempt to try to bash Bush, as usual. Therefore, I decided to hold up my end of the deal.
Whadya think, RS, is there anbody on the horizon that matches Marc Rich?
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2008 at 8:56 am
Gary--the initial post looks pretty benign--so you figured wrong. So your mindset is that if anyone dares to criticize Bush, you need to respond with an attack on Obama/Clinton/any available Democrat? So what is the deal you are talking about? Have you been deputized by Rush Limbaugh as the forum dittohead in charge of protecting Bush/Bashing democrats?
Clinton's pardons and MArk Rich are ancient history. Get over it.We shall see what Bush does in his final hours as president.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2008 at 9:13 am
I don't need to be deputized. I rather enjoy getting under your skin, though.
Let's see, if Bush continues to set the record for the fewist pardons, would you praise him for being relatively clean, or would you criticize him for not being open to influence peddling (like Clinton)?
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Left of Boom,
Actually you have a point. Bush should give (if possible) a pardon to any and all administration officials who might be brought up on charges, after they leave office, especially if federal prosecutors are not involved.
I even think Bill Clinton should be pardoned for raping Juanita Broaddrick.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Clinton bashing alert!!!!
"Juanita Broaddrick is an American former nursing home administrator from Arkansas. She alleged in 1998 that United States President Bill Clinton had raped her two decades earlier. Clinton's attorney denied the allegations on his client's behalf.
The previous year, Broaddrick had filed a sworn affadavit with Paula Jones' lawyers denying that Clinton had ever assaulted her: "During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. ... These allegations are untrue ....""
So, Gary, enlighten us, what does this have to with Bush and his potential pardons? or is this another attempt to "get under my skin"?
Either way you really need to let go of this Clinton obsession--it has completely ruined your social life!!!
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2008 at 1:04 pm
I appreciate your concern about my social life. Those who know me, and socialize with me, probably do not share your concerns, but it is still touching. Thank you.
You should read a little more about Juanita Broaddrick. Like many rape victims, she felt isolated and pressured. She eventually told her story in full. She was raped by Bill Clinton, and she told her close female friends about it at the time. Nevertheless, I think Slick should be pardoned, just in case it comes back to bite him. I mean it's just a rape, right?
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Just out of curiosity, since this never came to trial, how do you know her story is true? Besides the fact that this involved Clinton and he is one of your favorite targets for bashing regardless of the topic under discussion.
So she was lying when she gave the sworn affidavit to Paula Jone's attorneys? Maybe she should be pardoned for her crime also.
Can the president give out pre-emptive pardons (i.e. a pardon in case you are ever convicted of a crime)?
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2008 at 1:43 pm
So, if you do not know if it is true and there has never been a trial, and you are not sure about pre-emptive pardons, why are you going on and on about pardoning Clinton? Besides that it gives yet another opportunity to slam Clinton
Finally, if members of the Bush administration broke the law, shouldn't they be prosecuted?
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Bill Clinton was never indicted for the rape of Juanita Broaddrick. How could it go to criminal trial? If you were raped by him, would you want to go through what Paula Jones had to go through? Rape is about power...Bill had it, and Juanita did not.
The pre-emptive pardon issue is interesting. Ford pardoned Nixon preemptively, but the issue of possible ongoing impeachment proceedings could be seen as making it non-pre-emptive. GWB did not want to issue a pre-emptive pardon to Clinton, even though Orin Hatch wanted him to. Both of them just wanted to move on and allow Slick to continue to enjoy his life. I am not aware that the Supreme Court has weighed in on this issue, are you?
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Exactly, so if there was never an indictment, there was never a trial and never a verdict, so there is nothing to pardon.
Paula Jones got her money, which is all she was really interested in.
I am also not aware of the supreme court addressing the issue, but isn't the presidential pardon one of the things that is considered to be part of presidential privilege? If it is not, I am surprised no one has ever sued over a pardon.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2008 at 2:16 pm Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
A trial does not determine truth. A saw in old westerns was "You can't take the law into your own hands." More appropriately, I would suggest you can't let the law out of your hands. Judges demonstrate every day that the one failing of the Founding Fathers was their assumption that life tenure would insulate judges from temporal passions. Another saw, "You are innocent until proven guilty" is also poppycock. You are guilty the instant you commit a crime, only the punishment is dependent on a guilty finding, and even then we rationalize locking up "Innocent" people until trial. Remember, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the guys who flew into the WTC were never "proved" guilty. So a failure to find BJ guilty of any crime does not weigh much in the end.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I believe Slick beat the statute of limitations in Arkansas, although if he had done it in Alabama, for example, he would still be liable. Given his pattern of behavior, I think it would be a safe thing if GWB would just give him a blanket pardon going forward. We don't need to hear anything more about his sexual deeds, even if he does more of them.
I find it remarkable that so many women, who supported Clinton, decided to trash Paula Jones, Juanita, Jennifer, etc. Now, some of the same women try to trash Sarah Palin. Interesting. Shoe fit, RS?
Maybe GWB could pardon Obama for admitting that he used cocaine...just in case it comes up. Since there was intense interest in the possible use of cocaine by GWB, this should just wipe the slate clean, and we can all just get along. Fair enough?
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Walter, maybe you are not familiar with our justice system-- a trial may not determine the whole truth, but it is the best justice system around (however flawed it may be). And the linchpin of our system is the claim that "You are innocent until proven guilty".
While Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the guys who flew into the WTC were never brought to trial, I think you will find that most everyone can agree on the fact that they committed crimes--of course the other issue is that they all died before could be brought before a court--Clinton is still around--big difference.
So one can also say that you collaborated with the North Koreans during the war and are a traitor---you can not claim innocence and if we brought you to trial the verdict would not matter.
Walter, your convoluted reasoning in attempting to bash Clinton just does not hold water
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Gary--no, Gary, I do not think so. When someone who is supposedly intelligent makes ridiculous statements, then they deserve a reply. However if you and Walter are just making stupid comments in order to annoy people, then you really need to find something useful to do with your time.
It looks like your new MO, when people rebut your comments/statements/lies is to then claim that you are "enjoying getting under their skin". Wahtever gets you your cheap thrills....
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Please explain your statement about how Walter, "collaborated with the North Koreans during the war and are a traitor".
To my knowledge, Walter was a soldier in Korea, and he fought in a seminal battle in that conflict. He captured and/or held two N. Koreans at the point of his gun. Are you saying that, because he did not kill them in the middle of battle, that he collaborated? If so, he has definitely gotten under your skin.
BTW, I do not know Walter, other than what he offers on this forum, and I have never even seen him.
Very pathetic, RS. Hate, without a true focus, is a bad thing. There is no pardon for that. Even GWB, a very compassionate fellow, cannot help you on that one.
Here's the list so far. No one with a high visibility conviction.
It is the sort of thing that happens at the end of all administrations, I suspect the list will grow.
Depsite Gary's record keeping, I don't think it is a contest one way or the other to hit the "least pardons" or "most pardons" metric. I prefer to take a more qualitative view of them, as what sort of convicted people got pardoned, and what does that tell us.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2008 at 6:12 pm
"what sort of convicted people got pardoned"
Marc Rich was never convicted! Why? Because he hid out in his villa in Switzerland, and bought off the police and secret services and Bill Clinton. He was, however, on the FBI most wanted list for quite a while. His was the greatest tax fraud case in the history of this country, to that point.
Are you suggesting that Marc Rich is not a "qualitative" perp?
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2008 at 8:06 pm Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
RS, did you read what I wrote? If you saw in my letter Clinton bashing you must have x-ray vision. I was, from an obviously better understanding of our system of justice, pointing out some logic flaws in earlier statements. If a person is innocent then it is a crime to lock him up. There is an overcomeable presumption of innocent instead of the assumption of guilt in other systems, but as I stated, the actual guilt occurs at the instant of the crime.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 24, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Back to the original topic--yeah, I'd expect a Libbey pardon. I wonder though if there will be fewer pardons than people think--Bush seems to have just sort of abandoned the presidency. There was supposed to be a huge rush of executive orders and there were some, but not as many as expected.
The pardons seemed to be environment offenders, couple of drug dealers and some white-collar crime.
It's weird, Bush is a lamer duck than Reagan was--and Reagan had Alzheimer's.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 26, 2008 at 9:17 am Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
I seriously doubt Bush will pardon Libby, Pollard, Ramos, Compeau, or the 8 Marines charged in the Hamdanian incident. He is far more concerned with the good will of his enemies than with any loyalty to his friends.