English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I roared with laughter this AM when I saw her pontificating last night about how Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence was an example of "cronyism". Her audience lapped it up like dogs licking anti-freeze off the driveway, even though her husband Bill was squatting on the stage a few feet away.

You kiddies who are too young to remember should know that her husband issued no less than 140 full pardons on his final day in office, including one to his own half brother Roger Clinton and one to a money launderer who paid Hillary's brother Hugh Rodham $200,000 to represent him.

2007-07-03 02:06:25 · 16 answers · asked by Evita Rodham Clinton 5 in Politics & Government Politics

EDIT: All the gory details of Pardongate are nicely summarized at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy

2007-07-03 02:13:56 · update #1

16 answers

It's sad but true. As you say most of the kiddies of my generation have no idea what the word "cronyism" means, it just goes WHOOOOSH right over their heads. The only thing Bush did for Libby was just excuse him from having to report to jail he still has the conviction on his record. Unlike Marc Rich, Bill Clinton's most notorious last day pardonee who got the slate wiped clean in return for turning his wife over to President Bubba for a night of "intense personal lobbying" on behalf of her poor husband who had to flee to another country.

2007-07-03 05:53:10 · answer #1 · answered by The Father of All Neocons 4 · 0 0

No, she may talk about it if she so desires.

Pardons granted by Presidents are a fact of life as that power is given to them by the Constitution. It may seem wrong, but it is perfectly legal.

Since he has nothing to lose by doing so, Bush could pardon the big-wigs from Enron if he wanted to.

Someone else mentioned Bush's pardon not following DOJ standards in a different question. Bush is the CEO of the DOJ, so he can change its guidelines at his discretion.

2007-07-03 02:29:18 · answer #2 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 0 0

the entire international, alongside with the human beings who stay there, is conscious those islands using fact the Falklands however the Argentinians call them The Malvinas. the human beings who stay there are British and their custom is British. while the Argentinians invaded in the process the 1980's the infantrymen have been advised that they've been freeing the region for their fellow Argentinians. yet while they have been given there they stumbled on the sparse inhabitants speaking British English and listening to the BBC. there's no reason of Argentina to declare possession of those islands. So, sure, Hillary could desire to easily close up. yet, whats up, it distracts a minimum of a splash from the anger over the passage of the law to greater effective f***up the US healthcare equipment to pave the way for the cherished "single payer" scheme of the Democrats, does not it?

2016-10-19 01:53:34 · answer #3 · answered by christler 4 · 0 0

If either of the Clinton's have ANYTHING to say about Libby's pardon, then their picture should go in the dictionary next to the word "hypocrite". By the way..that lying to a grand jury thing...didn't one of them do something like that? Yes, I believe one of them did....
And in my book, Bill Clinton is a coward and disgrace to the office he held. I was around during the Nixon administration, and the Clintons are just as corrupt.

2007-07-03 02:17:01 · answer #4 · answered by Graham 5 · 3 1

I'm sick of liberals raping the constitution, they think freedom of speech only applies to them Hillary has the right to open her mouth sure, but not when most of what she says are insults and close to slander. It's just a thing called integrity and not being a hyporcrite is why she should keep her mouth shut on this occasion. Watch C-Span the first thing the Dems on the house and in Congress do is start with an insult.

2007-07-03 02:34:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

I don't think that the people who Bill Clinton pardoned had blatantly outed a CIA agent putting her and her family's lives in danger, and for what, because her husband was telling the truth about the need for an invasion of Iraq. I don't think the two are equal by any means. Just you wait for the Bush list of pardons when he leaves office.

2007-07-03 02:21:36 · answer #6 · answered by World Peace Now 3 · 0 4

She doesn't have to keep her mouth shut about it (free country and we have freedom of speech) but it sure makes her look like a hypocrite. Bush shouldn't have commuted Scooter's sentence, and Clinton shouldn't have pardoned all the people he did.

2007-07-03 02:15:08 · answer #7 · answered by Dinah Steeler 3 · 0 2

You are sure to attract the loony Liberals with this one. Nonetheless, I applaud you for making the statement and asking the question. Yes, she should keep her mouth shut. Then again, perhaps her rants and pandering to the left will agitate the Conservative base enough to cause them more harm than good.

2007-07-03 02:28:14 · answer #8 · answered by The Real America 4 · 1 1

So - Bush is wrong to pardon Libby because he is just as bad as Bill Clinton.
Thanks for clarifying that.

2007-07-03 02:10:23 · answer #9 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 2 1

I roar every time she opens her mouth. Those two are some of the most corrupt people on earth and have no room to point fingers or talk.

2007-07-03 02:10:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4 2

fedest.com, questions and answers