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

"I believe that presidential pardon authority is available to any president, and almost all presidents have exercised it," Clinton said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "This (the Libby decision) was clearly an effort to protect the White House. ... There isn't any doubt now, what we know is that Libby was carrying out the implicit or explicit wishes of the vice president, or maybe the president as well, in the further effort to stifle dissent."

Does she she can convince us that the Clinton's pardons were done in compassion for misprosecuted cases--and not done to protect their sorry @$$es or for Hillary's political future?

2007-07-03 08:24:04 · 27 answers · asked by Cherie 6 in Politics & Government Politics

27 answers

And Marc Rich's pardon was clearly an effort to keep hillary from being indicted.

She is a common criminal involved in a continuing criminal enterprise, why are the RICO statutes not being applied to her and her sleazy husband?

2007-07-03 09:30:52 · answer #1 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 4 2

I don't think she's going to try and convince anyone of anything regarding her husband's pardons. It's common practice - for instance Bush 41 pardoned 4 felons involved with Iran-Contra. She couldn't avoid commenting on it, so she said what we all know is the truth anyway. I suspect she will leave her comments at that in the future. It's a trap I doubt she's stupid enough to fall into, as far as defending her husband's pardons. Republicans complained mightily about Clinton's pardons, and Democrats will complain about this one. What's the difference? No matter what President pardons which criminals the opposite party will complain until their faces turn blue.

EDIT: By the way, what pedophiles did Bill Clinton pardon? That's news to me.

2007-07-03 08:51:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

You should really do more research before spouting off about the types of 'criminals' that Clinton pardoned as opposed to the same type of 'criminals' that Bush has also pardoned.

I find it very funny that the one person that the Right Wing party likes to point to is Marc Rich...simply for this fact alone:


Marc Rich, a fugitive, was pardoned of tax evasion, after clemency pleas from Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, among many other international luminaries. He was required to pay a $100 million dollar fine and waive any use of the pardon as a defense against any future civil charges that were filed against him in the same case. Critics complained that Denise Rich, his former wife, had made substantial donations to the Clinton library and to Mrs. Clinton's senate campaign. Emails uncovered during the course of the investigation revealed that her final donation was provided a year before Scooter Libby requested that she approach Clinton for a pardon. According to Paul Volcker's independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels of oil.[14]


Is it not ironic that Scooter Libby was behind the scenes?

2007-07-09 06:16:33 · answer #3 · answered by Becca 4 · 2 1

Uh nope her statements don't negate them---simply slithers by them.
What upsets me about the Libby thing is, I believe he took the fall for VP Cheney. He is a dangerous man and he wanted Saddam since papa Bush was in office.
I think he is the puppet master. I used to like him till he advocated going into Iraq to get Saddam, Colin Powell was against it and they used him (love him) and I began to watch Cheney closely. He scares me because of how much perceived influence he has over W and so many others.
If Hilary wins the presidency I will never vote again and I will move to Costa Rica.
I hate politics and politicians, am a registered independent and sadly, I usually vote for the lesser of 2 evils.
p.s. we got Saddam a long time ago and we are still there----I was a teenager during the Nam war and I hate war. I deceived myself into thinking we would never go to war again--oops.
It's going to be ugly trying to get all our troops out of there when we do. Why can't we all just co-exist? Very sad.

2007-07-11 03:03:00 · answer #4 · answered by a_redhead1979 3 · 0 0

I think the biggest concern is not her future but if she views this pardon as a way to protect the White House what did the Marc Rich and his wife Denise know that he had to be pardoned. And what did the drug dealer clients of Hugh and Tony Rodham know about Bill and Hillary through their friendship with the brothers of the First Lady.

2007-07-03 08:38:50 · answer #5 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 3 1

No...it's just an overreaction by some because they think their actions will affect society as a whole. Therefore, making the drug dealers more of a threat to the rest of us.

2016-05-17 09:32:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Hillary is a two-faced liar! It was alright for her husband to pardon people, but it's not alright for Bush to do so! She doesn't know her @ss from a hole in the ground. If she some how becomes president, she would pardon the terrorists who did 9/11!

2007-07-03 08:38:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Democrats are trying to make the case that Libby shouldn't be pardoned because he's got information that leads to the V.P and President Bush. They must have forgotten about Susan McDougal.

"Susan McDougal, who had already completed her sentence, was pardoned for her role in the Whitewater scandal; McDougal had served 18 months on contempt charges for refusing to testify about Clinton's role."

McDougal spent 18 months in jail rather than drop a dime on the Clintons. Amazing.

Anyway, the president used the pardon as it was intended:To pardon those people who get caught up in political fire fights. I'm against presidents issuing pardons for crimes involving drugs, fraud, etc. The Clintons made a mockery of the pardon system.

2007-07-03 08:37:46 · answer #8 · answered by Matt 5 · 3 3

Bringing up the past is useless, let's talk about Americas survival, Americas future depends on you voting for Ron Paul for President in 2008. If you don't vote for him, neither you nor your loved ones will be free. So let's talk reality.

2007-07-10 20:26:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

We all know that the Clinton's are immune to criticism, bad press, lies and illegal activities. It's a matter of what "is" is.
Think of it this way, if the morons elect her, maybe we'll get back the paintings and furniture that left with them before W.B.

2007-07-09 14:25:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers