Nobody that Clinton pardoned was covering up for any Clinton administration misdeeds.
HUUUGE difference.
2007-07-05 15:33:23 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes, that is a difference, but there are other differences.
Clinton clearly "sold" pardons for contributions.
Clinton pardoned convicted terrorists after they only served a fraction of their sentence.
And drug dealers & child molestors.
And Clinton DID pardon people connected to his Whitewater scandal!
I also would like to note that you referred to "misdeeds" rather than "crimes" which is an important distinctions because no crime was actually committed in the "outing" of Valarie Plane. That's not to say it was OK, just not criminal.
I am NOT defending Bush. (I think it is appauling he lets those border guards rot in jail but pardons his buddy just to save him the inconvieneince of 30 months in jail!) I am saying it is hypocritical to be bashing Bush & saying Clinton's pardons were fine.
Both abused their powers!
2007-07-09 10:37:03 · answer #1 · answered by Smart Kat 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You nailed it. This is the big difference Bush commuted and maybe a pardon for someone that commited a crime for him. Thats all the difference.
I can't believe how brazen Bush has become in the last year or so. It's like he is just stomping the constitution in the dirt.
2007-07-06 07:56:22 · answer #2 · answered by Enigma 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It doesn't compare very well at all. Bush commuted the sentence of someone that was convicted of obstructing an investigation into whether Bush or someone in his administration committed a crime.
So, in effect, Bush obstructed justice himself.
2007-07-07 01:09:37 · answer #3 · answered by Kerry R 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋