Presidential Pardons

[imported_Shivetya]

This is a copy of a DrudgeReport flash, when it becomes a real link I will edit the message.

Former President Clinton requested to testify before House Committee
Mon Mar 26 2007 17:22:23 ET

Washington, D.C. - Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX) today asked Former President Bill Clinton if he would be available to testify at the Democrats' Thursday hearing on presidential pardon authority.

"Former President Clinton is no stranger to controversial pardons, most notably the pardon of Marc Rich on his last day in office," stated Ranking Member Smith. "I can think of no better person to address this issue."

At Thursday's hearing of the Judiciary's Crime Subcommittee entitled, "The Appropriate Use of the Presidential Pardoning Power," Democrats are expected to explore what is and is not the appropriate use of pardons, despite a president's plenary power to issue pardons.

President Clinton granted pardons or commuted the sentences of nearly 500 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose wife donated $450 thousand to the Clinton Library. Other pardons included a person accused of cocaine trafficking and a former Democratic committee chairman indicted on political corruption charges.

The Constitution gives the President the absolute authority to grant clemency, commutation, and remission of fines for offenses. Despite this absolute authority, presidents are not immune from criticism and even congressional attempts to restrict pardon authority.

"Mr. Clinton's exercise of his pardon authority would be of real interest to Members of the Subcommittee," concluded Smith. "I hope he will lend his expertise


Frankly I am really beginning to wonder if the Democrats plan to govern or just plan on investigating Bush and Co. until something sticks? Apparently they have have decided to infer criminal intent (or just bad intent) in anyway they can. I didn't even know they were examining the use of Presidential pardons.

Reading that blurb I quoted above and its apparent that both sides are going to engage in this silliness. They are just going to drag in anyone they can to embarrass the other side. I really am tired of these two parties, neither wants to govern, they just want to get power and they will do anything to get it. They will waste millions of dollars of taxpayer's money just to undermine the other party.

 

[boredhokie]

Given his track record they're probably just hedging for the next big controversy.

 

[Genx87]

Drudge failed to mention the biggest one of all. Susan McDougal, who refused to testify against the Clintons and was tossed in jail until Clinton pardoned her. Gee, conflict of interest much?

I am not a big fan of pardons, really dont understand the purpose of the president having that right.

 

[Jhhnn]

Drudge failed to mention the biggest one of all. Susan McDougal, who refused to testify against the Clintons and was tossed in jail until Clinton pardoned her. Gee, conflict of interest much?

Factually incorrect. Susan Mc Dougal was released by a federal judge prior to Clinton's pardon. She'd already served her time, the pardon didn't set her free...

Maybe the Dems can counter this grandstanding by the Texas Repub with a subpoena to GHWB about his pardons for the Iran-Contra figures...

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Drudge failed to mention the biggest one of all. Susan McDougal, who refused to testify against the Clintons and was tossed in jail until Clinton pardoned her. Gee, conflict of interest much?

Factually incorrect. Susan Mc Dougal was released by a federal judge prior to Clinton's pardon. She'd already served her time, the pardon didn't set her free...

Maybe the Dems can counter this grandstanding by the Texas Repub with a subpoena to GHWB about his pardons for the Iran-Contra figures...

Congress is out of line investigating this, the Constitution expressly gives the President this power. As such no former or current President, nor their staff, should be subject to Congressional investigation on the matter.

In the United States, the pardon power for Federal crimes is granted to the President by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which states that the President:
shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment

 

[Mxylplyx]

Come pardon time, we all get to see who our elected presidents are really working for. I would like to think that there really is no defense for many of Clinton's pardons, but I'm sure people here could come up with several excuses.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Drudge failed to mention the biggest one of all. Susan McDougal, who refused to testify against the Clintons and was tossed in jail until Clinton pardoned her. Gee, conflict of interest much?

Factually incorrect. Susan Mc Dougal was released by a federal judge prior to Clinton's pardon. She'd already served her time, the pardon didn't set her free...

Maybe the Dems can counter this grandstanding by the Texas Repub with a subpoena to GHWB about his pardons for the Iran-Contra figures...

Congress is out of line investigating this, the Constitution expressly gives the President this power. As such no former or current President, nor their staff, should be subject to Congressional investigation on the matter.

In the United States, the pardon power for Federal crimes is granted to the President by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which states that the President:
shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment

Was Nixon not impeached?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Drudge failed to mention the biggest one of all. Susan McDougal, who refused to testify against the Clintons and was tossed in jail until Clinton pardoned her. Gee, conflict of interest much?

Factually incorrect. Susan Mc Dougal was released by a federal judge prior to Clinton's pardon. She'd already served her time, the pardon didn't set her free...

Maybe the Dems can counter this grandstanding by the Texas Repub with a subpoena to GHWB about his pardons for the Iran-Contra figures...

Congress is out of line investigating this, the Constitution expressly gives the President this power. As such no former or current President, nor their staff, should be subject to Congressional investigation on the matter.

In the United States, the pardon power for Federal crimes is granted to the President by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which states that the President:
shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment

Was Nixon not impeached?

I'd assume it means they can't pardon themselves during their own impeachment?

 

[Craig234]

Clinton pardoning Marc Rich got huge, front-page press. Rich was a pardon that looked corrupt; it was not a pardon of a senior administration official who had lied and covered up wrongdoing by the even higher officials.

I really am tired of these two parties, neither wants to govern, they just want to get power and they will do anything to get it.

BS. Will the democrats set up a massive, unprecedented project to coerce corporate America to give its donations only to them and sell out the public by letting those donors write their own laws, and appoint hundreds of their people to the oversight positions in the adminitration letting the fox guard the henhouse?

Saying both sides are the same is not necessarily bi-partisan or accurate.

I tried to think of an example to demonstrate the point where democrats are clearly worse and it'd be unfair to say the two parties are the same, but it's difficult to find one - foreign policy blunders? overspending? borrowing too much? bad social legislation? corruption? republicans are the mess, so forget the example.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Drudge failed to mention the biggest one of all. Susan McDougal, who refused to testify against the Clintons and was tossed in jail until Clinton pardoned her. Gee, conflict of interest much?

Factually incorrect. Susan Mc Dougal was released by a federal judge prior to Clinton's pardon. She'd already served her time, the pardon didn't set her free...

Maybe the Dems can counter this grandstanding by the Texas Repub with a subpoena to GHWB about his pardons for the Iran-Contra figures...

Congress is out of line investigating this, the Constitution expressly gives the President this power. As such no former or current President, nor their staff, should be subject to Congressional investigation on the matter.

In the United States, the pardon power for Federal crimes is granted to the President by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which states that the President:
shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment

Was Nixon not impeached?

No he wasnt.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
This is a copy of a DrudgeReport flash, when it becomes a real link I will edit the message.

Former President Clinton requested to testify before House Committee
Mon Mar 26 2007 17:22:23 ET

Washington, D.C. - Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX) today asked Former President Bill Clinton if he would be available to testify at the Democrats' Thursday hearing on presidential pardon authority.

"Former President Clinton is no stranger to controversial pardons, most notably the pardon of Marc Rich on his last day in office," stated Ranking Member Smith. "I can think of no better person to address this issue."

At Thursday's hearing of the Judiciary's Crime Subcommittee entitled, "The Appropriate Use of the Presidential Pardoning Power," Democrats are expected to explore what is and is not the appropriate use of pardons, despite a president's plenary power to issue pardons.

President Clinton granted pardons or commuted the sentences of nearly 500 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose wife donated $450 thousand to the Clinton Library. Other pardons included a person accused of cocaine trafficking and a former Democratic committee chairman indicted on political corruption charges.

The Constitution gives the President the absolute authority to grant clemency, commutation, and remission of fines for offenses. Despite this absolute authority, presidents are not immune from criticism and even congressional attempts to restrict pardon authority.

"Mr. Clinton's exercise of his pardon authority would be of real interest to Members of the Subcommittee," concluded Smith. "I hope he will lend his expertise


Frankly I am really beginning to wonder if the Democrats plan to govern or just plan on investigating Bush and Co. until something sticks? Apparently they have have decided to infer criminal intent (or just bad intent) in anyway they can. I didn't even know they were examining the use of Presidential pardons.

Reading that blurb I quoted above and its apparent that both sides are going to engage in this silliness. They are just going to drag in anyone they can to embarrass the other side. I really am tired of these two parties, neither wants to govern, they just want to get power and they will do anything to get it. They will waste millions of dollars of taxpayer's money just to undermine the other party.

Yep pretty much. Dont get me wrong. Bush has made some questionable decisions for sure; however, criminal? Nope. Otherwise he WOULD be impeached. Everything else is whining and b1tching.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Drudge failed to mention the biggest one of all. Susan McDougal, who refused to testify against the Clintons and was tossed in jail until Clinton pardoned her. Gee, conflict of interest much?

Factually incorrect. Susan Mc Dougal was released by a federal judge prior to Clinton's pardon. She'd already served her time, the pardon didn't set her free...

Maybe the Dems can counter this grandstanding by the Texas Repub with a subpoena to GHWB about his pardons for the Iran-Contra figures...

Congress is out of line investigating this, the Constitution expressly gives the President this power. As such no former or current President, nor their staff, should be subject to Congressional investigation on the matter.

In the United States, the pardon power for Federal crimes is granted to the President by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which states that the President:
shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment

Was Nixon not impeached?

He resigned. Ford pardoned him after he resigned.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Will the democrats set up a massive, unprecedented project to coerce corporate America to give its donations only to them and sell out the public by letting those donors write their own laws, and appoint hundreds of their people to the oversight positions in the adminitration letting the fox guard the henhouse?

No, they will set up a red tape bureaucracy of government agencies whose sole purpose is to create the great socialist nanny state that will inevitably strip the American people of control over what should be personal decisions.

I tried to think of an example to demonstrate the point where democrats are clearly worse and it'd be unfair to say the two parties are the same, but it's difficult to find one - foreign policy blunders? overspending? borrowing too much? bad social legislation? corruption? republicans are the mess, so forget the example.

Foreign Policy Blunders: Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Bay of Pigs, etc.
Overspending: Including state and city governments, you can find numerous examples of Democrat overspending.
Bad Social Legislation: See above...Detroit, New Orleans and other blue cities are noteable examples.
Corruption: Corruption penetrates both of our political parties to the core...to think otherwise is naive.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Drudge failed to mention the biggest one of all. Susan McDougal, who refused to testify against the Clintons and was tossed in jail until Clinton pardoned her. Gee, conflict of interest much?

Factually incorrect. Susan Mc Dougal was released by a federal judge prior to Clinton's pardon. She'd already served her time, the pardon didn't set her free...

Maybe the Dems can counter this grandstanding by the Texas Repub with a subpoena to GHWB about his pardons for the Iran-Contra figures...

Congress is out of line investigating this, the Constitution expressly gives the President this power. As such no former or current President, nor their staff, should be subject to Congressional investigation on the matter.

In the United States, the pardon power for Federal crimes is granted to the President by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which states that the President:
shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment

Was Nixon not impeached?

He resigned. Ford pardoned him after he resigned.

Specifically, in a travesty of justice I'm opposed to, Ford pardoned him *before he was convicted*, preventing the truth from coming out in a trial.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I tried to think

Obviously you didn't try hard enough. Spouting the same old rhetoric that any apologist Parrot would for either side.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Will the democrats set up a massive, unprecedented project to coerce corporate America to give its donations only to them and sell out the public by letting those donors write their own laws, and appoint hundreds of their people to the oversight positions in the adminitration letting the fox guard the henhouse?

No, they will set up a red tape bureaucracy of government agencies whose sole purpose is to create the great socialist nanny state that will inevitably strip the American people of control over what should be personal decisions.

I tried to think of an example to demonstrate the point where democrats are clearly worse and it'd be unfair to say the two parties are the same, but it's difficult to find one - foreign policy blunders? overspending? borrowing too much? bad social legislation? corruption? republicans are the mess, so forget the example.

Foreign Policy Blunders: Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Bay of Pigs, etc.
Overspending: Including state and city governments, you can find numerous examples of Democrat overspending.
Bad Social Legislation: See above...Detroit, New Orleans and other blue cities are noteable examples.
Corruption: Corruption penetrates both of our political parties to the core...to think otherwise is naive.

If you really want to see how the country would be if Democrats had total control, all you have to do is look at the state of most major inner cities. They sure are doing a bang up job there eh Craig?

Not that Republicans would do much better, but thats the whole point, both parties suck...

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Drudge failed to mention the biggest one of all. Susan McDougal, who refused to testify against the Clintons and was tossed in jail until Clinton pardoned her. Gee, conflict of interest much?

Factually incorrect. Susan Mc Dougal was released by a federal judge prior to Clinton's pardon. She'd already served her time, the pardon didn't set her free...

Maybe the Dems can counter this grandstanding by the Texas Repub with a subpoena to GHWB about his pardons for the Iran-Contra figures...

Congress is out of line investigating this, the Constitution expressly gives the President this power. As such no former or current President, nor their staff, should be subject to Congressional investigation on the matter.

In the United States, the pardon power for Federal crimes is granted to the President by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which states that the President:
shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment

Congress has the power to investigate whatever it wants.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Shivetya
This is a copy of a DrudgeReport flash, when it becomes a real link I will edit the message.

Former President Clinton requested to testify before House Committee
Mon Mar 26 2007 17:22:23 ET

Washington, D.C. - Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX) today asked Former President Bill Clinton if he would be available to testify at the Democrats' Thursday hearing on presidential pardon authority.

"Former President Clinton is no stranger to controversial pardons, most notably the pardon of Marc Rich on his last day in office," stated Ranking Member Smith. "I can think of no better person to address this issue."

At Thursday's hearing of the Judiciary's Crime Subcommittee entitled, "The Appropriate Use of the Presidential Pardoning Power," Democrats are expected to explore what is and is not the appropriate use of pardons, despite a president's plenary power to issue pardons.

President Clinton granted pardons or commuted the sentences of nearly 500 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose wife donated $450 thousand to the Clinton Library. Other pardons included a person accused of cocaine trafficking and a former Democratic committee chairman indicted on political corruption charges.

The Constitution gives the President the absolute authority to grant clemency, commutation, and remission of fines for offenses. Despite this absolute authority, presidents are not immune from criticism and even congressional attempts to restrict pardon authority.

"Mr. Clinton's exercise of his pardon authority would be of real interest to Members of the Subcommittee," concluded Smith. "I hope he will lend his expertise


Frankly I am really beginning to wonder if the Democrats plan to govern or just plan on investigating Bush and Co. until something sticks? Apparently they have have decided to infer criminal intent (or just bad intent) in anyway they can. I didn't even know they were examining the use of Presidential pardons.

Reading that blurb I quoted above and its apparent that both sides are going to engage in this silliness. They are just going to drag in anyone they can to embarrass the other side. I really am tired of these two parties, neither wants to govern, they just want to get power and they will do anything to get it. They will waste millions of dollars of taxpayer's money just to undermine the other party.

Yep pretty much. Dont get me wrong. Bush has made some questionable decisions for sure; however, criminal? Nope. Otherwise he WOULD be impeached. Everything else is whining and b1tching.

How do you know he didn't do anything criminal? Who has investigated him. He sure seems to be very secretive for someone with nothing to hide.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Shivetya
This is a copy of a DrudgeReport flash, when it becomes a real link I will edit the message.

Former President Clinton requested to testify before House Committee
Mon Mar 26 2007 17:22:23 ET

Washington, D.C. - Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX) today asked Former President Bill Clinton if he would be available to testify at the Democrats' Thursday hearing on presidential pardon authority.

"Former President Clinton is no stranger to controversial pardons, most notably the pardon of Marc Rich on his last day in office," stated Ranking Member Smith. "I can think of no better person to address this issue."

At Thursday's hearing of the Judiciary's Crime Subcommittee entitled, "The Appropriate Use of the Presidential Pardoning Power," Democrats are expected to explore what is and is not the appropriate use of pardons, despite a president's plenary power to issue pardons.

President Clinton granted pardons or commuted the sentences of nearly 500 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose wife donated $450 thousand to the Clinton Library. Other pardons included a person accused of cocaine trafficking and a former Democratic committee chairman indicted on political corruption charges.

The Constitution gives the President the absolute authority to grant clemency, commutation, and remission of fines for offenses. Despite this absolute authority, presidents are not immune from criticism and even congressional attempts to restrict pardon authority.

"Mr. Clinton's exercise of his pardon authority would be of real interest to Members of the Subcommittee," concluded Smith. "I hope he will lend his expertise


Frankly I am really beginning to wonder if the Democrats plan to govern or just plan on investigating Bush and Co. until something sticks? Apparently they have have decided to infer criminal intent (or just bad intent) in anyway they can. I didn't even know they were examining the use of Presidential pardons.

Reading that blurb I quoted above and its apparent that both sides are going to engage in this silliness. They are just going to drag in anyone they can to embarrass the other side. I really am tired of these two parties, neither wants to govern, they just want to get power and they will do anything to get it. They will waste millions of dollars of taxpayer's money just to undermine the other party.

Yep pretty much. Dont get me wrong. Bush has made some questionable decisions for sure; however, criminal? Nope. Otherwise he WOULD be impeached. Everything else is whining and b1tching.

How do you know he didn't do anything criminal? Who has investigated him. He sure seems to be very secretive for someone with nothing to hide.

Please. Maybe we can agree to disagree but IMHO it's not good policy for everything (I use that as a general term) that goes on in the white house to aired like laundry. Whether it's a repub or a dem. It's Congress's job to keep things in check. Does he have something to hide? Of course. It's not our business though. As much as we'd like to think differently the American public in general has Z E R O skill in dealing with issues the White House deals with. To think otherwise is arrogant. There is toooo much we DONT know when decisions are made to make an honest opinion. All we can do is speculate.

If you think there's so much wrong why arent you running for office? Hmmm? Maybe because of the skeletons in YOUR closet.

 

[Lemon law]

Other than grandstanding, I see little that Bill Clinton could add to what amounts to a national debate about how congress should handle various present and possible future GWB&co.
scandals. And if congress wanted to be even remotely fair here, they might as well also invite GHB to put his two cents worth in also. And we still have Jimmy Carter in that group of still living ex-Presidents.

And to my knowledge, now issued Presidential pardon has ever been tried in the courts. But I can sure see some ill defined areas regarding Presidential pardons that may well see the insides of a court room if the proper test case comes along. And such a future case could well make it up to the supreme court and then the courts would have some inputs that might be grist for future congressional committees.

But I then ask to follow my nose and wonder where else this grandstanding could be going. At the first thing that springs to mind is a possible bill to declare certain types pf Presidential pardons as unlawful actions. Even assuming it made it past a Presidential veto or the Presidential veto would be overridden. I would then assume the courts would toss the law out as unconstitutional.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Shivetya
This is a copy of a DrudgeReport flash, when it becomes a real link I will edit the message.

Former President Clinton requested to testify before House Committee
Mon Mar 26 2007 17:22:23 ET

Washington, D.C. - Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX) today asked Former President Bill Clinton if he would be available to testify at the Democrats' Thursday hearing on presidential pardon authority.

"Former President Clinton is no stranger to controversial pardons, most notably the pardon of Marc Rich on his last day in office," stated Ranking Member Smith. "I can think of no better person to address this issue."

At Thursday's hearing of the Judiciary's Crime Subcommittee entitled, "The Appropriate Use of the Presidential Pardoning Power," Democrats are expected to explore what is and is not the appropriate use of pardons, despite a president's plenary power to issue pardons.

President Clinton granted pardons or commuted the sentences of nearly 500 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose wife donated $450 thousand to the Clinton Library. Other pardons included a person accused of cocaine trafficking and a former Democratic committee chairman indicted on political corruption charges.

The Constitution gives the President the absolute authority to grant clemency, commutation, and remission of fines for offenses. Despite this absolute authority, presidents are not immune from criticism and even congressional attempts to restrict pardon authority.

"Mr. Clinton's exercise of his pardon authority would be of real interest to Members of the Subcommittee," concluded Smith. "I hope he will lend his expertise


Frankly I am really beginning to wonder if the Democrats plan to govern or just plan on investigating Bush and Co. until something sticks? Apparently they have have decided to infer criminal intent (or just bad intent) in anyway they can. I didn't even know they were examining the use of Presidential pardons.

Reading that blurb I quoted above and its apparent that both sides are going to engage in this silliness. They are just going to drag in anyone they can to embarrass the other side. I really am tired of these two parties, neither wants to govern, they just want to get power and they will do anything to get it. They will waste millions of dollars of taxpayer's money just to undermine the other party.

Yep pretty much. Dont get me wrong. Bush has made some questionable decisions for sure; however, criminal? Nope. Otherwise he WOULD be impeached. Everything else is whining and b1tching.

How do you know he didn't do anything criminal? Who has investigated him. He sure seems to be very secretive for someone with nothing to hide.

Please. Maybe we can agree to disagree but IMHO it's not good policy for everything (I use that as a general term) that goes on in the white house to aired like laundry. Whether it's a repub or a dem. It's Congress's job to keep things in check. Does he have something to hide? Of course. It's not our business though.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant. It is our business. We pay for Bush's decisios and they impact us.

As much as we'd like to think differently the American public in general has Z E R O skill in dealing with issues the White House deals with.

So we are in the same boat as Bush 😀

To think otherwise is arrogant. There is toooo much we DONT know when decisions are made to make an honest opinion. All we can do is speculate.

That is why the Congress needs to get all the information it needs, to make an honest opinion, not less information.

If you think there's so much wrong why arent you running for office? Hmmm? Maybe because of the skeletons in YOUR closet.

I wasn't born in this country, and I have a real job. This is not about skeletons in ones closet either, like it was with Clinton, it is about the way Bush is running the country. His official responsiblities.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Shivetya
This is a copy of a DrudgeReport flash, when it becomes a real link I will edit the message.

Former President Clinton requested to testify before House Committee
Mon Mar 26 2007 17:22:23 ET

Washington, D.C. - Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX) today asked Former President Bill Clinton if he would be available to testify at the Democrats' Thursday hearing on presidential pardon authority.

"Former President Clinton is no stranger to controversial pardons, most notably the pardon of Marc Rich on his last day in office," stated Ranking Member Smith. "I can think of no better person to address this issue."

At Thursday's hearing of the Judiciary's Crime Subcommittee entitled, "The Appropriate Use of the Presidential Pardoning Power," Democrats are expected to explore what is and is not the appropriate use of pardons, despite a president's plenary power to issue pardons.

President Clinton granted pardons or commuted the sentences of nearly 500 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose wife donated $450 thousand to the Clinton Library. Other pardons included a person accused of cocaine trafficking and a former Democratic committee chairman indicted on political corruption charges.

The Constitution gives the President the absolute authority to grant clemency, commutation, and remission of fines for offenses. Despite this absolute authority, presidents are not immune from criticism and even congressional attempts to restrict pardon authority.

"Mr. Clinton's exercise of his pardon authority would be of real interest to Members of the Subcommittee," concluded Smith. "I hope he will lend his expertise


Frankly I am really beginning to wonder if the Democrats plan to govern or just plan on investigating Bush and Co. until something sticks? Apparently they have have decided to infer criminal intent (or just bad intent) in anyway they can. I didn't even know they were examining the use of Presidential pardons.

Reading that blurb I quoted above and its apparent that both sides are going to engage in this silliness. They are just going to drag in anyone they can to embarrass the other side. I really am tired of these two parties, neither wants to govern, they just want to get power and they will do anything to get it. They will waste millions of dollars of taxpayer's money just to undermine the other party.

Yep pretty much. Dont get me wrong. Bush has made some questionable decisions for sure; however, criminal? Nope. Otherwise he WOULD be impeached. Everything else is whining and b1tching.

How do you know he didn't do anything criminal? Who has investigated him. He sure seems to be very secretive for someone with nothing to hide.

Please. Maybe we can agree to disagree but IMHO it's not good policy for everything (I use that as a general term) that goes on in the white house to aired like laundry. Whether it's a repub or a dem. It's Congress's job to keep things in check. Does he have something to hide? Of course. It's not our business though.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant. It is our business. We pay for Bush's decisios and they impact us.

As much as we'd like to think differently the American public in general has Z E R O skill in dealing with issues the White House deals with.

So we are in the same boat as Bush 😀

To think otherwise is arrogant. There is toooo much we DONT know when decisions are made to make an honest opinion. All we can do is speculate.

That is why the Congress needs to get all the information it needs, to make an honest opinion, not less information.

If you think there's so much wrong why arent you running for office? Hmmm? Maybe because of the skeletons in YOUR closet.

I wasn't born in this country, and I have a real job. This is not about skeletons in ones closet either, like it was with Clinton, it is about the way Bush is running the country. His official responsiblities.

[/quote]That is why the Congress needs to get all the information it needs, to make an honest opinion, not less information.

And you are certain they ARENT why?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Shivetya
This is a copy of a DrudgeReport flash, when it becomes a real link I will edit the message.

Former President Clinton requested to testify before House Committee
Mon Mar 26 2007 17:22:23 ET

Washington, D.C. - Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX) today asked Former President Bill Clinton if he would be available to testify at the Democrats' Thursday hearing on presidential pardon authority.

"Former President Clinton is no stranger to controversial pardons, most notably the pardon of Marc Rich on his last day in office," stated Ranking Member Smith. "I can think of no better person to address this issue."

At Thursday's hearing of the Judiciary's Crime Subcommittee entitled, "The Appropriate Use of the Presidential Pardoning Power," Democrats are expected to explore what is and is not the appropriate use of pardons, despite a president's plenary power to issue pardons.

President Clinton granted pardons or commuted the sentences of nearly 500 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose wife donated $450 thousand to the Clinton Library. Other pardons included a person accused of cocaine trafficking and a former Democratic committee chairman indicted on political corruption charges.

The Constitution gives the President the absolute authority to grant clemency, commutation, and remission of fines for offenses. Despite this absolute authority, presidents are not immune from criticism and even congressional attempts to restrict pardon authority.

"Mr. Clinton's exercise of his pardon authority would be of real interest to Members of the Subcommittee," concluded Smith. "I hope he will lend his expertise


Frankly I am really beginning to wonder if the Democrats plan to govern or just plan on investigating Bush and Co. until something sticks? Apparently they have have decided to infer criminal intent (or just bad intent) in anyway they can. I didn't even know they were examining the use of Presidential pardons.

Reading that blurb I quoted above and its apparent that both sides are going to engage in this silliness. They are just going to drag in anyone they can to embarrass the other side. I really am tired of these two parties, neither wants to govern, they just want to get power and they will do anything to get it. They will waste millions of dollars of taxpayer's money just to undermine the other party.

Yep pretty much. Dont get me wrong. Bush has made some questionable decisions for sure; however, criminal? Nope. Otherwise he WOULD be impeached. Everything else is whining and b1tching.

How do you know he didn't do anything criminal? Who has investigated him. He sure seems to be very secretive for someone with nothing to hide.

Please. Maybe we can agree to disagree but IMHO it's not good policy for everything (I use that as a general term) that goes on in the white house to aired like laundry. Whether it's a repub or a dem. It's Congress's job to keep things in check. Does he have something to hide? Of course. It's not our business though.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant. It is our business. We pay for Bush's decisios and they impact us.

As much as we'd like to think differently the American public in general has Z E R O skill in dealing with issues the White House deals with.

So we are in the same boat as Bush 😀

To think otherwise is arrogant. There is toooo much we DONT know when decisions are made to make an honest opinion. All we can do is speculate.

That is why the Congress needs to get all the information it needs, to make an honest opinion, not less information.

If you think there's so much wrong why arent you running for office? Hmmm? Maybe because of the skeletons in YOUR closet.

I wasn't born in this country, and I have a real job. This is not about skeletons in ones closet either, like it was with Clinton, it is about the way Bush is running the country. His official responsiblities.

That is why the Congress needs to get all the information it needs, to make an honest opinion, not less information.

And you are certain they ARENT why?

Because if they were, they wouldn't need to subpoena anyone.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
This is a copy of a DrudgeReport flash, when it becomes a real link I will edit the message.

Former President Clinton requested to testify before House Committee
Mon Mar 26 2007 17:22:23 ET

Washington, D.C. - Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX) today asked Former President Bill Clinton if he would be available to testify at the Democrats' Thursday hearing on presidential pardon authority.

"Former President Clinton is no stranger to controversial pardons, most notably the pardon of Marc Rich on his last day in office," stated Ranking Member Smith. "I can think of no better person to address this issue."

At Thursday's hearing of the Judiciary's Crime Subcommittee entitled, "The Appropriate Use of the Presidential Pardoning Power," Democrats are expected to explore what is and is not the appropriate use of pardons, despite a president's plenary power to issue pardons.

President Clinton granted pardons or commuted the sentences of nearly 500 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose wife donated $450 thousand to the Clinton Library. Other pardons included a person accused of cocaine trafficking and a former Democratic committee chairman indicted on political corruption charges.

The Constitution gives the President the absolute authority to grant clemency, commutation, and remission of fines for offenses. Despite this absolute authority, presidents are not immune from criticism and even congressional attempts to restrict pardon authority.

"Mr. Clinton's exercise of his pardon authority would be of real interest to Members of the Subcommittee," concluded Smith. "I hope he will lend his expertise


Frankly I am really beginning to wonder.....

Frankly, I think you are scared sh!tless that the Dems are going to control the White House in a year and you are just spamming this board with turd OPs as a last fading shriek before you and your ilk are extinct.

 

[piasabird]

Well if a president has an official right to pardon people and that is his right as president, then I guess we can not really argue about that unless you want to change the constitution or the law or whatever. I really think that maybe they are worried that Bush will pardon some of his people, which would be his right. If you pardon people on the last day of your term, then there is not time left to argue about it.