Presidential Pardons

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: 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.

heh

And what, may I ask, could the Dems POSSIBLY do any differently than Repubs? My voting card says Im registered Dem, and has for 20 years. I tend to vote 60% dem and 40% GOP in everything from local to national elections.

However

There really isnt much difference in the two parties anymore. Sure you have your wackos on both sides, but they are really powerless and insignificant. Our Nov elections prove my point. Dems havent done SH!T since theyve been in office. If anything they've backpeddled on promises they made to get elected.

Just like the GOP does.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: 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.

heh

And what, may I ask, could the Dems POSSIBLY do any differently than Repubs? My voting card says Im registered Dem, and has for 20 years. I tend to vote 60% dem and 40% GOP in everything from local to national elections.

However

There really isnt much difference in the two parties anymore. Sure you have your wackos on both sides, but they are really powerless and insignificant. Our Nov elections prove my point. Dems havent done SH!T since theyve been in office. If anything they've backpeddled on promises they made to get elected.

Just like the GOP does.

Dem politicians are no better or worse than a Republican, they just pander to a different crowd. As for the Dems living up to their promises, too early to tell imo and tbh, they aren't going to get jack or crap past Bush's desk that they promised in the first place so that is kind of moot.

I am simply enjoying Shivs recent influx of keystrokes and trying to figure out what fears he has that is prompting him to be so verbose as of late 🙂

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: JD50
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...

Please explain what happened in New York City then.

Democrat mayors from 1973 to 1994 and the city pretty much went down hill the entire time.
Republican mayor takes over and the city does a complete turn around.
Now Rudy and NYC certainly benefited from the nationwide drop in crime and good economic times of the 90s, but there are many other large American cities who had the same type of conditions but had no where near the recovery or turn around seen in New York. Obviously Rudy, a Republican, did something different than the Democrat mayors in other cities.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: 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.

Afraid to discuss the issue? What is it with you left wingers? Do you never debate the issue at hand? Each of you seems to only go after the poster with your tired old name calling.

Look, if you can't debate the issue then don't threadcrap

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Afraid to discuss the issue? What is it with you left wingers? Do you never debate the issue at hand? Each of you seems to only go after the poster with your tired old name calling.

Look, if you can't debate the issue then don't threadcrap

I odn't think your government has the leeway to remove presidential pardons.

But I do think there's a huge conflict of interest that was perhaps not forseen, in that a president can pardon someone for committing a crime on his behalf. That's a terrible power to allow, but I don't htink you have a real choice in the matter anymore.

 

[Lemon law]

One thing for sure---if enough Presidents abuse the pardon power---pissing off congress and the people---the constitution can be amended to limit the abuse.

 

[Starbuck1975]

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.

Apparently, anyone who disagrees with you are card carrying members of the ilk.

Why would anyone be afraid of a Democrat controlling the White House? Democrats have certainly held the position of President in the past, and when the American people grow tired of one party making empty promises, they elect to power the opposition party...rinse, wash, repeat.

4 or 8 years from now, Democrats won't be able to play the Dubya or NeoCon card, and will have to stand on the merits of their own platform...which, historically speaking, is not enough to extend their majority, or control of the White House, for very long.