Yes, it is the same as bribery, but the law (Constituton) does not restrict the President's power to pardon except in cases of impeachment. Clinton could go on TV or write a book bragging about all the money he made and the fun he had selling bribes; there is no prohibition against the exercise of that power, except in cases of impeachment. BTW, he was impeached and therefore could not pardon himself or accept a pardon from anyone else if he had been convicted.
That's why I contend that a Constitutional Amendment is the only recourse available against a FUTURE abuse like Clinton's. He has committed no crime in law. As long as the monies received directly or indirectly are completely and accurately accounted for and any taxes that might possibly be due are paid (ala the Al Capone case). If these conditions are met, then he has gotten away with it.
Unfortunately for the rest of America, that is the story of the Clintons' careers: don't say anything, deny any knowledge vehemently, lie if it's found out and destroy the evidence (shredding, threats, murder, etc), then claim that there's no evidence to prove anything. And lastly, if all else fails, blame someone else (Hugh Rodham, Bush, Sr., Reagan...).
The only good thing that has come out of the whole Clinton debacle is that we are so lucky that those two found each other, else we would have two families like them to contend with. And we as a nation may possibly try to screen out the sociopaths and psychopaths from elected office before they get in and do their damage.
Chas |
