SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : DEMOCRATIC NIGHTMARE - 2008 CANDIDATES -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: PROLIFE who wrote (593)7/8/2007 5:08:11 PM
From: Lazarus_LongRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 654
 
He maintains (are you ready for this) that in a deal brokered between Republican and Democrat leadership after the closest presidential election in history in 2000, Democrats would agree not to contest the election in return for George Bush giving the Clintons immunity.
But the Dems DID contest the results!!! Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com

Seem far-fetched? Didn’t Bill Clinton make an immunity deal the day before Bush’s inauguration on January 20, 2001 in which he would not have to face any indictments for false statements about the Lewinski scandal?
Source? The ones I find cite Paul. Why would he be the only source of this knowledge? How did he come by it?

Does anyone truly believe that was the only thing he had to worry about? Why NOT try to have an immunity blanket thrown over both he and Hillary that would cover everything? The election results (or lack thereof) DID seem to provide a little leverage there. One must admit that the prospect of not having to face drawn out litigation over election results would have been appealing to Bush 43.
Doesn't that whole argument fall apart because the Dems did in fact challenge the results?

In his mind, he could have been protecting the integrity of the office in two ways. America could get on with its business and a former president could remain untarnished (blue dress notwithstanding). Clinton was issuing pardons in his final hours with near reckless abandon and at breakneck speed. Almost as if he had no fear of accountability.
He didn't. Mostly.

Constitution of the United States of America
Article II.
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. He needed no further justification.

Im the case of Libby, Bush should have cited that and told the press and Congress to shut up or amend the Constitution and left it at that.

In his February 18, 2001 column that appeared in the New York Times, Bill Clinton wrote, “The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is granted "[t]o the [president]..., and it is granted without limit".
That's crrect, except for impeachments.

That sounds like someone who fears no accountability. Among those pardoned were his former Whitewater business partner, newspaper heiress Patty Hearst, and his brother Roger, on a drug conviction. Why else would the highest ranking government officials turn a blind eye to videotape evidence that points to fraud being committed by someone who is today the leading presidential candidate for the Democrat party and current Senator when it was made available to them? Anyone remember the name, Marc Rich? Just this week, Hillary was quoted as saying this about the commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence by George Bush, "This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."
So Hillary's a fool? What's new?

Are we, as Republicans, to passively accept exactly what we condemned a Democrat for? Is a crime not a crime when committed by a Republican but is when committed by a Dem?

Does anyone know what hypocrisy is?

If this is to be considered objectionable, Congress and the states hold the solution: amend the Constitution.

As to the rest of that, only one thing is lacking: proof.

We don't need to make things up or stretch the truth about Billary; the truth is quite bad enough.