Posted on 08/28/2002 3:23:53 PM PDT by Mark Felton
The Bush administration is moving to quash any public airing of such scandalous pardons as that of fugitive Marc Rich, and the sleazy activities of first brother Roger Clinton in trying to arrange pardons-for-a-fee for convicted felons.
And a critic alleges that it is a result of "a tacit agreement between the Clintonites and the Bushites not to probe too deeply into each others affairs.?
The White House warns that documents dealing with the last-minute pardons issued by the former president should not be revealed to the public because releasing them would set a precedent that would hamper a president's ability to get confidential advice from parties outside the White House. "The president is entitled to receive confidential advice and candid assessments from government attorneys," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
Judicial Watch, a non-profit watchdog group, filed a lawsuit last year seeking to see records of the 177 pardons and commutations that Clinton considered or approved on the last day of his presidency, including the pardon Clinton issued to fugitive international financier Marc Rich. Also sought was data dealing with lobbying done by Clinton?s brother, Roger Clinton, for others seeking presidential clemency.
Government briefs submitted to U.S. District Court earlier this month argued that public revelation of the documents would violate a president?s right to receive confidential advice.
"The release of these documents would have a chilling effect on the deliberative process," McClellan said, adding that the Bush administration is not claiming executive privilege but instead is arguing that Freedom of Information (FOI) laws should not be used to force publication of a president?s decision-making processes. He pointed to a Justice Department memo which argues that the pardon process "is a core presidential power exclusively entrusted and executed by the president himself, and documents generated in the process of developing and providing advice to him are squarely subject to the privilege."
Judicial Watch doesn?t see it that way. The group?s president, Tom Fitton, argues that the Bush administration is claiming that executive-branch communications outside the White House are protected by presidential privilege in the face of court rulings holding that the presidential communication privilege applies only to the president and his advisers inside the White House.
"We believe there is a tacit agreement between the Clintonites and the Bushites not to probe too deeply into each others affairs and this is part of it,? Fitton told the Associated Press.
"What's ludicrous is that the Bush White House is essentially saying, 'Leave Marc Rich alone, leave Roger Clinton alone, they're private figures.'"
This is pretty much the same reason that they didn't want the records of the energy task force made public. I think this makes more sense as an explanation than these idiotic conspiracy theories which have as much evidence as the Reagan-Bush-Iran "October Surprise" crapola.
Dems and various other brainless types interpreted the administration's objection to turning over the task force records as that some kind of quid-pro-quo deal had been cut at the meeting, i.e., "you give us a million in soft money and we'll open Alaska to drilling", the kind of thing that makes sense to people who have a cartoonish conception of reality.
I'm not sure, but I believe they lost their effort to keep them secret. In which case, if there was any such thing in there, we all would have heard about it by now.
Indeed yes. But,
1) How do we know if the Constitution has been violated when the hard evidence is kept from the people?, and,2) Who would prosecute the offender if the current President puts the brakes on the Dept of Justice?, and
3) Would the prosecution of Clinton undermine the confidence of the American people in the integrity of our Presidency?
Perhaps our current form of government remains more stable if the Constititution is not rigourously applied in matters that directly deal with corrupt elements of the government. "Keep the people unaroused" might be the approach preferred by President Bush.
That's true, but it's also true that bribery is a crime.
Selling presidental pardons in exchange for financial contributions to the Clinton Library is a form of bribery. The pardons cannot be undone, but the participants in the bribery can be prosecuted.
This matter needs to be settled in the courts.
And what does it say about the corrupt nature of our government when private individuals must personally fund the prosecution of criminals?
There are definitely bigger fish to fry, but should we overlook misdemeanors because felonies are being committed? Should we overlook tax evaders because murders are unsolved?
A criminal is a criminal. They should be prosecuted by the government no matter what privilege of rank they may have.
But then, so would Judicial Watch.
Just my opinion, of course.
When you are right you are right, and boy are you right about that one.
However, it does beg a fair question. Since Bill Clinton's administration was so very slimy then perhaps digging up enough dirt on it and keeping it in the public eye just might serve to put a damper on Hillary's political ambitions. The Marc Rich pardon is awfully stinky. It's got that deep, nauseating, long term kind of stink that just keeps on giving. I'm not sure she's tricky enough to avoid a load of dirt that stinky. Remember that whole "Two for the price of one, co-presidents" spiel they did early in their career? Can she really distance herself from all that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.