posted on February 21, 2001 03:20:58 PM new
While President Carter was speaking at SW University in Georgia, this week, he was asked to share his opinions of the Clinton pardon regarding Marc Rich. He said it was "disgraceful". He also said many of the pardons made by Clinton were "quite questionable". Now there's an honest man. I've respected him for a long time. This just confirms to me he's an honest, moral person.
Then the latest breaking news tonight is that Hillary's brother was paid $200,000.00 to obtain the pardons of two people from Clinton.
posted on February 21, 2001 03:28:08 PM newNot Found
The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated,inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it.
posted on February 21, 2001 03:35:32 PM new
The brother-in-law of former President Bill Clinton received about $200,000 for succesfully lobbying for a pardon and a prison commutation that the Clinton granted on his last day in office, The Associated Press reported Wednesday. The money has been returned.
"This is deeply troubling," a House overnment Reform Committee source told Fox News, "and the committee is looking into it."
Clinton and his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, said Wednesday they were unaware of the arrangements with Hugh Rodham. They said they had asked him to return the money and were "deeply disturbed" by what had happened.
Rodham, brother of Mrs. Clinton, returned the money in the past 24 hours, sources familiar with the arrangement said Wednesday.
The sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Rodham was paid for months of work on the prison commutation request of Carlos Vignali and received a "success fee" for helping win the pardon of Almon Glenn Braswell.
"Yesterday I became aware of press inquires that Hugh Rodham received a contingency fee in connection with a pardon application for Glenn Braswell and a fee for work on Carlos Vignali's commutation application," the former president said in a statement.
"Neither Hillary nor I had any knowledge of such payments. We are deeply disturbed by these reports and have insisted that Hugh return any moneys received," he said.
posted on February 21, 2001 04:26:24 PM new
They DID go away... Or haven't you noticed that B.B. (Buffoon Bush) is now IN...
Now if he, too, would just go away...!
******** Gosh Shosh!
posted on February 21, 2001 04:33:46 PM newInside - I totally agree. Bill O'Reilly, on Fox News, said there'd be many interesting things revealed about Clinton in the coming months. He claims Clinton was our most corrupt president. Some of the Democrats are beginning to say they wished Clinton would just go and do some work on his library for a while. I can't understand why.
Thanks toke, for re-doing the link.
I fine it very interesting that if nothing wrong was done, why Hillary would have asked her brother to return the money. And why if nothing was done wrong, her brother would have returned it. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that it was a "success fee" for helping win the pardon of Almon Glenn Braswell. ?
Does make the 'payment for Rich's pardon' more believeable to me.
posted on February 21, 2001 04:49:01 PM new
"The First Grifters" a wonderful description of the Clintons by Hamilton Jordan in the Wall Street Journal.
posted on February 21, 2001 04:56:06 PM new
Don't sell Hilly short...after all, she's just started. And she's had many years with the champ, to watch and learn.
posted on February 21, 2001 06:18:31 PM new
Like them or hate them they were elected by the people, unlike the goof in the oval office now.
For all of you republicans that are "tired" of the clintons, call Faux news and tell them so. If they keep using them for ratings they wont go away, and you dont really think they want them to do you????????
posted on February 21, 2001 06:51:13 PM new
Yea right, it is always somebody elses fault. Now it is the media's fault because they are reporting the scams as they are discovered.
posted on February 21, 2001 07:09:28 PM new
And I sure don't hear any Democrats criticizing President Carter for what he's saying about Clinton's actions, nor disagreeing with what Carter is saying. I think Carter slamming Clinton's actions, pretty much says a lot in itself.
posted on February 21, 2001 07:38:57 PM new
All I know is that anything that the New York Post and the New York Times are in agreement about must be God's honest truth.
posted on February 22, 2001 02:55:23 AM new
Hello Linda_K
I watched "Erin" and it was fabulous! What a remarkable woman Erin was and is! In my opinion the movie highligts Erin's assets and Julia Roberts talents.
Anyways your link worked fine for my webtv. Guess some people like to discredit news items that they don't like.
Clinton has been losing support from the democratic party for the last week or more.
I have been a supporter of Bill and Hilliary but do recognize their faults and political mannerisms. Even though I lean towards Democratic Party I will vote for Republican or whoever else regardless of party.
When Bush won I thought "Great now we can bash Bush" like what I have had to listen to for the last eight years against the Clintons.
Well I have found out it isn't fun. Even though bashing is in the eye of the beholder, I will "criticize" and question Bush as easily as I would Hilliary, Bill, Gore or whoever.
I don't think some anti-Bush peeps like Gore supporters trying to be fair with Bush. In my opinion the Bush bashing is backfiring.
posted on February 22, 2001 03:18:32 AM newI fine it very interesting that if nothing wrong was done, why Hillary would have asked her brother to return the money.
...um, if she hadn't, I suspect you'd find _that_ very interesting. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
-gaffan-
posted on February 22, 2001 10:40:57 AM new
Keeping the money ro giving it back would not change much of anything. You are very right that it would be "damned if you do..."
The whole situation is quite revolting to me. It smacks of the practice of selling an "Indulgence" from the Church in the middle ages - whereby the rich could buy their way out of the possibility of hell. We really have reached the point of knowing what the money threshold is to buy enough influence to get a pardon. (Notice I did not say Quid Pro Quo about the direct cost of buying one direct and avoiding the middleman)
It is especially galling personally - since I have worked for over 10 years to get a pardon for an elderly friend who was in danger of losing his home because of a 50 year old felony conviction. (He owned the home for 20 years, but not the land it was on and the new ownership used the excuse that his old conviction disqalified him from living on their property)
Whenever the matter of a pardon was brought up, the direct responses were "What group are you with?" and "Who is supporting it?". The question of the merits of his application were never an issue - it was about political support and influence in order to get one.
When I said that his supporters were his friends and neighbors and that we had no political group backing the effort - the Governors office had no interest at all. I guess if we had carried in a bushel of money and a political PAC - it would have been easy.
And yes - My friend - now 75 years old was forced out of his home and had no choice but to sell to a single picked buyer - approved by the landowner.
posted on February 22, 2001 11:09:28 AM newLinda_K,
"And I sure don't hear any Democrats criticizing President Carter for what he's saying about Clinton's actions, nor disagreeing with what Carter is saying.I think Carter slamming Clinton's actions, pretty much says a lot in itself".
Not surprisingly, you seem to fail to notice that the only people here who are dwelling on the past are bush supporters. It's as though 'they' are trying with all of their meager might to distract attention from the follies of the fool that they voted for.
Now, in case you are including me in your little fits, and I have no doubt that you are, allow me to point out to you the limitations of your attention span with a referral to a thread and some posts from the not so long ago past, where I would have thought that you live as much as you talk about Bill Clinton. Note the date :
(they've purged the thread since I copied from it, it would seem)
junquemama posted on November 4, 2000 09:13:15 PM
junkson,Does this mean you are voteing for Bush?
krs posted on November 4, 2000 09:27:58 PM edit
Absolutely. Presidents must be amusing, if nothing else.
posted on February 22, 2001 11:11:18 AM new
Wasn't there a file that mysteriously re-appeared in a room sitting on a table during the Clinton Administration? I think it was the travelgate wasn't it?
Sometimes when a little one gets caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they try to return the cookie so they can be "good" again.
posted on February 22, 2001 11:24:17 AM new "Not surprisingly, you seem to fail to notice that the only people here who are dwelling on the past are bush supporters. It's as though 'they' are trying with all of their meager might to distract attention from the follies of the fool that they voted for."
This is your opinion and your opinion only which is as valuable as everyone elses and everyone has one--- regardless on where they stand or sit.
"Now, in case you are including me in your little fits" This was uncalled.
posted on February 22, 2001 11:43:18 AM newbobbysoxer
"This was uncalled"
There's a question which has been on my mind. Was it littlemiss somethingorotherz who appointed you to the auxilliary Little Miss Manners league, or someone else?
posted on February 22, 2001 11:43:24 AM new
Linda_K
Your intro, "While President Carter was speaking at SW University in Georgia, this week, he was asked to share his opinions of the Clinton pardon regarding Marc Rich. He said it was "disgraceful". He also said many of the pardons made by Clinton were "quite questionable". Now there's an honest man. I've respected him for a long time. This just confirms to me he's an honest, moral person.
My question is why did you respect him, other than the fact that you
perceived him as being honest?
Then, you state,
"And I sure don't hear any Democrats criticizing President Carter for what he's saying about Clinton's actions, nor disagreeing with what Carter is saying. I think Carter slamming Clinton's actions, pretty much says a lot in itself."
You will not hear this from Fox news. I disaprove of Carter's remark
and so do a lot of other Democrats. In fact, I suspect that a case of departing brain cells is behind the remark by Carter.
But then, he was not a favorite of mine. The only thing that I remember him
saying was that he committed adultry only in his heart or some such nonsense.
That may be the highlight of his term. Adultry was only committed in his heart because nowhere else was the opportunity available.
Helen
Oh Oh OH George is having a Press Conference now!!!
It never ends with that group. BTW, your link worked fine for me.
Here it is again, in case anyone missed it: