Matter of fact will they retrospectively investigate all of the presidential pardons?
I am wondering if they are afraid to investigate Bush Sr's because it would be opening a can of worms due to the fact they would have to go back for all pardons. What about the governors' pardons? What a mess.
Personally I think they need to investigate this situation in order to find out how to "supervise" the presidential pardons and if there is a need to. Don't bother with any of the former presidents' pardons just prevent any future corruption.
posted on March 1, 2001 12:33:47 PM
Situation is beginning to sound like a sequel to Klinton's production of "Monica."
Klinton and his sleazes have more memory problems than someone with Alzheimer and use the 5th more than the Mafia has since the 20's.
The dictionary writers have to be frustrated. They (writers) just finished editing the definitions to include the new
definitions Klinton fabricated during the Monica investigation.
What a bunch of scumbags. Only good coming out of the Klinton era is the demise of liberals and the diminished credibility of Democrats.
"Bush wins Florida......regardless how it was accomplished."
posted on March 1, 2001 12:37:35 PM
They just need to find out if there was bribery...that would be criminally illegal. As I understand it, presidential pardons cannot be reviewed for any other reason.
Zazzie...
As a Canadian, what's your interest? Are you a Yankophile?
Is there a particular reason that right-wingers on internet message boards call him Klinton? I've also seen reference to the Demokrats (and even the Republikans).
posted on March 1, 2001 01:10:38 PM
I'll have you know, the method of spelling "Klinton" is to connote a particular ideology and did not come cheap, by jingo!
LOL! I agree with a lot of what you say...don't piss me off... When you do that sort of "K" thing, you dilute and cheapen your message. Really. It's redundant. Clinton is busy ruining himself.
posted on March 1, 2001 01:32:48 PM
Yes Mike in my opinion it does cheapen your "message." If you want to be effective and to have people read your posts you might want to try being more constructive in your arguments.
Point acknowledged; suggestion disregarded due to invalid and biased data.
Rather than chance that my message would be lost by posting in a written manner that is designed to purposely flaunt a scripted and practiced display of intellectual-sounding and eloquent words, intended (only) to indicate the writer (might) possess an exemplary vocabulary, I would rather avoid messages that teem in such tautology and use plain (universal) language.
Certain slang and connotations (are) universally understood and tend to lessen miscomprehension and avoid discriminating on the basis of a person's intelligence.
1. Clinton's actions and obvious ideologies tend to indicate he holds socialist views that lean heavily in favor of Marxist and communist doctrines. Or .
posted on March 1, 2001 05:36:21 PM
You know, Sgt Mike, when during the Clinton Impeachment process Trent Lott and Bob Barr's direct connections to the KKK were discovereed, the typical spelling for Republicans on many messageboards on the Internet changed to RepubliKLANS. Maybe a return to this sort of direct reference is what you want to encourage -- divide everyone?
As far as Pardons go, George Bush, Jr. was the one in charge of the S&L's. It was he who pushed the S&L's to invest everything into Junk Bonds. And when the S&L's went bust, there were criminal probes. After all, since FDIC fully insured all accounts at that time, the US was in Debt by the TRILLIONS of dollars! But guess what? Preseident George Bush, Sr. gave his son a PARDON to allow him to escape prosecution! No wonder he keeps timidly asking the Republican Dobermans to let go of Clinton's pants legs!
This is why I am hoping that they DO continue to persecute the ex-President: makes all Republicans look like fools and maybe we can start uncovering the wrongs done by the Bush Family when they pardoned the convicted Iran-Contra federal felons and then back to when Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon.
"gotta rope?"
[edited for typos]
[ edited by Borillar on Mar 1, 2001 05:39 PM ]
posted on March 1, 2001 06:54:24 PM
Borillar, I think you meant Neil Bush not Dubya. I don't think Neil wasn't pardoned by Patriarch Bush, in any case.
posted on March 1, 2001 07:10:19 PM
I think some of you are so ideogically focused that you are missing the issue that is, or at least should be, in question regarding the Clinton pardons of Rich et al.
The only question that really matters is if the pardons were granted in a quid pro quo for cash to the Clintons, directly or indirectly.
Even if such a link is established it will be virtually impossible to prove a criminal violation without the testimony of the participants - an unlikely event in any case.
The right of the President to grant pardons is absolute and has been clearly affirmed by the Supreme Court. Don't like it? Change the Constitution. Don't like THESE pardons? Wait for Bush to leave office, you'll probably prefer the ones HE gives out in HIS last days.
typos
[ edited by donrob2 on Mar 1, 2001 07:15 PM ]
posted on March 1, 2001 07:41:55 PM
Though paternal pardons are beyond the scope of the constitution I'd say that it's not a stretch to say yes he did, along with the other criminal sons and brothers.
posted on March 1, 2001 08:43:39 PM
The stuff is all a matter of record, James, as you know, but you're right Rush won't mention it and Fox avoids it so it just couldn't be true.
posted on March 1, 2001 09:45:13 PM
Truly Amazing.
Borillar puts up a post of 3 paragraphs , the first is a response to Sgt Mike, the last a "hope" of what is going to happen.
The second one is based on "facts" almost all of which are incorrect.
SECOND PARAGRAPH
"As far as pardons go, George Bush Junior was in charge of the S&Ls."
Incorrect. In fact, there is no evidence that George Jr. was ever involved with ANY S&L other than as a borrower. he had no Government or State position regarding ANY S&L nor was he in the employ of any S&L. In the 80's, he was in the oil business, busily cashing in on the family name and the fact that his father was Vice President, former Director of the CIA and a well liked and respected oil man in his own right. he followed this with a stint in Major League Baseball. No banking history.
"It was he who pushed the S&Ls to invest everything into Junk Bonds".
Incorrect again. As the above rebuttal indicates, GWB had no banking business. In addition, it was not Junk Bonds alone that caused the S&L collapses. The collapse of the Junk Bond Market was the straw that broke the camels back. It, combined with LOTS of very bad and in some cases criminally negligent loan practices, along with wildly fluctuating interest rates are what brought down SOME of the S&Ls. Many, many more continued in business without crises or panic. The reason collapses were highly concentrated in Florida, California and a few other states was that is where STATE regulators had loosened restrictions, allowing some of the practices that led to collapses.
"When the S&Ls went bust, there were criminal probes"
Correct. There were few indictments, most losses were attributed to bad banking practices. Speculative and high return investments often leads to spectacular losses. No Bush's were indicted.
"...since the FDIC fully insured all accounts at that time..."
Incorrect. FDIC insured NONE of the effected accounts. FDSLIC insured many, up to a statuatory limit, not fully. Others were insured by State and Private bank Insurance.
"...the US was in debt by TRILLIONS of dollars".
Incorrect. The US debt of trillions of dollars is commonly called the national debt, and until the entire FDSLIC fund of billions was exhausted, it had no effect on US debt. Later, BILLIONS were authorized to FSLIC and its successor organizations to cover losses. Much of this was BORROWING authority, funded by the S&Ls that remained and normal cash flow, but there WAS a signifigant cash cost to the US Treasury in the form of outright grants. The total loss is unclear for a variety of reasons, but I have never seen it estimated beyond 75 billion of which taxpayers may have paid half, hardly TRILLIONS.
"But Guess what? President George Bush, Sr. gave his son a PARDON to escape prosecution!"
Incorrect. Bush Sr pardoned noone in his immediate family. His son Neil, who WAS in the S&L business as a member of the board at Silverado, one of the more spectacular crashes, was found guilty of bad judgement, but nothing more, including any signifigant role in the functioning of the bank.
Thruout the 80's, the Bush boys were all cashing in on the family name. Neil's job at Silverado (like W's in the oil business) seemed to be Son of VPOTUS, and later, Son of POTUS. To call this influence peddling and deplore it is one thing; to think that Neil was calling the shots at Silverado is another.
If you want to attack someone, please get your facts straight.
clarification
[ edited by donrob2 on Mar 1, 2001 09:53 PM ]
I don't think that there will be a lot of pardons from Bush. He's demonstrated a disinclination to do so in Texas (except for dogs) and after this silly flap he'll be even more hesitant if anything. He may be dumbya, but he knows payback.
Care to comment on GW's apparent insider trading, or Jeb's business with radical Cubans and Columbian drug dealers? Maybe a little about poppa's sexual daliances while vice president, or the unconfirmed report that GW flew a drug pickup flight with Jeb in 1985?
It's true that George the elder did not have to pardon any immediate family member for as you say even Neil was not indicted. Neither were five republican senators who evidently were more deeply involved in the S&L fiasco than was Neil.
I think it was about a billion in taxpayer funds which were spent to bail out the S&Ls.
I'm not sure I agree on GWBs pardon stance. My understanding is that the Governor of texas has less pardon authority than most and I think his stinginess with pardons may have been more a product of where he was planning to go, rather than personal judgement. I suspect if he gets defeated in '04 or when he steps down in '08, we WILL see a batch of pardons from him.
No, I dont care about the Bush's "supposed" doings- any more than I do about the same of the Clintons or the Kennedys. I have become cynical enough to expect that most powerful people are involved in all sorts of things- politically powerful people especially. I work on the assumption that if they REALLY do something over the line, the opposition will deal with it. Or MAKE a deal with it,LOL.
In terms of the 5 Senators, I don't recall they were all Republicans, I thought 1 or 2 were Democrats, but hell, they're all the same anyway. The last time I publically raised a fuss about something was during hearings about a Senator from New Jersey (Clifford Case?)who was videotaped stuffing cash in his pockets from an Arab Sheik. May have been part of Arabscam. Senator Cranston then stood up and said it "probably wasnt anything wrong" being done. I went off, fired off a HOT telegram to him, stating my view that not only was NJ senator a crook, but he probably was too! I was NOT polite, this was basically a FY telegram.
His office responded with a form letter, thanking me for my views, telling me that the senator would give them due consideration and that if they could be of any further help to please contact them again.
Re actual taxpayer out of pocket- I think the "final' total was about 35 billion, but it was all so muddled together, Treasury, FSLIC, State funds, etc, that there was never a clear total in my mind. Probably intentional- if taxpayers REALLY knew they might have DEMANDED more prosecutions AND more recovery of assets. When those loan deals were made non-recourse, that only bound the S&L. As holder in default, the Govt could have gone after the assets of the millionaire recipients who were ALLOWED to default (regular homeowners in Texas still had to pay THEIR mortgages)- and recover billions is my guess. Of course those are the folks that fund political campaigns and Presidential Libraries, so it would likely never happen.
