Office of the Pardon Attorney - Pardons Granted by President Clinton

[-Cp]

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

I was gonna include them all here, but there was too many to fit..

[Kathianne]

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

I was gonna include them all here, but there was too many to fit..

Kinda like the list of Lincoln bedroom contributors.

[Hagbard Celine]

What's your point? Is it that Presidents issue pardons? Because we already knew that.

[gabosaurus]

ONCE AGAIN! Why does one wrong justify another?
Obviously it does if you are going to great lengths to justify it.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

After every single POTUS who has issued pardons at the end of their administration, the opposition party ALWAYS tries to make political hay out of it....

It is disingenious for any of us sitting on the sidelines to cheer or defame a President for the use of an irreviewable executive privilege.

Some have pardoned hundreds, some have pardoned a few. I suspect the only ones who should take any true offense are the individuals that are the victim of the miscreant who was convicted of the crime.

Making hay of it, either way, is grandstanding, and a bit juvenile, honestly.

[Dilloduck]

After every single POTUS who has issued pardons at the end of their administration, the opposition party ALWAYS tries to make political hay out of it....

It is disingenious for any of us sitting on the sidelines to cheer or defame a President for the use of an irreviewable executive privilege.

Some have pardoned hundreds, some have pardoned a few. I suspect the only ones who should take any true offense are the individuals that are the victim of the miscreant who was convicted of the crime.

Making hay of it, either way, is grandstanding, and a bit juvenile, honestly.

:clap::clap:

[Yurt]

ONCE AGAIN! Why does one wrong justify another?
Obviously it does if you are going to great lengths to justify it.

Honestly, did you protest as much about Clinton as with Bush?

I would actually be interested in a reasoned response.

[Joe Steel]

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

I was gonna include them all here, but there was too many to fit..

The difference between Bush and Clinton is the blatancy of the act. Bush clearly is buying Libby's silence.

The whole Regime, everyone, is up to his neck in crimes against the People of the United States. Libby knows who and what and where and when and Bush has to keep him quiet. Whatever you may think of Clinton (mostly as the result of rightwing misrepresentation, distortion and lies, no doubt,) he never was involved in such obvious criminality and perversion of American government as is the Bush Regime and he never used the power of his office to keep himself and his cronies from facing the consequences of the criminality.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

The difference between Bush and Clinton is the blatancy of the act. Bush clearly is buying Libby's silence.

The whole Regime, everyone, is up to his neck in crimes against the People of the United States. Libby knows who and what and where and when and Bush has to keep him quiet. Whatever you may think of Clinton (mostly as the result of rightwing misrepresentation, distortion and lies, no doubt,) he never was involved in such obvious criminality and perversion of American government as is the Bush Regime and he never used the power of his office to keep himself and his cronies from facing the consequences of the criminality.

Of course not....Clinton was IMPEACHED. Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines.

Libby was convicted in March of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Seems to me both of these stalwarts of American politics are of the same ilk....thinking they can lie to investigators and not be held accountable.

I guess you need to edit your response to include both parties, unless you think there is a difference between their "offenses."

[Joe Steel]

Of course not....Clinton was IMPEACHED. Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines.

Impeachment is a political not criminal act. A federal officer can be impeached for virtually anything. Just call it a misdemeanor and have it.

Clinton NEVER was convicted of perjury. In fact, he wasn't even charged with perjury because he didn't commit perjury as far as his taped testimony was concerned. He DIDN'T have sex with that woman..., at least not according to the definition of sex established by the lawyers. Before the deposition, the lawyers agreed on what would constitute "sex" and his acts with Lewinsky weren't included. If they had been Starr would have indicted Clinton but he didn't because he couldn't.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

The difference between Bush and Clinton is the blatancy of the act. Bush clearly is buying Libby's silence.

The whole Regime, everyone, is up to his neck in crimes against the People of the United States. Libby knows who and what and where and when and Bush has to keep him quiet. Whatever you may think of Clinton (mostly as the result of rightwing misrepresentation, distortion and lies, no doubt,) he never was involved in such obvious criminality and perversion of American government as is the Bush Regime and he never used the power of his office to keep himself and his cronies from facing the consequences of the criminality.


Impeachment is a political not criminal act. A federal officer can be impeached for virtually anything. Just call it a misdemeanor and have it.

Clinton NEVER was convicted of perjury. In fact, he wasn't even charged with perjury because he didn't commit perjury as far as his taped testimony was concerned. He DIDN'T have sex with that woman..., at least not according to the definition of sex established by the lawyers. Before the deposition, the lawyers agreed on what would constitute "sex" and his acts with Lewinsky weren't included. If they had been Starr would have indicted Clinton but he didn't because he couldn't.

Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines.

The House of Representatives IMPEACHED him, no amount of arguing, is going to change that....it is a fact, it will be in history books as long as there are history books. End of story.

The Senate did not remove him from office, end of story.

[Hugh Lincoln]

Should we amend the Constitution to nix the pardon power?

On the one hand, it's clearly a political tool. Favorites get the pardon. On the other hand, some prosecutions are a political tool, so maybe it's a good power-check.

[Joe Steel]

Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines.

The House of Representatives IMPEACHED him, no amount of arguing, is going to change that....it is a fact, it will be in history books as long as there are history books. End of story.

The Senate did not remove him from office, end of story.

Impeachment is a partisan process. When the majority wants to do it, they can for any or no reason. The history of the Republican Congresses of the '90s and early '00s is a insult to representative government and the impeachment of Bill Clinton is one of the biggest reasons.

[Joe Steel]

Should we amend the Constitution to nix the pardon power?

Absolutely. It's a relic from a time when officials could be presumed to be honest and faithful to their oaths of office. The Bush Administration changed all that.