Another Question for Conservatives. (This one is about Clinton)

[DeeJayH]

Prove that President Clinton is a CROOK! This is a falsehood and unture and you know it! What makes you post like this?

pick a scandal
any scandal
or were they all erased by your subjective memory, and misplaced love of the biggest conartist in the latter half of the 20th century

 

[26 X World Champs]

pick a scandal
any scandal
or were they all erased by your subjective memory, and misplaced love of the biggest conartist in the latter half of the 20th century

Why don't you show us where Clinton was a "crook"? C'mon....

 

[Deegan]

Why don't you show us where Clinton was a "crook"? C'mon....

I wouldn't call Clinton a crook, I respect crooks too much!

This man used the oval office to wipe his *** on the way out. He has to answer to these pardons, and more should know about these crimes to the office of the presidency. This can't be the future of this office, no matter what president it is. Whe are discussing Clinton, and he did this, and I can not believe that some would give him a pass for that.

Reseach these pardons, the NYTimes has an archive devoted to this for cris sake.:roll:

 

[Hoot]

pick a scandal
any scandal
or were they all erased by your subjective memory, and misplaced love of the biggest conartist in the latter half of the 20th century

You pick a scandal...any scandal, and if I have time, I'll try to address it.

What could be fairer then that?

Personally, you right-wingers have nothing on Clinton, other then an attempt to hide a sexual fling...something pretty much any man would do when caught in that situation.

 

[Deegan]

You pick a scandal...any scandal, and if I have time, I'll try to address it.

What could be fairer then that?

Personally, you right-wingers have nothing on Clinton, other then an attempt to hide a sexual fling...something pretty much any man would do when caught in that situation.

Pardons?:doh

 

[mpg]

You pick a scandal...any scandal, and if I have time, I'll try to address it.

What could be fairer then that?

Personally, you right-wingers have nothing on Clinton, other then an attempt to hide a sexual fling...something pretty much any man would do when caught in that situation.

Please address John Huang.

 

[Hoot]

Pardons?:doh

That's easy...our very own U.S. Constitution gives the president this sole power, without review or oversight from Congress, as our founding fathers intended. Hence...where's the scandal in exercising your constitutionally given right?

 

[Hoot]

Please address John Huang.

What's to address? If I'm not mistaken Huang was sentenced to a year probation, a $10,000 fine, and 500 hours of community service for breaking campaign finance laws.

There's not a shred of evidence of any Clinton scandal in this regard.

This is like me blaming Bush for the Abramoff scandal?! Where's the concrete evidence, other then the shoddy journalism of right wing conspiracy wackos?

If you think you have some evidence that ties Clinton to this scandal, then in the immortal words of Mr. Mackey...

"Present them."

 

[Deegan]

That's easy...our very own U.S. Constitution gives the president this sole power, without review or oversight from Congress, as our founding fathers intended. Hence...where's the scandal in exercising your constitutionally given right?

He does have the right, but he also has the duty to protect the office of the presidency. He allowed the office to be used as a rubber stamp, pardoning friends and associates, i.e Mark Rich, who actually fled the country to avoid charges. If this is what you think the founding fathers had in mind, you don't think much of this country, or our constitution for that matter. Just look at the list yourself, close to 400 pardons, and 140 of which he was obligated to present to the OOP(office of pardons), but did not, and skipped town like a thief in the night.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm

It's truly disgusting that anyone would justify pardoning close friends and associates, especially when they are known to have committed the crimes for which they are now being pardoned. This was instituted to help those who may have been innocent, or may have paid their debt, but were still being held unnecessarily, not just because.......how does Bill put it, "Because I can":roll:

This is a poke in the eye of the American justice system, and after what this man has done, I fear we may need an amendment to keep his kind from ever abusing this power again!

 

[Caine]

He does have the right, but he also has the duty to protect the office of the presidency. He allowed the office to be used as a rubber stamp, pardoning friends and associates, i.e Mark Rich, who actually fled the country to avoid charges. If this is what you think the founding fathers had in mind, you don't think much of this country, or our constitution for that matter. Just look at the list yourself, close to 400 pardons, and 140 of which he was obligated to present to the OOP(office of pardons), but did not, and skipped town like a thief in the night.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm

It's truly disgusting that anyone would justify pardoning close friends and associates, especially when they are known to have committed the crimes for which they are now being pardoned. This was instituted to help those who may have been innocent, or may have paid their debt, but were still being held unnecessarily, not just because.......how does Bill put it, "Because I can":roll:

This is a poke in the eye of the American justice system, and after what this man has done, I fear we may need an amendment to keep his kind from ever abusing this power again!

lol... you quickly cast aside the idea that Reagan did the same thing, now you are putting all the blame on Clinton, acting as if he was the first to do such a thing.

What you said should have read, "This is a poke in the eye of the American justice system, and after what these men have done, I fear we may need an amendment to keep thier kind from ever abusing this power again!"

There, that just about does it.

And Im certain there have been many presidents to use this power to pardon thier buddies and associates, not just Clinton and Reagan.

 

[DeeJayH]

You pick a scandal...any scandal, and if I have time, I'll try to address it.

What could be fairer then that?

Personally, you right-wingers have nothing on Clinton, other then an attempt to hide a sexual fling...something pretty much any man would do when caught in that situation.

i am sorry
i forgot
all those 'scandals' were nothing more than vast right wing conspiracies to bring down a Dem president who was guilty of nothing more than being popular with the voters and the ladies :doh

 

[Deegan]

lol... you quickly cast aside the idea that Reagan did the same thing, now you are putting all the blame on Clinton, acting as if he was the first to do such a thing.

What you said should have read, "This is a poke in the eye of the American justice system, and after what these men have done, I fear we may need an amendment to keep thier kind from ever abusing this power again!"

There, that just about does it.

And Im certain there have been many presidents to use this power to pardon thier buddies and associates, not just Clinton and Reagan.

I didn't cast aside anything, this is about Clinton no?

 

[erasamus snoggle]

It's kind of senseless to keep debating about a clown who can never hold the job of POTUS ever again. The hollyweird crowd & their liberal minions are going to keep 'slick willie' klinton employed for many years. klinton's legacy will be as history paints him, nothing any of us really do or say now will have any affect on that. One thing we can do is to help insure that the current jr senator from NY never makes it to the Oval Office except as a visitor.

 

[Caine]

I didn't cast aside anything, this is about Clinton no?

Well, yeah, but your final comment in that post put the blame for why we should make an amendment all on Clinton.

Which, he isn't the only one to take advantage of the power, so doing so is kinda one sided.

 

[Caine]

It's kind of senseless to keep debating about a clown who can never hold the job of POTUS ever again. The hollyweird crowd & their liberal minions are going to keep 'slick willie' klinton employed for many years. klinton's legacy will be as history paints him, nothing any of us really do or say now will have any affect on that. One thing we can do is to help insure that the current jr senator from NY never makes it to the Oval Office except as a visitor.

Well, DUH! He can't serve another term.

 

[Deegan]

Well, yeah, but your final comment in that post put the blame for why we should make an amendment all on Clinton.

Which, he isn't the only one to take advantage of the power, so doing so is kinda one sided.

He is the only president I have vehemently disagreed with on pardons, that is what I am saying. No other presidential pardons have raised such a stink as this presidents, there were actual hearings on Clintons pardons, again, his were unprecedented.

 

[jujuman13]

(It's kind of senseless to keep debating about a clown who can never hold the job of POTUS ever again.)
Theoretically what you have said is incorrect.
The Constitution states that a President may not hold office for more than two consecutive terms, the point is the word "consecutive".
In actuality it is probably highly unlikely that a former President might be re-elected after someone else has asumed the office.
But it is possible.

 

[Caine]

(It's kind of senseless to keep debating about a clown who can never hold the job of POTUS ever again.)
Theoretically what you have said is incorrect.
The Constitution states that a President may not hold office for more than two consecutive terms, the point is the word "consecutive".
In actuality it is probably highly unlikely that a former President might be re-elected after someone else has asumed the office.
But it is possible.

Not really, he still can't serve over a total of 10 years.
Since a term is 4, and he has served 8, he is out of the ball game.

 

[DeeJayH]

When was this made law
i had always thought it was just precedent?

 

[mpg]

What's to address? If I'm not mistaken Huang was sentenced to a year probation, a $10,000 fine, and 500 hours of community service for breaking campaign finance laws.

There's not a shred of evidence of any Clinton scandal in this regard.

This is like me blaming Bush for the Abramoff scandal?! Where's the concrete evidence, other then the shoddy journalism of right wing conspiracy wackos?

If you think you have some evidence that ties Clinton to this scandal, then in the immortal words of Mr. Mackey...

"Present them."

All of what I'm about to type was covered by the mainstream media. FNC wasn't around in those days, and I didn't get any of this from right of center news outlets such as the New York Post or the National Review. I even attended the first three days of the Senate hearings where Clinton's people were forced to testify.The fact that you don't already know what I'm about to type, shows that you tried very hard to avoid exposing yourself to any media coverage of this issue.

The Lippo Group is an Indonesian conglomerate which has a financial partnership with the Bank of China. The government of the PRC owns the Bank of China, so the Lippo Group has a partnership with the government of the PRC. John Huang was head of the American part of the Lippo Group. He also lived in Little Rock and was a long time friend and supporter of Bill Clinton. The head of the entire Lippo Group (forgot his name), was also a long time friend of Bill Clinton.

During Clinton's first administration, he got John Huang a job at the State Department. The man who was to be John Huang's boss, didn't want him because his ties to the Lippo Group and the PRC made him an obvious security risk. Clinton insisted that he be hired and he was given the job, but Huang's boss insisted that Huang be "walled off" from anything involving China. Somehow, Huang was able to attend 105 Top Secret briefings by the CIA. The info given at those briefings included the names of our spies in China, and our strategy for upcoming trade negotiations with the PRC.

Immediately after 81 of those briefings, Huang walked to the office building across the street which was owned by another one of Clinton's friends from Arkansas. Huang didn't work for that company, but they had an office set up for him there. The only time he used that office was right after the briefings. Phone records show that when he went to that office, he called the Lippo Group in Indonesia and faxed them documents. Keep in mind that he didn't work for this company, and he ONLY used this office to call the Lippo Group and fax them documents immediately after these CIA briefings. Also keep in mind that this office was provided to him by one of Bill Clinton's friends from Arkansas. A secretary who worked for the company was assigned to give Huang whatever assistance he needed. She testified before the Senate committee and said that her boss instructed her to keep the whole thing hush hush.

After Huang left the State Department, Clinton got him a job as a fundraiser at the DNC. He wasn't wanted there either because he had no experience as a fund raiser. Once again, Clinton insisted and Huang was given the job. When Huang got the job and started raising money for Clinton's reelection campaign, he collected millions of $ from the government of the PRC. Some of that money came directly from the branch of the PRC's military which was in charge of ICBMs. This was right around the same time that Clinton authorized the transfer of missile technology to the PRC. According to Clinton's own CIA, the PRC had a Cold War mentality toward the US, and 11 of their 17 ICBMs were pointed at the US, yet Clinton authorized the transfer of technology which changed their ICBMs from unreliable to reliable, and allowed them to carry multiple warheads. The authorization for the transfer of technology is not in dispute. It was official business with his signature on it.

 

[26 X World Champs]

When was this made law
i had always thought it was just precedent?

You've never heard of the 22nd Amendment?

Amendment XXII - Presidential Term Limits. Ratified 2/27/1951. History

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

 

[jujuman13]

(Not really, he still can't serve over a total of 10 years.
Since a term is 4, and he has served 8, he is out of the ball game.)
Thank you folks for correcting me

 

[Caine]

(Not really, he still can't serve over a total of 10 years.
Since a term is 4, and he has served 8, he is out of the ball game.)
Thank you folks for correcting me

No problem homie.

 

[DeeJayH]

You've never heard of the 22nd Amendment?

that would seem obvious, now wouldn't it

 

[26 X World Champs]

that would seem obvious, now wouldn't it

Well I'm happy that I could enlighten you.