Clinton's Pardons

[Beerina]

If I was convicted of a felony, but then got a pardon by the president of the United States, when I filled out a job application and was asked if I had ever been convicted of a felony, can I legally say "No"?

 

[wastepanel]

Forgive me if I make a mistake because I am just running on memory and observation, but here is how I see it. I thought that the numbers and the nature of the crimes was what were most alarming but there are still other aspects of the pardons that seem alarming (I will get to why him and why now in a second). Clinton did this on the last minute (as I recall) that he was in office. He might have had every right to do whatever he wanted but it still seemed underhanded. The press could make a big deal out of it but, at the same time, noone could bring it up in any presidential press conference simply because he would no longer be in office. Secondly, I remember that he was impeached at the time. Yes, impeached. Not impeached and acquitted. Officially, he was impeached. And so he seemed to be going into some ethical gray area here.

Can an impeached president grant pardons? Well maybe nothing in the constitution says no as long as it is decided he can stay in office. But, is it ethically ok?

Now, why do I bring this up now? I have been reading about his wife and because she might be considered to be a presidential nominee of The Democratic Party.

Mr. Thompson. You are crazy sir. First off, look at the definition of "impeach". It means :

When an irate citizen demands that a disfavored public official be impeached, the citizen clearly intends for the official to be removed from office. This popular use of impeach as a synonym of “throw out” (even if by due process) does not accord with the legal meaning of the word. As recent history has shown, when a public official is impeached, that is, formally accused of wrongdoing, this is only the start of what can be a lengthy process that may or may not lead to the official's removal from office. In strict usage, an official is impeached (accused), tried, and then convicted or acquitted. The vaguer use of impeach reflects disgruntled citizens' indifference to whether the official is forced from office by legal means or chooses to resign to avoid further disgrace.

Secondly, most Presidents do their pardons on the last day of office. It's very rare for a President to pardon people earlier.

It is no grey area.

 

[Crossbow]

If I was convicted of a felony, but then got a pardon by the president of the United States, when I filled out a job application and was asked if I had ever been convicted of a felony, can I legally say "No"?

Well, I am not a lawyer, but ...

Since a Pardon is used to reverse the conviction in question which essentially changes the jury finding from "Guilty" to "Not Guilty".

Therefore, one could legally answer that question with a "No".

 

[firecoins]

Clinton pardoned several terrorist from FARC I believe.

I know he pardoned someone who was apart of a robbery of an armored truck where I live that resulted in the deaths of 2 cops and a security guard.

He also pardoned 4 Hasidic Jews who live in the neighborhood where I work after they gave donations. Afterwards the whole Hasidic Jewish neighborhood voted for Hillary Clinton. That was 2000 votes with 0 against her in their polling area.

 

[Lurker]

He also pardoned 4 Hasidic Jews who live in the neighborhood where I work after they gave donations. Afterwards the whole Hasidic Jewish neighborhood voted for Hillary Clinton. That was 2000 votes with 0 against her in their polling area.

You mean a politician performed a legal act in order to please a part of his constituency? How dastardly!! I never would have seen that coming.

Lurker

 

[Tailgater]

I would like to see the reasons why they were pardoned added to the chart. I've never understood why some of these people are let off the hook.

 

[Lurker]

I would like to see the reasons why they were pardoned added to the chart. I've never understood why some of these people are let off the hook.

I agree. While I am for the power of presidential pardon they should at least be forced to go on the record for the reason for the pardon.

Lurker

 

[Bill Thompson]

Clinton pardoned several terrorist from FARC I believe.

I know he pardoned someone who was apart of a robbery of an armored truck where I live that resulted in the deaths of 2 cops and a security guard.

He also pardoned 4 Hasidic Jews who live in the neighborhood where I work after they gave donations. Afterwards the whole Hasidic Jewish neighborhood voted for Hillary Clinton. That was 2000 votes with 0 against her in their polling area.

I would like to know more specifics about that. What is the name of this neighborhood?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Mr. Thompson. You are crazy sir. First off, look at the definition of "impeach". It means :

When an irate citizen demands that a disfavored public official be impeached, the citizen clearly intends for the official to be removed from office. This popular use of impeach as a synonym of “throw out” (even if by due process) does not accord with the legal meaning of the word. As recent history has shown, when a public official is impeached, that is, formally accused of wrongdoing, this is only the start of what can be a lengthy process that may or may not lead to the official's removal from office. In strict usage, an official is impeached (accused), tried, and then convicted or acquitted. The vaguer use of impeach reflects disgruntled citizens' indifference to whether the official is forced from office by legal means or chooses to resign to avoid further disgrace.

I followed these events closely. Your dictionary definition or which definition you choose has no impact on what happened.

I even remember George Stephenopolous going on talk shows when they were voting if it was worth the turmoil to the country to remove Clinton from office AFTER he was impeached. Stephenopolous was still using his line "It is not an impeachable offense" and the moderator / interviewer had to keep reminding him. "he has been impeached".

I think you need to look back and do some study. Yes, he was impeached.

Clinton had been impeached because of obstruction of justice. Yes, impeached. No, not acquitted. Yes, obstruction of justice. No, not oral sex. Kenneth Starr had found that Bill Clinton and his friend Vernon Jordan had encouraged Monica Lewinsky to lie to lawyers for the Paula Jones case about her affair with Clinton to hide Clintons pattern of sexual behavior. That is obstruction of justice.

Even the official whitehouse.gov historical account of Clinton's presidency refers to him as an impeached president. Impeached.

Oh, one more thing. My sanity is not part of this discussion. That is attacking the messenger and not the message. Even if I am crazy that does not mean some, part or all of what I have said just happens to be correct. Saying "you are crazy, sir" is ad hominim and sophomoric. Besides, if being sane means you think Clinton was not impeached, I am proud to be crazy.

A poster on my Bakersfield, California BLOG kept insisting that Clinton had been acquitted. When he finally went out and did his homework he went back to my blog and deleted his rantings.

 

[BPSCG]

And for the first time in history people with no funds but an agenda, can spread their bull to anyone in the world with a computer, for almost no money.

What, you're only in favor of freedom of speech and the press for people with money?

I guess you pine for the good old days, when only the likes of The New York Times was able to spread their agenda and their bull.

Sorry - I like today's way better. The unofficial motto of the blogosphere is, "We're going to fact-check your ass." What's wrong with that?

 

[Crossbow]

I followed these events closely. Your dictionary definition or which definition you choose has no impact on what happened.

I even remember George Stephenopolous going on talk shows when they were voting if it was worth the turmoil to the country to remove Clinton from office AFTER he was impeached. Stephenopolous was still using his line "It is not an impeachable offense" and the moderator / interviewer had to keep reminding him. "he has been impeached".

I think you need to look back and do some study. Yes, he was impeached.

Clinton had been impeached because of obstruction of justice. Yes, impeached. No, not acquitted. Yes, obstruction of justice. No, not oral sex. Kenneth Starr had found that Bill Clinton and his friend Vernon Jordan had encouraged Monica Lewinsky to lie to lawyers for the Paula Jones case about her affair with Clinton to hide Clintons pattern of sexual behavior. That is obstruction of justice.

Even the official whitehouse.gov historical account of Clinton's presidency refers to him as an impeached president. Impeached.

Oh, one more thing. My sanity is not part of this discussion. That is attacking the messenger and not the message. Even if I am crazy that does not mean some, part or all of what I have said just happens to be correct. Saying "you are crazy, sir" is ad hominim and sophomoric. Besides, if being sane means you think Clinton was not impeached, I am proud to be crazy.

A poster on my Bakersfield, California BLOG kept insisting that Clinton had been acquitted. When he finally went out and did his homework he went back to my blog and deleted his rantings.

Bill Thompson:

It still sounds to me as if you do not understand the process.

The US House of Representatives is the body that Impeaches a President. And by 'Impeach', it essentially means to formally bring charges bring charges against the President. This is somewhat like the way a Grand Jury is used to Indict a Citizen who has been targeted for Prosecution by the Office of the District Attorney.

In this case, the House did actually Impeach Clinton.

Now then, after the Impeachment has been processed, then a Trial is held in the US Senate to see if the charges are Valid and to decide a Sentence. This is somewhat like a Trial in a Criminal Case the Verdict is actually decided, and if the person under Indictment is judged Guilty, then a Sentence is delivered.

In this case the Senate did not agree with the charges laid out in the Articles of Impeachment, therefore Clinton was Acquitted by the US Senate.

It is really just that simple.

Clinton was Impeached by the US House of Representatives, then
Clinton was Acquitted by the US Senate.

 

[BPSCG]

Now then, after the Impeachment has been processed, then a Trial is held in the US Senate to see if the charges are Valid and to decide a Sentence. This is somewhat like a Trial in a Criminal Case the Verdict is actually decided

What, are You randomly Hitting your Caps key while Typing Today?

, and if the person under Indictment is judged Gaily, then a Sentence is delivered.

Whereas if he's judged Grumpily, they Let him Go.

 

[Marc L]

I don't really see what bearing his pardons have on her potential candidacy.

What, you don't honestly believe people won't look at her husband's presidency/lifestyle and compare it to hers if she runs? Especially Mr. "It depends on what your definition of is, is."

Marc

 

[daredelvis]

What, you don't honestly believe people won't look at her husband's presidency/lifestyle and compare it to hers if she runs? Especially Mr. "It depends on what your definition of is, is."

Marc

Wow! You are right! You have won me over with the "Mr. 'It depends on what your definition of is, is.' " argument. I am going to vote for to keep GOP in power now. Especially considering the wonderful job they have done over the last 6 years. I was getting so sick of peace and prosperity, and I much prefer a quagmire overseas, and stagnant wages here (at least Tommie's two Mommies can't ruin my second marriage!).

Thanks for opening my eyes,
Daredelvis

 

[Marc L]

Wow! You are right! You have won me over with the "Mr. 'It depends on what your definition of is, is.' " argument. I am going to vote for to keep GOP in power now. Especially considering the wonderful job they have done over the last 6 years. I was getting so sick of peace and prosperity, and I much prefer a quagmire overseas, and stagnant wages here (at least Tommie's two Mommies can't ruin my second marriage!).

Thanks for opening my eyes,
Daredelvis

Whoa. Settle down, there, dude. I was pointing out that his history is going to be looked at as much as hers if Hillary decides to run for president. Given his morals/ethics overall, I suspect it'll be harped upon even more.

I make no judgement (at least in this thread regarding this particular point) on whether or not people should consider Bill's past when looking at Hillary, or whether one should vote Republican or Democrat, or Furry Creatures from Alpha Centauri.

Marc

 

[wastepanel]

Whoa. Settle down, there, dude. I was pointing out that his history is going to be looked at as much as hers if Hillary decides to run for president. Given his morals/ethics overall, I suspect it'll be harped upon even more.

I make no judgement (at least in this thread regarding this particular point) on whether or not people should consider Bill's past when looking at Hillary, or whether one should vote Republican or Democrat, or Furry Creatures from Alpha Centauri.

Marc

And since this nation enjoyed a giant economic boom under HIS leadership, then maybe that will be looked upon too.

 

[richardm]

And since this nation enjoyed a giant economic boom under HIS leadership, then maybe that will be looked upon too.

Oh Dear, wastepanel, I fear you may have misunderstood: Any economic success during Clinton's time was due to the excellent work done by Bush Snr in laying the groundwork. Any subsequent economic failures (e.g. US Productivity grinding to a halt) is because of the impeached swine Clinton spending all this time seeking blow jobs and undoing all the good work, and not because of anything Bush Jr. has done.

I think you'll find it's all quite simple

 

[Marc L]

And since this nation enjoyed a giant economic boom under HIS leadership, then maybe that will be looked upon too.

I absolutely agree. If voters look at Bill Clinton at all while considering Hillary, they should look only upon his achievements, as most people are completely rational and never make judgements based on anything but a person's deeds.

And I'm sure, the GOP, being stalwart paragons of ethical behavior that they are, will absolutely never say anything to focus attention on anything else.

Of course, if they do try any mudslinging, I'm positive that the Religious Right, being the moral backbone of our society, will call them out on it, and ensure that only Bill Clinton's achievements as president will be looked at, and nothing else.

And I think to myself, what a wonderful world....

Marc