Posted on 02/03/2002 4:14:41 PM PST by MeekOneGOP
NewsMax.com
Sunday, Feb. 3, 2002 11:51 a.m. EST
O'Reilly: Bush Justice Dept. Hamstringing Pardongate Probers
Investigators with the office of the U.S. Attorney for New York's Southern District are being actively discouraged from pursuing evidence of criminal wrongdoing in the Clinton Pardongate scandal, with one insider charging that any prosecutor who tries to build a case against the former first family may actually hurt his career.
So says Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, who made the startling cover-up allegation in his column this weekend.
"Although the Justice Department continues to say the probe is 'on the front burner', agents have told me there is little incentive to get things done," the Fox News commentator claimed. "In fact, one investigator said, if you push too hard on the case, you could find yourself in Fargo, N.D."
O'Reilly suggested that the Justice Department's go-slow regimen for probing the Clintons final White House scandal was likely instigated by the Bush White House.
"George W. Bush understands the way the game in Washington is played. You must make 'accommodations.'..... And what Bush may have given the Democrats is the assurance that he will not embarrass their party by aggressively pursuing the Marc Rich pardon investigation."
The first sign of Justice Department footdragging emerged last year, when New York attorney Ed Hayes, whose client Garland Lincecum had given prosecutors damaging evidence implicating former first brother Roger Clinton in Pardongate wrongdoing, expressed doubts about the probe.
In comments covered exclusively by NewsMax.com, Hayes told WABC radio's John Batchelor and Paul Alexander last June:
"The big issue now is does the government want to press the case. Because, for one thing, to really show whether or not there was a crime committed, you really have to question Bill Clinton. You really have to ask, 'Did Roger talk to his brother Bill about getting a pardon for Garland? Did Roger talk to anybody about getting a pardon for Garland?'"
Bill Clinton still has yet to testify. Even back then Hayes suggested that probers were being reined in on orders from Washington.
"You never know in these cases how dedicated they are to making the case. ... I think [lead Pardongate prober] Elliot Jacobson is a very conscientious prosecutor. But he does what he can do within the Justice Department."
Hayes hinted a political deal was already in the works: "You don't know whether [the Bush administration] is going to trade three federal judicial appointments in return for turning a blind eye to this." (See: Bush Justice Department Putting the Brakes on Pardongate Probe?)
O'Reilly now agrees, positing that Bush will reactivate the Clinton probe only if the GOP regains control of the Senate or if "things get rough."
"The Marc Rich pardon deal can always be used as a threat," he concluded.
Read Bill O'Reilly's full column on the Pardongate cover-up in NewsMax.com's magazine.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Bush Administration
Clinton Scandals
Pardongate
Sen. Hillary Clinton
How about the Riady non-refund? One way or the other SOMEONE committed a crime in that case. Either Riady lied about not getting his illegal donation back (in which case he should loose his plea agreement) or the campaign officials for the DNC and Clinton LIED when they claimed to have returned the money. And there should be a paper trail to easily prove who is right. So why hasn't the Bush administration pursued THIS one? Eh Luis?
So you are the guy who helped Clinton define "IS" and "SEX"!
LIKE USUAL, you believe EVERYTHING that absolves the Clinton administration of wrongdoing, and NOTHING that implicates it.
OF COURSE you are a conservative.
Still RUNNING, I see.
Why are you so OBSESSED about Clinton, Luis? As we have pointed out innumerable times, this is NOT about ONE MAN. It is about DOZENS of people in the democRAT party who committed crimes and are still out there, involved in government, harming this country. And you say we should just "move on". Of course, Luis. THAT'S the solution! Bury our heads in the sand and PRETEND that all is well. The democRATS APPLAUD you!
Ask Ron Brown's body. Find a bullet in it and who knows.
Ask Vince Foster's body. Find a wound in it that doesn't jibe with the published autopsy report and who knows.
The law's only as strong as a culture's desire to abide by it. Our society won't support an extended re-prosecution of the Clintons and all their accomplices. Bush would have never been elected if he promoted enforcing the law literally in every way.
If it wasn't for roughly 700 voters in my state with enough common sense to not be persuaded by psycho-rants of 3rd parties, the Clinton/Gore team would be in charge, and Kyoto would be law. The best Bush thinks he can do is heal a very divided nation and lead it slightly in the right direction.
You may think differently. So stop behaving like an angry psycho, get elected to president and prove him wrong.
If this is really what is happening, the USA is no longer the republic established by 'The Constitution.'
It is no less than that.
To that degree, no one ever lived in a republic established by the Constitution. No constitution is, or ever was strong enough to support the prosecution of the chief executive and his staff without popular support.
So says elfman. So it shall be.
---Horsefeathers!
Little Paula Jones, won a civil suit against a sitting president.
Nope. That was an out of court civil settlement. Context… The thread's regarding criminal law that's within Bush's prosecutorial control.
Show us a criminal prosecution under any constitutional of a popular executive who resists in any nation in any century, and I'll bow to your wisdom.
(Hey BTW, if that was your standard of a time period where we had a Constitution was up to your standards, you have noting to complain about. It's now. {smile})
Seems like a crock to say this as realistic. After all, isn't it a good thing that the Dems and Foghorn Leghorn aren't out there trying to embarrass the Pubs with Enron?
I cannot think of an example (it may not exist) Does Marcos count? How 'bout Fujimora of Chile?
With no agreed example (I am assuming you won't agree to the two cited above), therefore, there has never been a true republic in the history of man?
Hmmm - Do you sense a flaw in that logic? (I do.)
{snicker}
I don't know enough about their popularity or the constitutionality of their subsequent prosecution to say with any certainty.
You were the only one who said that labeling a government a "Constitutional Republic" was dependent on this. I don’t believe so.
In an abstract sense, I think a Constitution simply anchors the government's use of force from tides. In extreme conditions, all anchors can either be dragged or the lines can be snapped. But that doesn’t mean the ship was not anchored.
That is ONLY your opinion. The fact is, our society is mostly in the dark about the crimes committed by the Clinton administration and DNC. Most have never even heard of Loral, the Riady non-refund, that military pathologists suspect Brown was murdered, have ever heard of FBI-COVERUP.COM, that the DNC may be blackmailing Republican congressmen using THOUSANDS of FBI files that they STOLE, the details in emailgate, and on and on and on. You witnessed their outrage when the details of pardongate surfaced. Imagine their outrage when they find that Clinton and his gang of thieves committed murder, treason, blackmail and who knows what else!
Bush would have never been elected if he promoted enforcing the law literally in every way.
Bush would have been elected HANDS DOWN if the public had been aware of even a TENTH of the crimes committed by the DNC and Clinton administration. Hiding from the problem of the media does not solve the problem ... it only makes it worse. The ONLY way to bypass the media is to use the courts. Even the mainstream media can't ignore trials involving the top level of the DNC and Clinton administrations ... especially now that Fox News is there to keep them honest.
If it wasn't for roughly 700 voters in my state with enough common sense to not be persuaded by psycho-rants of 3rd parties, the Clinton/Gore team would be in charge, and Kyoto would be law.
Well if the GOP (assuming you are speaking on their behalf) think that desiring equal treatment under the law for our politicos is a "psycho - rant", then perhaps you can expect to LOOSE the next election. A GREAT MANY voted for Bush hoping that he'd clean up the government, but if that isn't going to happen, then what's the difference between having a democRAT in office and a republican ... if both are going to ignore the law? Frankly, I'd rather have the opponent in office whose motive I understand (the DNC) then a group whose motives I don't. Perhaps it is time to send a message to the GOP.
Hmm, If I say the obvious but without evidence, it's "only my opinion". If you do the same, it's a fact. {smile}
My opinion is that it's a fact that polls would prove both our suppositions correct. Most don't know, and most don't want the division that would accompany impeachment style prosecutions. Perhaps education would change those numbers, but it would likely be countered, the nation re-divided and Bush's real agenda paralyzed. I took me a very long time to recognize this, but I think Bush "was a chooser" and made a smart choice.
"A GREAT MANY voted for Bush hoping that he'd clean up the government, but if that isn't going to happen, then what's the difference between having a democRAT in office and a republican ... if both are going to ignore the law? Frankly, I'd rather have the opponent in office whose motive I understand (the DNC) then a group whose motives I don't. Perhaps it is time to send a message to the GOP."
Bush didn’t campaign on prosecution of Clinton. If you can't tell the difference between the RP and the DP, I can't do anything about it.
"I'd rather have the opponent in office whose motive I understand (the DNC) then a group whose motives I don't. Perhaps it is time to send a message to the GOP."
Yea, maybe we should use the model of thousands of "principled progressives" in Florida who sent a message to he DNC and voted Green.
But it is a FACT that the public doesn't know about the crimes. I don't have to depend on "polls" to support my position. Most of the major mainstream papers (such as the LA Times, NY Times, etc) and mainstream news networks (like CBS, ABC, etc) have not even told the public there were credible allegations that Clinton RAPED a women. They didn't even report that Sid Blumenthal LIED UNDER OATH during questioning in an impeachment trial about LYING UNDER OATH! They mainstream media hasn't reported the Riady non-refund. They've never reported anything about Ron Brown's death other than the FICTION that he died in a plane crash caused by bad weather. NONE of them reported that multiple MILITARY pathologists say he had what appeared to be a bullet wound in the top of his head or that an x-ray of his skull exists seemingly supporting that possibility. And I could go on ALL DAY listing stories that the mainstream press has either not reported at all or have spun in blatently dishonest ways.
most don't want the division that would accompany impeachment style prosecutions.
But if you asked them whether they want the laws enforced for things like MURDER and TREASON and ELECTION TAMPERING they would also OVERWHELMINGLY answer YES. Besides, are we a nation of laws or a nation of pollsters? If polls are all that matter, then lets just dispense with the laws and poll people, real time, for EVERYTHING. And as you well know, the outcome of polls can be affected by what you tell the people. You don't even have to tell them the truth because, after all, the media isn't a court of law. Using POLLS to defend the notion of not enforcing laws against serious criminals at the highest levels of government is pretty lame although I'm sure tyrants would love it.
Bush's real agenda
So just what is Bush's "real" agenda? If he is not willing to enforce laws against democRATS why should I believe his "agenda" includes enforcing laws against republican criminals? In fact, if his "agenda" is so all-fired important, perhaps he will do just what the democRATS did and decide that the ends justify the means ... break laws and cover up those crimes in order to stay in power ... and further his "real" "agenda". Sorry ... NOTHING is more important than enforcing the laws of the land in an EQUAL manner. THAT is the principle on which this country was founded ... the very reason for its existance. NO leader is supposed to be above the law and if Bush condones the breaking of laws by democRATS all he does is set a precedent that ensures more of the same lawbreaking the next time the democRATS get in power ... or even during HIS adminstration or some future Republican's term in office.
Bush didn’t campaign on prosecution of Clinton.
Bush took an oath to uphold the laws of the land and the Constitution. If you can't understand THAT, "I can't do anything about it." Furthermore, this isn't JUST about Clinton. It is about an entire party (the democRATS) whose leadership has gone BAD. Its no longer a party ... its a mafia ... and it is time to clean it up as surely as it is time to do away with the terrorist organizations.
Yea, maybe we should use the model of thousands of "principled progressives" in Florida who sent a message to he DNC and voted Green.
And thank goodness they did because otherwise the democRATS would have STOLEN the election precisely because the GOP did not make their CRIMES the number one election issue.
Yes you do, every bit as much as I do. I gave no evidence because it should be obvious. Neither did you.
"And I could go on ALL DAY listing stories…"
Nope, no one would read it or listen to it. To most people, you sound mentally disturbed, out of control and a total fruit cake. I agree with some of it, and I don’t' even want to listen to those same tired platitudes for the next 3 years.
"But if you asked them whether they want the laws enforced for things like MURDER and TREASON and ELECTION TAMPERING they would also OVERWHELMINGLY answer YES. "
I'm sure the question could be spun to get any answer. Okay simply ask, "Do you want Clinton's alleged crimes of "MURDER and TREASON and ELECTION TAMPERING" aggressively prosecuted in OJ and Impeachment style trials over the next several years at the expense of legislative progress and national reconciliation". That's a fair question, and you know what the answer would be.
"NOTHING is more important than enforcing the laws of the land in an EQUAL manner. THAT is the principle on which this country was founded ... the very reason for its existance.
No, "Freedom, democracy, liberty, separation of powers, and due process" are all of equal importance to enforcing the laws. Sometimes they conflict. Don't make me explain that to you.
NO leader is supposed to be above the law…Bush took an oath to uphold the laws of the land and the Constitution…. It is about an entire party (the democRATS) whose leadership has gone BAD. its a mafia ... and it is time to clean it up as surely as it is time to do away with the terrorist organizations."
I wish that I could make you understand:
- how much I understand exactly what you're thinking. You're telling me noting new.,
- how much I sincerely sympathize with you. I faxed Senators telling them if there wasn't a real trial I'd vote straight Democrat, and to my wife's horror, I followed through with it. And
- how our chance past, and it will never come again. I can educate people about these crimes, and I can laugh about them. But I'm not going to angrily shout at people on public forums driving up my blood pressure. The country's full of people who are unable to differentiate the spin from the reality. Fox news and a popular wartime president aren't enough to counter that.
I'm also a realist, and I see that the nation is not ready to support the prosecution of an ex-chief executive, and that if Bush pushed, it would be the only thing that he "might" accomplish in his one term. But I'm not without hope. I believe that educational reform, little by little, will free the natural curiosity of future generations to transcend the corruption that we failed to defeat.
I've got to get back to work, I'll be able to respond this evening.
This is what I posted
"O'Reilly now agrees, positing that Bush will reactivate the Clinton probe only if the GOP regains control of the Senate or if "things get rough."" -article
If this is really what is happening, the USA is no longer the republic established by 'The Constitution.'
It is no less than that.
+++++++++++++++++++++
There is a vast difference - hint - Bush is not saying he will not prosecute, according to the article, bush is blackmailing the Dems with the threat of prosecution.
Big difference.
Get it? - or do you care to further misquote and make more circular , yet vaggue, assertions.
BYE
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.