Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

O'Reilly: Bush Justice Dept. Hamstringing Pardongate Probers
NewsMax ^ | February 3, 2002 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-175 next last
To: smileee
Maybe the Clintons have heard about George and his brother having dinner with the guy who popped Reagan the night before that guy went to DC to do the deed. That guy was set up with a VP position at a company in Brazil 2 days prior. He mentioned that he was having dinner that night with the two brothers. Now, one cannot help but wonder what the dinner table conversation was about.
41 posted on 02/03/2002 7:12:37 PM PST by Lulu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
They have to stop Hillary now.

Whatever the reason---holding himself above the fray, taking the high road---whatever---President Bush needs to let the prosecutors go for it.

Stopping Hillary is as important to the future of this nation as stopping terrorism. I would hate for us to look back in a few years at how we could have stopped her but didn't.

42 posted on 02/03/2002 7:17:56 PM PST by gg188
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Bump

Bump this back up tommorow AM.

43 posted on 02/03/2002 7:22:32 PM PST by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gg188
Stopping Hillary is as important to the future of this nation as stopping terrorism

=====================================

I've not heard it put in those exact words before. You've totally nailed it.

44 posted on 02/03/2002 7:26:03 PM PST by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Lulu
Huh? Got some more info on that? thankyou in advance!
45 posted on 02/03/2002 7:56:14 PM PST by zog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
No wonder the general public doesn't trust the Government, be it Repubs or Democrazies. This is called the "Washington Two Step," i.e., you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Makes a person sick to her stomach.
46 posted on 02/03/2002 7:59:40 PM PST by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: gg188
'Stopping hillary is as important etc'........exactly right.......truer words were never spoken!
47 posted on 02/03/2002 8:00:04 PM PST by mickie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: mickie
I had hoped that Bush would bring us some justice.......after eight long years of suffering!

Get over it! Ford pardoned Nixon. We got over it.

Clintons' legal problems are coming round, coming round slowly and profoundly. She is in terror now that she will be indicted. He is in a turmoil of being irrevelant...even after being disbarred.

Revenge cannot be hot...but a cold side dish.

48 posted on 02/03/2002 8:20:05 PM PST by Conservababe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Here is clintoon's "Legacy", compliments FReeper "Registered". . .



49 posted on 02/03/2002 8:36:59 PM PST by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
This is so painfully obvious (on several levels).

Listen folks, like it or not, Bush told us that he would put this behind us, and now he's doing his best to do just that. "Uniter not a Divider" remember that????

The dude actually does what he says, and that wasn't just a stupid slogan. I'm guessing that he really does think that healing the nation is more important than further dividing it to prosecute these people. We had our one best shot and the Senate punted. (They were probably too dirty to live through the fight.)

And don't think that the nation can't heal without justice. You political freaks and geeks (I include myself) may not, but the rest of the nation will bask in the serenity and get on with life.

That's the obvious direction that Bush has taken this since the moment he stepped into the office - one investigation after another has been shelved. This is old news. Don't expect that to change. Deal with it.

50 posted on 02/03/2002 8:39:50 PM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sultan88
Bump to study later.
51 posted on 02/03/2002 8:42:46 PM PST by sultan88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: potlatch
Bump---

Mena.

52 posted on 02/03/2002 8:44:13 PM PST by Scholastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Bump for the truth.
53 posted on 02/03/2002 8:44:48 PM PST by NotJustAnotherPrettyFace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
The GOP took a beating everytime they persued yet another Clinton scandal, because the RATS spinmasters are much better than ours. The best place for the Clintons to be is off the front page, yet pursuing these numerous investigations would only keep them there.

And they both play the victim so well that without absolute proof, it will be made to appear that the GOP political machine is still out to get the Clintons. We REPS should realize by now that the Clintons cover their tracks too well for anything to be found that would stand up in court.

It was within Clinton's power as president to pardon anyone he damn well pleased and you can be certain that no evidence of the probable 'quid pro quo'(sp?) was left behind. So like Whitewater, Filegate, Vince Foster, Travelgate, et al, the GOP would again lose public support when nothing could be proven in court.

Of course we REPS would like to see Clinton punished, but at what cost? Our man is in office now, with an 83% approval rating. While I do not agree with all of his politics, I know for certain that I would not have approved of 100% of Gore's.

Personally, I think Bush simply wants the Clintons to disappear and he is not going to be party to putting them back in the headlines on the dim hope that something could be proven in a court of law against them.

54 posted on 02/03/2002 8:48:43 PM PST by bjcintennessee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: palo verde
I agree, there is not much to be done - it was a pardon, after all. It is a constitutional absolute. As for all the people who paid good money for pardons, not much to be done there either.
55 posted on 02/03/2002 8:54:35 PM PST by no-s
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
". 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?'" "

Do you understand what this statement actually means? It means that there is no way to get a conviction unless Bill Clinton confesses onder oath.

No wonder so many people are getting irritated with you. Try thinking about the article before posting it.

56 posted on 02/03/2002 9:04:41 PM PST by bayourod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bjcintennessee; elfman2
Bump for the voices of reason.

Bill Clinton will never be found guilty, probably because either he's too far removed from the people who actually broke laws, or the things he did weren't unlawful.

Did he behave like a scumbag while in the White House? Yes, he sure did, and America elected him to a second term.

Bottom,line is, after eight years of Bill, to put him on trial would give us the OJ trial from hell, a trial from which Bill will come out exonerated, and claiming "unjust persecution by the vast, right-wing conspiracy".

Forget him.

57 posted on 02/03/2002 9:16:19 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
I don't know, doug, but maybe someone has a better idea, like a better time, to stop Hillary. This administration seems to have a really firm grip on when and how to counter the democraps.
58 posted on 02/04/2002 1:39:31 AM PST by My back yard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Exhibit A, maybe?
59 posted on 02/04/2002 1:49:10 AM PST by My back yard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bayourod; ALL
". 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?'" "

Do you understand what this statement actually means? It means that there is no way to get a conviction unless Bill Clinton confesses onder oath.

No wonder so many people are getting irritated with you. Try thinking about the article before posting it.


Huh? Why don't you tell me exactly what that means?

1. Why would you blame me because of an article's content and someone's interpretation of that content?

2. "No wonder so many people are getting irritated with you." Really? First complaint I'd had along those lines. Are people talking behind my back?? Tell them to talk to ME if they have a problem with any of my posts. Maybe I'll learn something. . .If you have a complaint about any OTHER articles I've posted that have irritated you, let me know which ones and why.

Thanks for your input.

60 posted on 02/04/2002 2:30:44 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-175 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson