Not saying the leak is true, but it only takes 41 Senators to filibuster. Bush didn't have 60.
Posted on 06/21/2002 6:46:21 PM PDT by dts32041
O'Reilly: Bush Insider Claims Clinton Deal Torpedoed Pardongate
A Bush administration insider has privately leaked word that a deal was struck between Democratic congressional leaders and the Bush White House not to prosecute Bill and/or Hillary Clinton on an array of charges related to the Pardongate scandal, Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly claimed Friday on his nationally syndicated "Radio Factor" show.
"A very highly placed source - and I mean this guy knows what's going on in the Bush administration - told me about a month ago that when President Bush took office he had meetings with all of the Democratic leadership.... one on one meetings in the Oval Office," O'Reilly said.
"The Democratic leadership made it quite clear to Mr. Bush that he would not get any cooperation - zero - on the part of the Democrats in the Senate and in the House if he pursued any kind of a criminal investigation against Bill Clinton."
O'Reilly said that according to his source, "Basically they said look, if you embarrass us - by us we mean the Democratic Party - if you, Bush-Ashcroft, indict Clinton on bribery or go after Hillary or any of this - we're gonna shut you down. We're not gonna do anything. You're not going to get any (legislation) passed if four years."
The talk host's highly placed administration source said Democrat leaders then explained to Bush, "If you put this thing on the back track and just play the game the way we've always played it here in the Justice Department since Watergate, where the powerful protect each other - then we'll keep an open mind on your legislation."
O'Reilly never indicated who his source might be beyond describing him as "very highly placed."
On Thursday, U.S. Attorney for New York's Southern District James Comey, a Bush appointee, ended a key part of the probe into whether the Clintons traded pardons for political favors and campaign contributions.
Well, since the DemocRATS haven't lived up to their end of the bargain, and are also holding up 400+ Judicial Appointments, it's time to put the Clinton's in jail!
On another note, doesn't this just prove how bad DC politics are - play the game the way it's always been played ... Indeed.
Excuse me while I go throw up.
No, I don't think so. The FBI files is just a convenient explantion for each and every (almost) failing by the 'good guys'. I think it actually lets the 'good guys' off the hook by not recognizing the deeper and more pervasive reasons for their failings...
Stay well, vigilant, and well-armed. I'm goin' fishin'!..........
Hope that they're biting.
The Clinton's are shyster lawyers who know every trick in the book when it comes to non-answering supeonas, coercing witnesses, and every other aspect of thwarting a criminal investigation. They make the villians in James Bond movies look like saints. The American public allowed this pair to occupy the highest office in the land. They have learned every trick in the book and have covered their tracks via a staff of thousands.
We know Clinton commited perjury, obstructed justice, and intimidated witnesses. And what, $40 million later, he skated with a slap on the wrist. So this duly-elected official with constitutionally granted pardon power, pardoned a slew of criminals. I guarantee you, there aren't any cancelled checks laying around from Rich that have 'pardon' written on the 'for' line. They've destroyed every bit of evidence in this crime and every other one. We watched with disgust as they got away with the travel office firings, white watergate, freaking rape, ruining national security, and a host of other crimes. And wouldn't the media have a field day attacking Bush for partisan politics if he went after the Clintons? I can hear Dan Rather now - ...Bush...country under attack...wasting energy...after our beloved Clinton.
Yet I'm a firm believer in the 'what goes around, comes around' theory. I can wait it out, and will enjoy watching both Clintons getting their just deserts.
I don't believe this is true
Neither do I, Miss M.
Me three.
Apart FRom its complete misreading of Mr Bush's Character, it is so far fetched as to be beyond laughable, even.
Mr Bush would have immediately gone public with such threats -- and let the chips fall -- as they say in Crawford TX!
Not saying the leak is true, but it only takes 41 Senators to filibuster. Bush didn't have 60.
OK, assuming this is true... would you put it past the Democrats to double-cross the GOP on a handshake deal?
I'm inclined to think the leak isn't true, or not exactly so. Wouldn't surprise me if the Dems made noises like this. Also wouldn't surprise me if Bush wasn't going to make a big move on the Clintons anyway. Whatever Bill and Hill's guilt, there are real problems with establishing a precedent for incoming Presidents to use the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute ex-Presidents.
Sooner or later a Democrat will be President again. They are shameless bullies and will stoop to any justification to savage their foes and further their interests.
I have laid all this at the door of Hillary, and her continued use of the stolen Republican FBI files. These files ruined Newt Gingrich and destroyed his contract for America. Looks as if they are on the way to destroying the Bush presidency, too.
LOL!
You've hit a misconception about how leftists behave politically. That is, that they believe in abiding by the letter of agreements the make. Remember who you're analyzing here. They never keep their word in any other context. And by their reasoning, they've given Bush a great deal already. "His" education plan and his tax cut, to name two. The lack of seeing bills "rushed" through is just not relevant. The threat is, if it exists, to make things worse for Bush if the DOJ goes after x42, not to make things easy for him if he doesn't.
And I remain pessimistic, because I feel the White House forgets that the Democrats will make as much trouble as possible, no matter the circumstances. Bush seems insistant on bargaining with them, enticed with the myth of Democrat good will, which simply does not exist.
(Notable exception: Zell Miller.)
I think that if Osma bin Laden told you personally that GW Bush is a bad man you would readily agree and thank him for pointing this out to you.
This nonsense isn't 'criticism', it's slander from anonymous 'sources' and you should be honest enough to recognize it as what it is, not use it to bash the President you love to hate but resisting that temptation would obviously be too much to ask. The anti-Bush brigades will never let a good piece of slander go unused and truth isn't useful so no need to consider it.
Those who disagree with President Bush on policy or other issues should stick the those matters of fact when bashing the man instead of jumping on slanderous allegations from anonymous sources, then equating Bush supporters with Clintonites who supported illegality and more in the White House for eight years. Your credibily is lost when you play that dishonest game.
I wonder why Watergate was treated differently.
Well, 40+ Dems can always stall stuff in the Senate. But I don't understand why the Republicans would not consider any such deal broken by the unparalleled way in which the Dems shifted control of the Senate.
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.