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

Skip to comments.

O'Reilly: Bush Insider Claims Clinton Deal Torpedoed Pardongate
News max ^ | 06/21/2002 | With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; bushknew; bushknew911; clinton; oreilly; pardongate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-186 next last
To: sneakypete
You can bet your life the Dims would have gone after any Republican politician who did the stuff Bubba-1 did.

You're darn tootin!!

161 posted on 06/22/2002 11:50:41 PM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Wild Irish Rogue
If Bush were to have reached down into the Justice Dept and thwarted an investigation,the scandal would blow Watergate out of the water

Really? Haven't been paying much attention to the news since about 1992,have you? Besides,do your REALLY think the Dims would complain and make a public stink about Bubba-2 covering for the crimes and coverups they comitted under Bubba-1?

162 posted on 06/23/2002 12:01:11 AM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: maica
And work to get Republicans elected

Know of any real ones running for office?

so our President may get some of his agenda passed.

Si,Senor.

163 posted on 06/23/2002 12:09:01 AM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
Nothing subtle about that at all,yet Bubba-1 and Stephanie got away with threatening US Senators and Congressmen.

People can wish all they want. They will not be prosecuted in this lifetime. It's not going to happen. Scary to think this is probably the least-corrupt political system in the world.

164 posted on 06/23/2002 12:12:54 AM PDT by FlyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Aria
You gotta love those Democrats, they say they'll torpedo legislation, shut the country down to protect the criminal President and his wife from answering for their crimes. It had to be a bluff and apparently W fell for it.

Remember Mena? The Bush family knows that the Clinton's know where all of the bodies are buried from the CIA drug deals during the GHW Bush's administration and when he was CIA director. Call it MAD (mutually assured destruction).

165 posted on 06/23/2002 12:27:23 AM PDT by rightofrush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn; Miss Marple
"...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... "

Rooster, 'The FBI was completely politicized by the klintoons, top-to-middle-management, and is now an arm of the DNC. There are many good field agents, but if they speak-out, they get the very-living-shit kicked out of them!

I may have said it wrong. It's my opinion that the FBI is compromised, and is now operating on the orders of the DNC.

Robert Meuller is a perfect example of the 'Peter-Principle'. Louis Freeh was a klintoon agent, and we will never see his so-called report.

I accept the fact that I've been bamboozled by this bunch of bastards, but I've been fooled before!(nice alliteration, huh?)

.

"...Hope that they're biting. .."

Pal, if I had had a pointy-stick last week, I coulda got dinner off my dock-to-be! Stay well armed and vigilant, kids..............FRegards

166 posted on 06/23/2002 7:52:43 AM PDT by gonzo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Wild Irish Rogue
Federal prosecutors must have enough evidence to reasonably
expect a conviction,before they can go to trial.

There are people on Death Row, with a lot less circumstancial
evidence. We have trials in order to let people draw reasonable
inferences from the evidence. This nonsence that we must prove
Quid Pro Quo is just that, nonsense. Barring a confession along
with three expert psycological opinions that the confession is
not coerced, nor fabricated, we will never prosecute these crooks.

One thing for sure if Justice drags there feet long enough, then
the statute of limitations kicks in and they are home free.

167 posted on 06/23/2002 9:54:59 AM PDT by itsahoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Satadru
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Your attempts to refute my specific points of contention with Bush's policies shows how unbiased you are. I think people will judge fairly who is unbiased here.

My reply was about all this argument is worth at this point which is: ridicule.

Your 'points of contention' have been raised, debated and often refuted too many times to count on FR but the anti-Bush people just keep putting the same 'points' up over and over and then try to claim that if one specific member doesn't waste his time debating the whole gang then this somehow 'proves' the anti-Bush gang victorious and correct in every assertion they care to make as they attack our President.

Wrong, but clever in a smarmy, Clintonian way.

Of course people will make judgements. In fact, they already have. President Bush has 75% of the American people that are satisfied with his performance, an unheard of number in modern politics. Bush has near total support from registered Republicans, like me. You can say what you wish and complain until 2004 for all anyone really cares, but you are part of a distinct, whiny minority that never liked, wanted or accepted G.W. Bush as President, just like the liberals. No matter what the man does, you would still whine and name-call. That's crystal clear from the debating we see on these Bush-specific threads.

I'm totally out front with the fact that I'm pro-Bush, pro-Republican. I have reservations about some policies and programs Bush has pushed or bills he's signed, sure, but I also do not expect any politician to follow my personal agenda 100%, as you clearly do. That's naive.

I - and many others - can comprehend that politics is the art of the compromise as well as a ton of PR in this day and age. It's also gamesmanship, which G.W. Bush has proven to be very, very good at. The political 'purity' you demand from Bush or any politician will never, ever arrive. Get over it. That you insist on having this perfect president, always pleasing you 100% is absurd but then to insist that anyone who doesn't share your personal worldview is beneath you somehow is just ego-fed arrogance and often a cloak for someone who is really anti-everything and a sourpuss about life, in this case translated to politics.

Go for it, sport, but don't think you can post this junk on FR and get away clean with the never-ending anti-Bush rants. As I stated in my original post on this thread - ignored by you but what the thread was about - the O'Reilly 'story' was simply slander with no basis in fact and you use it as a club to beat the man you love to hate, President Bush. You should be above this but clearly are not. So be it.

Yes, let the readers decide, indeed.

168 posted on 06/23/2002 11:51:00 AM PDT by Jim Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Jim Scott
Again, you have not refuted any of my claims. It is becoming very endemic to the whole Bushiban crowd. For the ten billionth time, I don't care if Bush follows my personal agenda a 100% of the time. It is impossible to ask for any politician to do that. I just want Bush to stick to his pre-election agenda, when he claimed he was a free-trader, when he claimed he was against racial quotas, when he claimed he was against big govt spending, when he was against CFR, when he was opposed to funding stem-cell research, and the list goes on and will go on in the future. Don't give me the stupid old whining excuse about the Senate. It only makes Bush looks weak. If he had a 75% approval rating, then why is a Senator from a po-dunk state yanking him around?
169 posted on 06/23/2002 12:00:58 PM PDT by Satadru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Wild Irish Rogue
No, they would only have to conclude that the chance of a conviction was too low to prosecute.
170 posted on 06/23/2002 12:07:40 PM PDT by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Satadru
Don't give me the stupid old whining excuse about the Senate. It only makes Bush looks weak. If he had a 75% approval rating, then why is a Senator from a po-dunk state yanking him around?

I never mentioned the Senate but since you've shown your lack of comprehension of national politics by having brought it up; yes, President Bush does have a 75% job-approval rating (down from 90% a few months ago, darn it) and Senator Tom Daschle of sparsely populated South Dakota is the Senate Majority Leader and in his position he has the power to hold back debate on legislation, stop up bills he doesn't like in committees, threaten Democrat Senators with crappy committee assignments and/or undesirable office space if they fight him and many other powers invisible to the general public. The state he resides in has zero to do with his powers as Majority Leader. Duh.

The reason Republicans want the Senate leadership (and a majority, of course) so badly is because it means the political power to get things passed and accomplished. This is now difficult for Bush to do, but the anti-Bush people always, always either ignore or dismiss that very real fact of political life and have a hundred reasons why Bush should have no trouble getting whatever he wants in the Congress. That's absurd on it's face and either shows true ignorance of the Washington political process or a disingeneous attitute that pretends the President is all-powerful when in fact, Bush just barely got elected, has an extremely hostile congress to deal with and of course a hostile and negative media tearing him down every chance they get.

Meanwhile, folks like you on the far right are snarling and waving your arms all the time while accusing Bush of being a liberal-in-disguise and screwing over conservatives. Geeze.

Look, you dislike Bush and see everything he does as anti-conservative and near-evil in it's intent. I think he's just a moderate compromising politician doing a good job in a hostile, difficult political environment. I don't think he's perfect. I hated CFR and the lame education bill but the anti-Bush crowd sees everything he does as flat-out wrong or some conspiracy to deprive you of some right. I find these broad-brush attacks on Bush pointless and frustrating. I'm also sick of being called a 'cheerleader' becuse I simply support my president. That's getting old and offensive. You want to believe George W. Bush is evil, bad, trying to destroy America or whatever fantasy you buy into, fine. I think otherwise, obviously and so does most of the United States. You're wrong about Bush but that like telling a Jehovah Witness he's wrong about his religion. I don't expect you to accept it, you like where you are. Stay there, in that phone booth with the other anti-Bush, 'He's really a a liberal' crowd and have your little meetings, throwing darts at a photo of Bush.

I won't debate this continuously, I have a life to attend to. Want the last word? Go for it. Nothing changes. I'm for Bush, you're not. Fine. This is Free Republic, this is what we do here, but don't expect a lot of high-fives here when you endlessly and gleefully slam a good man doing a good job who doesn't suit you.

171 posted on 06/23/2002 12:47:23 PM PDT by Jim Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: dts32041
"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."

If this be true, Mr. Bush is just as guilty as the Klintoons. But this ought to make all the R'pub politial lemmings happy. Anything Mr. Bush does makes them happy.
"Over the edge, mates. Let's go for a swim."

172 posted on 06/23/2002 12:57:01 PM PDT by CWRWinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Scott
My last word to you is that I hope they serve good drinks at this fantasy world of yours, because if I was in it, I had to be totally drunk. You have ignored the basic rule of poltics. Bush's biggest agenda is to get elected in 2004. He does not care to win the Senate in 2002, which he won't. Again, try to think why is it that a President with 75% popularity rating lets himself be taken hostage by Tom Daschle? Why is it that Bush is not using his 75% approval rating(or is it 90), to jerk around Tom Daschle instead of the other way around? If you can answer the question, you will find out Bush's true agenda.
173 posted on 06/23/2002 5:01:36 PM PDT by Satadru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Wild Irish Rogue
Well, from the looks of it, most of these so-called leaders didn't keep their part of the bargain; if this was true. Some Dems went along with Bush on many things, and still do. But on many things, they still give him a hard time. I really hate it when they refuse to identify a high-placed source.
174 posted on 06/24/2002 2:07:42 AM PDT by dsutah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FlyVet
What kind of dirt could they have on G. Bush's admin.? I keep hearing that on here. I'm sure he's not perfect, but he's not criminal; and this suggests he (Bush)and people in his admin. all have a criminal secret in their lives. That couldn't be right.
175 posted on 06/24/2002 2:14:28 AM PDT by dsutah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: swampfox98
Alright, maybe I'm stupid, but can you explain just why Bush would lie for the Clintons'? Do you actually think after all the crap the media threw at him in the elections, and all they came up with was a DUI conviction in his past; he could have something the Clintons' could blackmail him with? Or tell me what Bush could have done to make him even want to lie for them?

There's been a lot of innuendo going around on here from time to time, suggesting that the Clintons' have something on him. But whenever someone asks that, we get a load of web pages from some conspiracy sites, and some mysterious suggestions, without evidence, that he might have some dark secrets for the Clintons' to get him on. I'm sick of this 'cloak and dagger' stuff!
176 posted on 06/24/2002 2:37:56 AM PDT by dsutah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Satadru
Even worse than the previous administration?
177 posted on 06/24/2002 2:40:19 AM PDT by dsutah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Jim Scott
You're absolutely right! I don't know what to say to these people! I'm sick of the innuendo, and the insults from these people! Honest critism from time to time, can make a fine president even better. I don't have a problem with that, or with honest disagreement. But this constant insinuation, that he is a crook, and has something to hide, is too much.

I sometimes wonder about people like this one. I wonder what their own character is about; that they can make slanderous statements like this and cannot back them up with facts. Then they proceed to insult the intelligence and integrity of those of us who admire and support our President. It's getting old. If they can't get on here and disagree respectfully with others, why are they on here?
178 posted on 06/24/2002 2:50:35 AM PDT by dsutah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: dts32041
As Bill O'Reilly has often said, it's the powerful protecting the powerful.
179 posted on 06/24/2002 2:56:30 AM PDT by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dsutah
You're absolutely right! I don't know what to say to these people! I'm sick of the innuendo, and the insults from these people! Honest critism from time to time, can make a fine president even better. I don't have a problem with that, or with honest disagreement. But this constant insinuation, that he is a crook, and has something to hide, is too much.

Thanks for the support.

Yes, it's frustrating to have to contend with this delusional anti-Bush tripe all the time on FR but I ignore the bulk of it or I couldn't enjoy the forum at all. As I said in my origianl post on this thread, the O'Reilly story was pure slander with no basis in fact. Just a smear and the anti-Bush people ate it up, as you might expect.

I would remind you - as I remind myself when seeing this kind of blather here on FR - that these hysterical, angry and sometimes just plain loony anti-Bush folks are a tiny minority compared to the vast majority of average Americans who support President Bush. His enemies are on the left and the far, far right but unfortunately, the left has the media to trumpet it's bile and lots of well-placed politicians like Tom Daschle to obstruct Bush administration policies. The far, far right has FR.

In a nice touch of irony, the anti-Bush people swear that the pro-Bush forces are 'taking over' Free Republic when we feel just the opposite. As I said, ironic and almost amusing.

When your blood pressure goes up with these I-hate-Bush rants remember that you're seeing the outer fringe of American politics. For what little it's worth, they really believe a lot of the nonsense about Bushs' secret agenda and all that fantasy-land stuff. To some of them, the world is a vast conspiracy out to destroy them (and the Free World) but they have caught on to it (they read a book that explained it all to them) and they won't be fooled, no siree. Sigh.

The arrogance and self-satisfaction is also evident with the typical name-calling and sneering broadsides at anyone who dares to (a): support President Bush and (b): tell them they might be wrong about something. Of course, both camps engage in this behavior to a point but the snarling name-calling from the anti-Bush people can be vicious. Fortunately, Jim Robinson installed a moderator system on FR and you can see why.

Of course to these conspiracy-is-everywhere types G.W. Bush is just red meat. From a wealthy, politically-connected eastern family, Yale-educated and to the left of Pat Buchanan automatically makes George W. Bush 'a pawn' in the great scheme of elitist plots to destroy America and usurp our precious bodily fluids or some such delusion. It's sad, but these types have been around forever, only the names change with the decades and the object of scorn changes as a new president is elected. Republican presidents are a special target, even Ronald Reagan was never quite 'conservative' enough for some, back in the eighties. That far right criticism has been mostly forgotten now, which is typical.

Rational debate is pretty much impossible with the anti-Bush folks, as you've already noticed. It quickly degenerates into loony charges, long lists of Bush 'crimes' you are demanded to respond to (for the thousandth time) and name-calling as soon as you push back a bit. Not very rewarding. Still, my feeling is that we have to make some response to these folks or they just keep it up and it does infuriate me to see lies and nutty statements posted about the President with no rebuttal forthcoming, so I give it a shot once in awhile.

No one ever 'wins' or 'loses' as no one ever changes position in these 'debates'. So be it. The exchanges are still useful to the newbies and who knows that some misguided soul might actually be persuaded by something you or I may post?

Thanks again for your support. Made my day.

180 posted on 06/24/2002 9:26:09 AM PDT by Jim Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-186 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