Posted on 06/20/2002 7:46:48 AM PDT by RaceBannon
Ashcroft to Make it Official: Clintons Are Above the Law
Attorney General John Ashcroft is said to be ready to close out a key aspect of his Justice Department investigation into the Clinton pardon trading scandal, effectively confirming that both the ex-president and his New York senator wife are now officially above the law.
"The Justice Department is expected within a month to shut down its probe into whether (then-President) Clinton gave clemency to four convicted felons of the Hasidic enclave of New Square after the town voted 1,400 to 12 for Hillary Clinton in her Senate election," the New York Daily News reported Thursday.
"The New Square part is likely to be closed without criminal charges being brought," a source familiar with the investigation told The News.
Four New Square Hasidic rabbis, who had been jailed for bilking the government out of millions of dollars earmarked for anti-poverty programs, were freed from jail earlier this year as a result of the Clinton clemency deal.
Hasidic communities surrounding New Square that weren't granted any special presidential favors voted heavily for Mrs. Clinton's opponent, Rick Lazio.
The decision to clear Mrs. Clinton comes despite earlier reports that at least one witness had fingered her in the vote-trading conspiracy.
Prosecutors had found a witness who says the senator was present during discussions of clemency before the election, sources familiar with the probe told the News in January.
The investigation into Clinton's illegal pardon of fugitive billionaire Marc Rich, as well smoking gun evidence that former first brother Roger Clinton traded pardon promises for cash, remains open. But after more than a year of relative inactivity, observers also expect those probes to end without indictments.
The contrast with other more recent Justice Department prosecutions couldn't be more stark, illustrating what government probers can do when they're not constrained by political considerations.
The accounting giant Arthur Andersen, for instance, was convicted just last week based on an indictment that charged the entire company with obstruction of justice. The conviction left more than a few legal experts wondering about prosecutorial overreach.
The recent conviction of Michael Skakel for the 26-year-old murder of Martha Moxley was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, in a case that appeared far weaker than the one prosecutors have built against the Clintons.
Though the Skakel conviction wasn't a federal prosecution, the surprise guilty verdict illustrates what prosecutors can accomplish when they're interested in actually enforcing the law.
Beyond Pardongate, the Bush Justice Department has either plea bargained or abandoned outright other possible prosecutions against the Clintons, while ignoring altogether additional serious reports of wrongdoing, including:
• Allegations that Indonesian billionaire James Riady illegally funneled millions of dollars into Clinton presidential campaigns.
• Reports that the Clinton White House withheld and or attempted to destroy millions of evidentiary e-mails that had been subpeonaed by the Office of Independent Counsel.
• Complaints from Clinton accusers Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick and Elizabeth Ward Gracen that they were subjected to politically motivated IRS audits after speaking out about sexual encounters with the president.
• Charges from Democratic Party contributor Peter Paul that the Clintons failed to report his $2 million donation to the Federal Election Commission.
• Allegations that Mrs. Clinton's acceptance of an $8 million book advance after she was elected to the Senate may have violated federal bribery statutes.
• A complaint from White House whistleblower Linda Tripp that officials with the Clinton Pentagon illegally leaked information from her confidential employment file to the media.
• Reports that a Westchester County police officer may have been threatened with the loss of his job for talking about an accident where he was seriously injured by a car carrying Mrs. Clinton.
Ahhh, you simply don't know what the rule of law is...
Rule of Law:
rule 1: the law is for everyone else
rule 2: see rule 1
That is the first comment that makes any kind of sense yet. Of course the Bush's and their friends are compromised. Why else would they want to back off from a fight that would yield mutual destruction for both sides? Bush has a war to fight. He couldn't care less about the Clintons. They are no threat to him any more. The last elections proved this out in spades.
Are you seriously that unimaginative?
But why? It comes back to the FBI files. Both sides are completely compromised. That is why they are in power. Only compromised individuals can be manipulated into submission.
First, I am surprised someone dug this thread up, it is an old one.
Second, Clinton and his crimes, the way we went after him, we were constantly reminded of the Rule of Law by people ike Limbaugh and others.
Where is the rule of law now that clinton is out of office? We no longer have a DOJ stonewalling anyting against him, we have credible treason charges, we have credible obstruction of justice charges, and we even have War Crimes in the way he started a war to keep Monic off the TV screen about 10 times.
And you call us cry-babies? Were YOU at all concerned about the rule of law then? If so, why not now?
Plus, if you read Shippers book on the impeachment, one of Clinton's impeachment charges had to do with him telling the INS to waive background checks on incoming immigrants, andin allowing illegals to vote in California, with the Dem party getting names from the INS to go to their house to teach them how to register dem.
Now that Bush is in office, we not only have NO LAW ENFORCEMENT going after this traitor, but we have Bush calling for amnesty for illegals from Mexico. All for votes.
Just because it is being done through the pen, instead of behind our backs does not make it moral or right. It is still wrong. What ever happened to the rule of law? We were going to impeach Clinton for doing the same thing: Getting illegals to vote for the party. Now, we are supposed to praise Bush for doing it legally??
Please...
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.