Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog
"it wouldn't matter what clinton did"?
yikes.
how you fail to grasp that it ONLY matters "what clinton did" is a mystery.
actually, from the litany of wrong assertions you've made, it isn't really a mystery is it?
|
Because it has little to do with Holders opinion of if Rich met the requirements of the Justice Dept. Since Mrs. Rich had already hired Clinton's White House counsel from '93 and contributed serious change to his library most reasonable people see it as a purchased deal. If Holder had run it through the normal procedures setup for the evaluation which would have had notified the federal attorney for the district of New York for her opinion and then given his opinion Rich didn't meet the standards he would have been in the clear. He would have discharged his duty properly.
Clinton pardoning him or not pardoning him would have been on Clinton and Holder wouldn't have been pulled in front of Congress to explain why he circumvented normal procedure and Mary Jo White wouldn't have been screaming about learning about the pardon after it was granted.
It's hard to understand why you have such a problem understanding the point isn't about a Presidents supreme power to grant a pardon for whatever reason they want, it was about Holder's bypassing the Justice Department's procedures put in place to gather the information to make a decision on the merits for a recommendation, whatever it turned out to be.
Kind of puts a bit of a shadow on simply "right or wrong" and certainly raises a question of the AG being immune to political pressure from the White House.