[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

I really don't don't know why you are working so hard when it was acknowledged by everyone, including Holder, that it was a very botched process. The only question is if Holder was a stooge and being used or if he was a participant.

Best practices are just that. He wasn't on probation because he fled the country to escape prosecution. If you are saying that the information gathered and the people investigating explaining how and why charges were filed and the evidenced used to justify it is not needed to analyze the question of fitness for a pardon, you've gone around the bend and waved bye-bye to objectivity about 50 miles back. You keep accusing me of making things up but everything I quoted has been part of the debate for years on this. The owners manual for my vehicle doesn't tell me to check my mirrors before changing lanes, but it doesn't stop it from being necessary and a best practice.

The pardoning of a person who has fled the country to escape prosecution is so beyond the pale it generated bipartisan outrage.

Your insistence that there is nothing to see here, just move along, because there isn't a codified process for someone hauling ass before even being tried, is like this:

Holder himself said he should have spoken to prosecutors. You just keep looking more and more foolish. Rich was on the FBI most wanted list and fled the country to escape prosecution. His wife funneled a million dollars into a fund Clinton had full control over, additional sizable contributions to the Democrat Party and Clinton's defense fund. You are probably the only person in the US besides Rich and his ex-wife who doesn't feel this triggered the need to examine the circumstances and the role of the Justice Department.

I'm giving that link because it refutes your claim of a partisan witch hunt.

I linked to the document that the Justice Department pardon attorney had submitted to Congress outlining the normal procedures that specifically mentioned consultation with the federal court system that had jurisdiction. I linked to Justice department documents clearly stating the federal attorneys are used as a part of the process if required to get a full vetting of the facts and circumstances. Using an argument that he wasn't on probation when you know perfectly well the main objection was he fled before undergoing the process that produces it is pretty lame. As are your condescending comments. There is little reason to continue a discussion on this with you.

Thanks for playing.

interesting that you are arguing against the very dept of justice items you yourself posted previously. rather schizoid to say the least.

there is no obligation of the pardon attorney to involve anyone in the review of a pardon request such as rich's. that was a point I have made and you also provided links to validate.

eric holder didn't grant the pardon request, nor did eric holder circumvent any processes but followed the required processes, in sending the pardon request to the white house.

the house committee on government reform, which held hearings on the rich pardon chaired by dan burton who is no stranger to politicizing events, was criticized by the democrats on that very committee for a report on holder that "is partisan, relies on innuendo, and makes unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing" as well as "mixes facts with suppositions". yet you use that tainted report. so much for objectivity.

the "pajamamedia" blog is full of inaccuracies (how could holder have acted out of a desire to get appointed as gore's ag when gore had already lost the election when the pardon was granted?) and falsehoods it is a partisan hackjob. is this what you use to support an argument? failure out of the gate.

I said early on in your inaccurate demonizing of eric holder that if you have a problem with the rich pardon your anger and criticism should be directled at bill clinton, who granted the pardon, who worked with quinn (and scooter libby btw) to go against tradition and good judgement in granting a pardon to a fugitive. rather than look at the facts and follow that idea you attempt to label holder as so political he can't objectively handle an investigation into the cia. I can't and will not defend clinton, the pardon was not justified nor was it correct. that doesn't lead me to make incorrect and audacious conclusions on holder.

eric holder is not to blame, eric holder did not violate any requirements, eric holder is not guilty of anything but doing his job.

holder is doing likewise with the cia investigation. you have ignored the fact that he went to a special prosecutor who was a republican appointee. you ignored the fact that he is not using any political appointees in justice to work on the investigation. ignore is a crucial part of the word ignorance.

thanks for playing.