On Deck : Government Universal Health Care

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

No, he could have given the opinion of disapprove and he would have been clear, it wouldn't matter what Clinton did. I don't see why you have such a problem with this.

As to the rest of your post, it's not worth commenting on.

"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?

[aquaadverse]

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.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

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.

do you just make this stuff up? really, why don't you do a bit of reading first before you write this crap.

there is no "normal procedure" to notify any federal attorney. there is no obligation of the pardon justice to ask, interview or consult with any federal attorney. there is a stated limitation on who is involved with the petition, and a federal attorney isn't one of them.

Petitions, reports, memoranda, and communications submitted or furnished in connection with the consideration of a petition for executive clemency generally shall be available only to the officials concerned with the consideration of the petition. However, they may be made available for inspection, in whole or in part, when in the judgment of the Attorney General their disclosure is required by law or the ends of justice.

(c) The Attorney General shall review each petition and all pertinent information developed by the investigation and shall determine whether the request for clemency is of sufficient merit to warrant favorable action by the President. The Attorney General shall report in writing his or her recommendation to the President, stating whether in his or her judgment, the President should grant or deny the petition.

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clemency.htm#consideration

holder was brought in front of a republican chaired committee over the objections of the minority democrats. it's pretty obvious who is "political" in this instance, and it is clearly the republicans who wanted someone to beat up over the rich pardon, and bill clinton was untouchable.