Democrats do it again

Via Power Line:

Cal Thomas, in the Washington Times, tells us that the Democrats have announced plans to hold “hearings” during which they will examine the policies and conduct of the Bush administration. I thought we just finished such hearings in the form of an election campaign.

North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan promises that the hearings will be “about oversight. . .not gotcha politics.” That’s a relief. During his press conference to announce the hearings, Dorgan held up a picture of Harry Truman. One suspects, however, that Truman’s ghost is more interested in an inquest into how the Democrats became so reluctant to confront hostile totalitarian regimes, and so eager to appeal to and Michael Moore. One suspects, too, that the Democrats would profit more from such an inquest.

They couldn’t win the election so they’ll just investigate him to death!

11 Responses to “Democrats do it again”

  1. Bob Says:

    5 words.

    Whitewater. Travelgate. Vince Foster. Paula Jones. Gennifer Flowers. Monica Lewinsky. Presidental Pardons.

    Well, more than 5 words.

    But this is 5 words.

    You reap what you sow.

    This is the payback for all the dirty underhanded tricks that the Republicans did in the 1990’s.

    Impeaching a sitting President for banging an intern. Geesh, let’s impeach every president all the way back to Grover Cleveland. Every single one of them did it. It was a given that you banged interns. Hell, that’s what half of them were there for.

  2. Marcus Says:

    Bob, don’t forget that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about his relationship with Lewinsky, not the act. I firmly believe that nothing would have happened to him if he hadn’t started lying.

    You should check out this link as well. You’ll see the Rich’s pardon does deserve the attention from Congress. Just in case you don’t decide to follow the link, I’ll quote the better parts to you.

    Republicans and Democrats alike were dumbstruck by the Rich pardon. The federal prosecutors who indicted Rich are especially livid, particularly because, by definition, Rich appears to be ineligible for a pardon: He never took responsibility for his actions or served any sentence.

    The congressional panels were called to investigate the path to Rich’s pardon — which, as various documents seem to indicate, did not follow usual channels.

    As in Denise Rich’s case, congressional investigators want to know if there’s a trail leading straight from Dozoretz’s bountiful checkbook to Clinton’s signature on Marc Rich’s pardon.

    Next time you want to talk about “dirty underhanded tricks,” make sure they don’t have merit behind them.

  3. Bob Says:

    The President … shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

    That’s absolute. Not “with Congressional approval”. Not “to be investigated by Congress”. Absolute. Article II Section 2 of the Constitution. Congress has NO RIGHT and no say as to any pardons.

    Gee, and Ford pardoned Nixon, less than a week after he left office, and it was never investigated.

    Every outgoing President exercisies that power.

    Let’s check the numbers, shall we? Oh, and to be accurate, these figures come from Capitol University Law School.

    Harry S. Truman……………735

    Dwight D. Eisenhower……….132

    John F. Kennedy……………391

    Lyndon B. Johnson………….925

    Richard M. Nixon…………..522

    Gerald E. Ford…………….404

    Jimmy Carter………………319

    Ronald Reagan……………..181

    George H.W. Bush……………39

    William J. Clinton………….56

    Nixon and Ford together pardoned almost 1000. Nixon pardoned Jimmy Hoffa. Reagan pardoned George Steinbrener, for illegal campaign contributions, to HIS campaign.

    This is NOTHING new, Marcus. Clinton was a lightweight compared to his predecessors, as far as pardons are concerned. And none of those were ever questioned or investigated.

    Facts are facts. Is it abused? Absolutely. But do we really want to change the Constitution? That one is not even an ammendment. It can’t legally be changed.

  4. Marcus Says:

    Bob, you’re confusing my point about this pardon. My problem, and Congress’ along with the prosecutors’, isn’t with the number of pardons issued by Clinton. It is the shady circumstances in which this one happened.

    There are other questions looming: Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, asked whether Clinton even had time to sign all of the paperwork required to seal Rich’s pardon before he left office — raising the possibility that the pardon may not be valid.

  5. Bob Says:

    So was Ford, so was Nixon, so was Reagan. They were ALL shady. So by that count, it’s Republicans 3, Democrats 1.

  6. Marcus Says:

    Comments or articles in the blogoshpere don’t mean a damn thing without some proof behind it. Can you cite specific cases of shady pardons?

  7. Bob Says:


    Nixon - pardoned Jimmy Hoffa in 1971. Who is now in the end zone in the Meadowlands.

    Ford - pardoned Richard Nixon in 1974. Obvious one there.

    Regan - pardoned George Steinbrenner in 1989. Steinbrenner was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to the Republican Party. By paying bonuses to his employees that were subject to the employee’s contributions to the Republican Party.

    All records are publicly available. Ford pardoning Nixon has got to be the shadiest that there has ever been. If it wasn’t for that pardon, Nixon would have gone on trial for sure.

  8. Big Al Says:

    Impeaching a sitting President for banging an intern????

    Hey Bob. Get your facts straight. Clinton was impeached for lying about it. It wasn’t the actions, it was the cover-up. Thats what Nixon was impeached for. I know some idiots out there who think Nixon was involved with Watergate simply due to the impeachment. Nixon, when he discovered that certain staff members were involved, embarked on a cover-up campaign in which he lied to the American people.

  9. Bob Says:

    Oh, I actually agree. He DID lie about it. And he should have been nailed for it. But let’s look at the real facts here.

    Yes, he was impeached for lying about it. But then, were not the Republicans out to get him constantly? 70 million dollars spent on the “special prosecutor” and nothing every happend. They have five chances to nail him, and nothing stuck. I read that two ways. Incompetance, or baseless charges.

    Think about it this way. And I’m not justifying what Clinton did. At all. But would YOU tell the American people you were banging an intern? Expecially since it really wasn’t anybody’s business who you were banging anyways? I really don’t care who the President is doing. Hell, I’m glad he’s actually getting some! More power to him if he can!

    Ok, that was kinda crude. I know. But I’m being honest. I really don’t care what a politician’s sex life is like. That doesn’t make me change my vote or change my opinion of them in any way. That’s why I hate the words “sex scandal”. Now, if it was something that’s illegal, like a minor, or something like that, I’d be obviously concerned.

    Sorry again, I’m venting a little. People tend to forget that not so long ago, it was the Republicans who were caught being dirty.

    Both parties are dirty. That’s why I’m a registered Green Party member.

    Ok, go ahead and laugh now.

  10. Big Al Says:

    White Water netted a bunch of people. That should show it was anything but baseless. We’ll never know if Clinton was involved due to the extreme loyalty of Susan McDougal. Too bad we’ll never know what she knows. Paula Jones recieved a payout. Had Jennifer Flowers accused a republican, the press would have been all over it just as they were when Anita Hill (falsely) accused Clarence Thomas. I never believed the Vince Foster rumor, it is funny, however, that those documents which turned up missing, and of whose wherabouts the (former) President had no knowledge, suddenly appeared in the White House. I do believe that both Clintons knew where they were all along.

    I disagreed with the impeachment. Republicans were gaining too much in public favor, and I have always felt Gore voters had that on their minds back in 2000. I don’t think the President (the current one) would have had any problems in that election had there been no impeachment attempt. Gore simply turned too many off, but the dis-like for republicans at that point in time was huge. Clinton did lie, under oath mind you, when he must have known he’d get busted for it. The whole Lewinsky affair was discovered because ken Starr was attempting to root out the truth about White Water, which I have already stated, was an actual crime in which real people did jail time. Had President Clinton not been involved with shady charachters to begin with….

    One other thing. Please don’t call Ford a republican president. He only was minority leader due to his tenure. He kept getting elected to the House because of his popularity at home. No real republican would appoint at man like John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court, and Ford would have never been elected to the Presidency. I also must disagree that had Ford not given Nixon a blanket pardon, that Nixon would have wound up in court. Lieing under oath is an impeachable offense, but not one which could have been tried in a court of law, and I have never seen evidence to show an actual crime.

    Finally, I don’t laugh at people who seem to be level headed. If we all agreed on everything, life would be boreing (kinda like the old U.S.S.R).

  11. Bob Says:

    I try to be level headed at times. But I can go off on people too. Just ask Marcus about that. 8-)

    There are a few Republicans I do like. I like John McCain. I think he will make a great President some day. But I despise people like Tom Delay, who got the party to change its rules so he can keep his position. I think he’s gonna wind up in jail.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.