|
Grex > Agora41 > #20: Couple pardoned by Clinton paid Hillary's brother 1/4Mil$US. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
bdh3
|
|
Couple pardoned by Clinton paid Hillary's brother 1/4Mil$US.
| 
Mar 23 06:07 UTC 2002 |
http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standar
d.xsl
?/base/news/1016792138477012.xml
"Around the same time that they were chasing a presidential
pardon for their Alabama bank fraud convictions, a well-connected
carnival owner and his wife paid the brother-in-law of then-President
Clinton more than $240,000 for consulting services, according to a new
congressional review. "
From Chicken pluckers to Carny owners, the Clinton Clan sure associated
with and benefited from a fine bunch of characters. Just another
episode in the series _The Arkansas Hillbillys_...
|
| 117 responses total. |
happyboy
|
|
response 1 of 117:
|
Mar 23 08:12 UTC 2002 |
bdh is a social autistic obsessed with clintons
*poops*
|
bdh3
|
|
response 2 of 117:
|
Mar 23 08:45 UTC 2002 |
Uh, I'm not the author nor publisher of the media bit referenced
in #0. Don't get bitchy with me for something that somebody else saw as
'news fit to print'. On the other hand I merely offer the aphorism
'actions speak louder than words'. And 'where there is smoke there is
usually fire'. On the gripping hand, "Clinton makes Nixon look like
a street beggar."
|
richard
|
|
response 3 of 117:
|
Mar 23 09:20 UTC 2002 |
bdh give it up, clinton isnt president anymore, he is a private citizen
who has no further relevance to your life
|
rcurl
|
|
response 4 of 117:
|
Mar 23 15:44 UTC 2002 |
And there is no evidence that Clinton's pardon had any connection with
his brother-in-law's business deal, apart from an apparently a recommendation
from said brother-in-law. Many people submit recommendations for pardons,
for all sorts of personal or altruistic reasons.
|
tsty
|
|
response 5 of 117:
|
Mar 23 16:50 UTC 2002 |
geee, i wnat rcurl on my jury, if i ever need one.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 6 of 117:
|
Mar 23 19:51 UTC 2002 |
You'd be surprised. I demand solid evidence and act on it.
|
gull
|
|
response 7 of 117:
|
Mar 24 01:52 UTC 2002 |
Funny how any business deal of Clinton is worth looking into, but
dealings between Enron and the Bush Administration are none of our
business.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 8 of 117:
|
Mar 24 04:55 UTC 2002 |
Clinton is being brought up again *because* the senate is looking into
Enron.
|
tsty
|
|
response 9 of 117:
|
Mar 25 17:41 UTC 2002 |
re #7, y9ur basis for criticism is that there are/were dealings
between bush/enron. sorry to disappoint but this administration
(in direct contrast to the last) did not abuse either its power
or its position - rare in politics, but an infinite improvement.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 10 of 117:
|
Mar 25 18:17 UTC 2002 |
That's the blooper of the year. This administration is abusing its
power and position by favoring primarily the business and ultra-conservative
sides of the nation. They are also in power by a *minority* vote of
the electorate (albeit legally). They are enriching business interests
and catering to right-wing domagogues on social issues, thereby abusing
their power.
|
slynne
|
|
response 11 of 117:
|
Mar 25 18:45 UTC 2002 |
Bush sometimes tells funny jokes.
|
gull
|
|
response 12 of 117:
|
Mar 25 19:56 UTC 2002 |
Re #9: We don't know that they didn't abuse their power...they won't
let us find out. It *is* clear that Enron was apparently consulted
pretty closely when Cheney was drawing up his energy policy -- at very
least they were buying access, and they may have written up large
chunks of the final policy, but that we can't know yet. If there were
nothing to hide, though, why would they be trying so hard to cover it
up?
Several people have also pointed out that the Bush administration has
been standing on "principle" about revealing documents from their own
administration and from the Reagan administration, while simultaneously
releasing anything from the Clinton administration that might be
embarassing when taken out of context. The hypocrisy is not exactly
hard to spot.
|
klg
|
|
response 13 of 117:
|
Mar 25 22:50 UTC 2002 |
re 10: Who let the Sore Loserman out?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 14 of 117:
|
Mar 25 22:54 UTC 2002 |
Re #13: pretty dumb observation. How do you know whether I am a winner or
a loser, and in what, for that matter? You are just calling someone that
doesn't see things the way you see them a "loser". That's arguing by
insult.
|
klg
|
|
response 15 of 117:
|
Mar 25 22:57 UTC 2002 |
Q.E.D.
|
scott
|
|
response 16 of 117:
|
Mar 26 01:32 UTC 2002 |
Wow, klg actually admitted it?
|
russ
|
|
response 17 of 117:
|
Mar 26 03:16 UTC 2002 |
Re #10: Okay, Rane. Show us ONE example of anyone in the Bush
administration pulling strings to rescue Ken Lay or Enron. Just one.
I won't hold my breath. Compare to Clinton's campaign finances.
(Lippo Group, anyone?)
Your whining about the administration favoring business and the
ultra-conservatives is hypocritical. I didn't notice any complaints
from you when the Clinton administration was favoring the interests
of left-radicals and deci-billionaire trial lawyers, both of which
are easily as destructive to the nation as social reactionaries and
robber barons. And even robber barons have to *produce* something
or they go out of business; lots of the supporters of the left live
by what amounts to extortion.
Everyone: Did Rane make a big deal about Hillary's socialized-
medicine program being developed without any input from *doctors*?
At least the Bush administration consults energy companies about
energy policy.
(No wonder Rane's whine is so bitter; it's made with sour grapes. ;-)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 18 of 117:
|
Mar 26 07:09 UTC 2002 |
The Bush administration doesn't dare overtly "rescue" Lay or Enron.
But they were sure cosy with them before the fall.
Who were the "left radicals" and "trial lawyers" that Clinton "favored",
and how. They actually gave them great employment investigating imagined
Clinton transgressions, like the Whitewater attempt at slander.
|
jazz
|
|
response 19 of 117:
|
Mar 26 13:35 UTC 2002 |
Y'know I'd feel much more nervous about Hillary's medical plans if she
was flying around in a jet paid for by medical insurance companies, and
approved her staff by the same companies. Think about it.
|
gull
|
|
response 20 of 117:
|
Mar 26 13:50 UTC 2002 |
Exactly. It's one thing to consult experts in a field. It's another to let
the very industry you're supposed to be regulating write policy.
The fact that Bush was unable to rescue Enron from bankruptcy doesn't really
prove anything.
|
brighn
|
|
response 21 of 117:
|
Mar 26 16:27 UTC 2002 |
Russ wrote:
Everyone: Did Rane make a big deal about Hillary's socialized-
medicine program being developed without any input from *doctors*?
At least the Bush administration consults energy companies about
energy policy.
And Russ criticizes me for *my* analogies. The proper analogy here is:
Health care : Insurance companies :: Energy policy : Energy companies
Health care : Doctors :: Energy policy : Environmentalists
The analogy holds, I think, because Hill *did* rely on the advice of insurance
companies, just as W is relying on the advice of energy companies. I fail to
understand the logic of the "Yeah, well, YOUR guy is corrupt TOO!" rhetoric.
The Clinton Adminstration was corrupt. How does that soften any improprieties
and hypocricies of the current adminsitration?
|
gull
|
|
response 22 of 117:
|
Mar 26 16:34 UTC 2002 |
Apparently it's okay to be corrupt as long as you're also a
conservative. One of those "the ends justify the means" things.
|
oval
|
|
response 23 of 117:
|
Mar 26 20:24 UTC 2002 |
why thank you brighn! i didn't even know where to begin ..
|
mdw
|
|
response 24 of 117:
|
Mar 26 22:17 UTC 2002 |
Bush got his own money from the collapse of an earlier business venture.
I doubt he sees any big problems with the Enron collapse--to him, it's
how a business ought to be run. The major issue and I think the reason
the republicans don't mind investigating Enron is most of them weren't
cut into the deal, and some of them (Cheney, if rumour has it right)
actually lost money.
|