Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I understand that Glenn despises Bill Clinton and all associated with him and is generally ready to believe any vile story floated about either Bill or Hillary without question, but shouldn't a piece like this have at least a modicum of balance to it? Did the Clinton administration make any sort of explanation of the Rich pardon that might counter the charges of blatant influence peddling?
In fact, they did. Now Glenn might not buy that explanation, but shouldn't he at least raise it and dismiss it?
Bill Clinton made it clear that his main reason for issuing this pardon was to allow the many many civil suits against Rich to go forward. As long as the criminal action was ongoing (which it would be forever since Rich refused to return to the country) the civil actions could not even begin. There were many entities in this country that were eager to sue Rich for many millions of dollars. As a result of Clinton's pardon, those suits were able to go forward.
Now, the fact that a Deputy Attorney General received an average of one phone call or email every two and a half months from from some powerful and well connected lawyers certainly is damning evidence of something, but I don't know what. Sadly, Mother Theressa and Jesus Christ are both dead, so Obama was forced to name a mere human as his Attorney General. How ever will the nation survive?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
