Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I must say I didn't follow the Rich pardon well enough to have ever heard this supposed justification about civil suits. But as a litigator (sorry to use that appeal to authority, I don't mean to suggest I know everything but I do have some experience) that claim sounds like pure bullshit to me. It is true that judges have the power to stay civil suits pending a criminal trial and would normally be inclined to do so, because of the difficulties that the civil discovery process can inflict upon a defendant who's also facing a civil trial. But a fugitive? I find it hard to imagine any court refusing to allow a civil suit to proceed where the criminal trial was being indefinitely delayed by the defendant's own act of fleeing the country. I'd be happy to be shown I was wrong by actual decisions from courts in the cases that were supposedly stalled, but without that I find Clinton's claim to be pretty implausible.
the difficulties that the civil discovery process can inflict upon a defendant who's also facing a civil trial.
Sorry, I meant facing a criminal trial.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/politicalwrap_11-28.html
PBS NewsHour
Originally Aired: November 28, 2008Analysts Mark Shields and David Brooks examine President-elect Barack Obama's new economic team [...]
DAVID BROOKS: And the only thing I would say is enjoy these moments. I went back and read some of the pieces, including by me, that were written in 2001 about the Bush team. And they were all about what a star Paul O'Neill was and how Dick Cheney was so flexible.
And sometimes we get these things so wrong [...]
- - David Brooks, on "PBS NewsHour", Friday 11/28/2008
GG, I love when you talk like that!
Marc Rich was clearly a tax cheat. What made his case pardon-worthy was that he was singled out for criminal, not civil prosecution, unlike every other similarly situated defendant. The pardon still left him exposed to civil prosecution. If that is "sleazy", the definition is rather exacting. From where I sit, selective prosecution is "sleazy."
It is precisely to correct such miscarriages of justice that the pardon power exists. No corrupt quid pro quo has ever been shown here (and DA Mary Jo White tried). Glenn should really save his outrage for the actually outrageous, and not another manufactured pseudo-scandal by the Clinton-hating MSM.
Another excellent post by Glenn. Though I still have high hopes that Obama will bring about the true change needed, this "Obama=Jesus" meme by some of us on the left is way too reminiscent of how Bush was viewed by his hard-core supporters on the right for my liking.
I understand that Glenn despises Bill Clinton and all associated with him
Replace "understand" with "fantasize" and this sentence would then become accurate.
You have any proof of my bountiful contempt for Bill Clinton and all associated with him? Have I ever written about the role of the media and the Right in the Lewinsky scandals? What did I think of that?
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.
That's absolutely hilarious. Then why not offer all criminal fugitives the same deal: We'll pardon you for your crimes so that you'll be subject to civil suit!
I'm sure that Marc Rich and his hundreds of millions of dollars were devastated by that consequence -- that's why he spent years and millions of dollars doing everything he could to connive that outcome.
I wasn't focused here on Clinton's excuse for the Rich pardon, but on Holder's role in it, and not even Holder offers this hilarious excuse. In fact, he has said his behavior was a mistake that he regrets.
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?
The hallmark of a blind Obama worshiper: any objections to right-wing or militaristic policies makes one a wild-eyed Ideologue who doesn't understand the Virtues of Pragmatism. And any objections to unethical, sleazy behavior makes one an unrealistic Purist who wants everyone to be Jesus Christ.
So, Holder used his power as Deputy Attorney General to facilitate the granting of extremely special and valuable treatment to a very rich, high-donor fugitive and his well-connected, power-broker lawyers that no ordinary citizen would ever get. That makes him human! What do you want? Mother Theresa.
Any time there is any scandal or error on the part of the Obama administration, we'll be hearing this over and over and over for the next four years from this small though vocal group of groupies.
What I find amazing is to listen to the punditry, even on salon.com, go on and on about how "great" is Obama's national security team. If you don't think Clinton is the most experienced, perfect person for Sec. of State than you're a "Clinton hater." The sort of adulation of Obama and his "team" is makes it seem as though citizens are children who just need to trust, trust, trust their political leaders.
We're not supposed to "trust" our political leaders in a democracy. But somehow not trusting has become equated with being "anti-Obama" or ironically "naive" for thinking that Obama was progressive when he wasn't or a number of other disciplinary finger shakings at people who out of simply observing that the selection of these people is not an automatic sign of great things to come.
I do think Obama will make policy, and I believe him when he says he wants to hear different opinions, it is that the range of opinions seems relatively narrow in his cabinet.
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
