We thought W already knew this. As a hopeful college freshman, W introduced himself to William Sloane Coffin Jr., the Vietnam War-protesting chaplain at Yale, and Coffin informed the young man, "Yeah, I know your father, and your father lost to a better man," after George Bush Sr. lost a Senate race in Texas.
Then W's father was double-crossed in his deal with the Democrats to raise taxes if they cut spending. Because he broke his Read-My-Lips pledge to people who knew better than to try to work with Democrats, Bush's father promptly lost the next presidential election to a flim-flam artist from Arkansas.
You can't negotiate with these terrorists.
Hatch's rationale for recommending a pardon was: 1) "I just don't see keeping it alive any longer," and 2) "I don't think there's a jury in America that is going to convict President Clinton."
On point 1, if a pardon would mean that we would never, ever, ever have to hear Bill Clinton's name again, I'd be all for it. But it's rather rash to assume a pardon will just brush Clinton under the rug.
When Ford pardoned Nixon, there was no established indictable offense. Perhaps there would have been after a lengthy and meticulous investigation, and perhaps not. The criminal investigation of Clinton is over. They could even charge Evita Clinton as an unindicted co-conspirator at the same time: ("Indict one, get one free!") A full-blown trial will take about two weeks.
Despite the pre-election booming economy, there is a new regime in Washington -- precisely because Bush had nothing to do with Clinton, James Riady, the travel office, the 900 FBI files, Evita or, thankfully, Monica Lewinsky. Bush should maintain the Chinese wall and just stay out of it.
The media insist "the country" wants to move on. No argument there -- that's why Bush won -- but no one is forcing the press to cover a Clinton trial. There are thousands of criminal trials taking place every day in this country. No need for the media to keep obsessing with this particular criminal.
On point 2: Then why did we try O.J.? From day one of the O.J. trial, every jury consultant in the country said that jury wouldn't convict that man. What kind of standard is that? Clinton ought to be made to sit at the defense table and face the evidence against him. If the jury acquits, so be it.
With or without a conviction, a criminal prosecution of William Jefferson Clinton is the only fitting conclusion for the "most ethical" government in history.
Netanyahu Arrives in U.S. Ahead of Controversial Address to Joint Session of Congress | Katie Pavlich
Beast Is Slain, Publication Admits Walker Was ‘Unfairly Attacked On College Rape’ In Hit Piece | Matt Vespa