Ann Coulter: Two weeks till indictment!

T

TheBluesMan

Moderator Emeritus
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20010111.shtml

By Ann Coulter
January 11, 2001
Two weeks till indictment!

Among the people in cheery anticipation of independent counsel Robert Ray's pending indictment of William Jefferson Clinton are those who: demonstrated for George Bush in Florida; chanted "Get out of Dick Cheney's house!" outside the vice presidential residence in Washington; made possible George Bush's historic victory against an incumbent in peacetime and a booming economy -- and whom Bush is going to need when the left tries to "bork" his various nominees.

They would be awfully disappointed with a pardon.

Among the people who are not eagerly awaiting Clinton's indictment are the work-with-the Democrats Republicans on a break from drafting big-government program bills with their pal Teddy Kennedy. Without provocation, Sen. Orrin Hatch recently announced, "I would pardon him."

Maybe a hegemonic liberal media that blocks Republicans from getting out their message isn't such a bad thing. Before the country had even forgotten about Al Gore the moment he conceded, Republicans on the Hill were dashing to the media with press releases announcing their opposition to Bush's tax-cut proposal. In lieu of courage, it would be good if these guys could just learn to keep their mouths shut.

Leaping to surrender is not unusual for Sen. Hatch, which is why there's an expression in Washington, "Don't count your Hatches before they've chickened." Poor good-hearted Orrin Hatch still thinks he can work with Democrats. That's why he lasted in the Republican primary for about six minutes before being forced to drop out through lack of interest.

Remember that? Orrin Hatch ran for president last year. The Republican Party is well-familiar with the Hatches and the Fords and the Doles ("tax collector for the welfare state"). They're known as Republicans who lose.

It's not their fault, really. They're doing the best they can within their genetic limitations blocking them from discerning the perfidious qualities of Democrats.

Pardoning Clinton is appeasement, and the left can never be appeased. While in the U.S. Senate, John Ashcroft co-sponsored that unconstitutional feminist lunacy, the "Violence Against Women Act." That really helped calm down the harridans now that he's Bush's nominee for attorney general. Try to play nice, and liberals will bite your hand off.

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.

©2001 Universal Press Syndicate

http://www.townhall.com
Click to expand...


I love this woman, I really do. :)
 
I've seen and heard this lovely lady on TV. I wish GWB and others would pay more attention to her. SHE ought to be be his main adviser . . . or press secretary . . . or something.

Hmmm . . . I wonder if she's married . . . ;)
 
We need to flood the Senators and the GWB staff with mail saying "NO PARDON." If Clinton is pardoned it will confirm that he is above the law. So far he has proven that he is. Jerry
 
I have heard the argument that GWB should pardon Clinton before any charges are filed. If charges get filed but no conviction is obtained (remember the impeachment hearings?) then Clinton can stand up and say he was found innocent under the law. He's clean. However, if GWB issues a pardon before things ever get to a court, then people will always believe that if Clinton was pardoned he must have done something to be pardoned for. Therefore, a pardon could do more damage to Clinton's reputation than a trial.

What do you think of this logic? It's based on the premise that, if almost a decade of concerted effort has not been able to hang one serious charge on the Clintons, then Robert Ray won't be able to do it either.
 
Best bet would be for Bush to let Clinton be indicted, then W. should pardon him before any trial. That way Clinton gets a double whammy: the indictment, and a pardon by the good graces of a Republican president. Of course, everyone is assuming that Clinton would actually be embarassed or shamed by an indictment and subsequent pardon. You're forgetting the man is a sociopath. He is incapable of shame or remorse.
 
It is always nicer to read an Ann Coulter article with a photo handy...


ac.jpg
 
You have to wonder if the Republicans urging this pardon
are thinking of their chances in the 2004 primaries...
I don't know how Bush could do anything which would more specifically piss off just Republicans.

The LAST thing we need to do is further the idea that Presidents are above the law... That you can't prosecute them in OR out of office! They're becoming term-limited kings.
 
I have to agree with David Scott and (no matter how much I hate to) disagree with Ann Coulter.

Unless Robert Ray can turn up credible evidence of treason by Clinton, Clinton will never spend a single day in jail. This is a shame as I think he is a rapist and a traitor, but this is the simple truth. If he is brought to court, he will be found not guilty. Clinton and the Democrats, with the help of the media, will demogog the Republicans with this for the next twenty years, saying how poor Bill was being picked on and how the Republicans will never leave him alone. In Clinton's own twisted mind, an aquittal will vindicate him of all wrongdoing over the years.

If however, he is indicted and President Bush pardons him, Clinton will be furious. Clinton knows that the American people and historians will always suspect him of being guilty if he is pardoned. This is the last thing Clinton wants. Another good thing about a pardon is that it insulates President Bush against partisanship and vengance claims by the Democrats. Sure, they will still make those claims, but the majority of Americans will then look at the Democrats as the true partisans that they really are.

A pardon of Clinton by President Bush is a win/win situation for conservatives and Republicans. Clinton sees his name forever linked with Richard Nixon's and President Bush gets political cover.

We need to get over our desire for retribution and realize that Clinton "got away" with it. It sticks in my throat as much as anyone elses, but that is the way it is, live with it.
 
I agree with Cactus. I instantly recognized this call for a pardon as being diabolically clever politics. I think the Democrats privately recognize this, and are furious inside. To oppose it would risk an actual trial, and the POSSIBILITY, however remote, of a conviction. THEY would then be responsible for prolonging "our nation's agony", and dragging Slick Willie's dirty laundry in public again. Again, I agree, a WIN/WIN situation for Republicans.
 
Clinton committed numerous crimes against individuals and this country.

The right thing to do is prosecute him.

There is no other option.
 
Thing is, should something go to a jury trial, and you get 50% democrats and 50% republicans (or even one democrat) on the jury, and they "vote" along their party lines, what do you think will happen? An indictment, and being "cleared" is good for him...

But I think we need to get EVERYTHING out in the open.
 
If it came down to a jury trial, it wouldn't be 50% Dems. and 50% Repubs. Remember, any trial that took place would be in Washington, D.C. and the jury would be comprised of D.C. residents. The population of D.C. is approx. 99% Democrats.

How do you think they will vote?
 
CLINTON! :barf:

Who cares? Why spend anymore of my money on prosecuting this joke? There are MUCH bigger fish to fry.

How about repealing a few/all gun control laws and excecutive orders?

How about dispanding the F-Troop?

Anybody want a tax break?


Unless W can use the pardon to leverage some other goodies, Clinton can go jump in a lake in Arkansas, New York, Washington DC, or back the fatherland......but the wall fell down in Berlin.

Better thing to do. Clinton is out of my mind in a few days.

Regards,
MP
 
MP, sorry to burst a bubble we all share, but Clinton's not going away. He needs public attention and adulation. Expect to see him at least once a week. Expect the press to ask his opinion every time GW signs a bill or proposes some measure. And, with Terry McAuliffe (sp?) as DNC chairman, expect a lot of donations in Chinese currency.

The best we can hope for is that he pulls a Ron Browne and gets splattered on the side of a mountain.

Dick
 
I think he should be indicted. Then after the opening statement of the trial, Bush would pardon him.

Why - it would embarass Clinton the most. I don't think you can get him convicted. Also, I don't want to energize the Democratic base for 2002. This election was scary enough.

Just make the point and let him get back to the babes.
How long till loveboat gets caught again?
 
Energize the Democratic base for 2002

I think we have seen the Democratic base at their best during Impeachment and this past election.
They have pulled out all the stops, guns, race, class warfare, "The Children", etc.
Being afraid of making them mad should not be a part of our strategy, but I will admit, it sure seems that our Majority Leaders take that outlook, ie. Trent Lott and his recent "power sharing" committee deal in the Senate.
I think we should fight the good fight, for whats right, as hard as we can, and let the chips fall where they may.
Being afraid of making them mad should not be an option.

Lance, in Michigan
 
It is beyond me how anyone can seriously propose pardoning Bill Clinton. First off, if Bob Ray has the evidence, he is duty-bound to go for an indictment. If he has the indictment, he must take Clinton to trial. If Ray loses, so be it--but I understand a trial may be held in Northern Virginia--not a liberal stronghold. <p> Beyond the mechanics, if ANYONE commits perjury, subornation to perjury, obstruction of justice, and God-knows-what else (and Bill's likely done it all...) they would be indicted. The fact that Bill is an ex-President doesn't make him special except he took an oath to uphold every law he broke. How so I explain to my children that he's a bad guy, but he won't be tried? Trust me, for far less, the IRS will be pleased to slap a public-record lien on your accounts, house, and everything else. For 7 miles over the speed limit, you will get prosecuted and fined. For not having every "t" crossed, an FFL holder will be put out of business. For treason, we get a pardon?? Gimme a break.
 
If Klinton is pardoned, it will show that the President is above the law. Very bad precedent to set.

If Klinton is prosecuted and convicted, that may very well energize the Democratic base. But it will also show the highly important 20% or so "undecideds" that Democrats are pretty loose with the law as a matter of culture and example. That may shift some undecideds to the Republicans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top