digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Snow Falsely Claims ‘There Was Not Much Investigation’ Of Clinton’s Pardons

thinkprogress.org — In an attempt to preclude congressional inquires into President Bush's commutation of former aide "Scooter" Libby's prsion sentence, White House Spokesperson Tony Snow dishonestly distorts the facts when he says there “was not much investigation” of Clinton’s pardons. In fact, there was substantial investigation.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jul 6, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

104 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Klydethegreater, on 10/11/2007, -11/+46tony snowjob lying? That's unpossible.
  • popothebright, on 10/11/2007, -10/+30Uh.... but Clinton didn't pardon people THAT LIED TO DEFEND HIM.

    Bush essentially pardoned himself.

    Here's the model for all future presidential crime:

    Step 1) Commit Crime
    Step 2) Get underling to lie in court defending you
    Step 3) Pardon the underling
    Step 4) Profit!
  • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -7/+26The sick thing is, MSM coverage of Tony Snows pressers focuses on his ***** claims about clinton, rather than the actual question that was asked him, or the press corps "Wtf? Why are you talking about Clinton?" response to him.
  • hipnerd, on 10/11/2007, -5/+20Wow. It's almost like Clinton's pardons happened seven years ago and Bush's pardon was last week. Or maybe Bush's pardon was more serious because he pardoned a member of his own administration who was convicted of obstructing an investigation into illegal activities by the White House itself. Or maybe it was interesting because Bush pardoned Libby without even consulting the Justice Department or the prosecuting attorney in he case. Or perhaps it's notable that Bush commuted Libby's sentence while Libby was still protesting his innocence -- which rules out that he expressed remorse, a normal prerequisite for receiving a presidential intervention.

    Well, go back to your far-right leaning Web sites and talk radio. I'm sure they will tell you what you want to hear instead of what you need to know.
  • halavais, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10You know, I bet if Libby had been charged with "removing, possessing, and concealing non-tax-paid whiskey," there would be a lot less of an issue here.

    Here's a quick newsflash: even many (probably most) of those who think Clinton, on the whole, did a decent job as president, were APPALLED at many of these pardons. But even if Clinton had pardoned someone who had covered up treasonous activities in his own administration, that wouldn't mean Bush should get away with doing the same. In other words "but Clinton did it too" is a really bad excuse for behaving in a way that disgraces the presidency.

    Most Americans don't consider this a game, with either Democrats or Republicans winning. Most of us want the country to win. And when a president abuses his power for personal gain at the expense of the country, we expect that treasonous behavior to be punished. What Clinton did, or Garfield did, or Jackson did doesn't change what Bush--the guy who is currently in the White House--did. And unlike Clinton, Garfield, Jackson, and the rest, Bush is currently impeachable.
  • biotch, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8yeah not to mention conservatives have raised over 5 million for Libby's defense fund alone.... Watch Libby get fully pardoned after the election and actually make money off his crime.
  • Homerr, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Let's be correct here: Bush commuted Libby's sentence, he didn't pardon him.

    Now back to talk of the worst president ever.
  • biotch, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8sorry but that in no way negates the supported and documented argument that Snow falsely claimed there was not much of an investigation in Clinton's pardons.
    Left funded or not, its accurate.
  • hipnerd, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Susan MacDougal served 18 months in prison, including 7 weeks in solitary confinement. How is that comparable to Scooter, again?
  • geekee, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Yeah. Clinton did nothing wrong.
    http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/20/clinton.pardon/index.html
    "News of McDougal's pardon came just one day after the president struck a deal with Independent Counsel Robert Ray effectively ending the Whitewater investigation."
  • mikemil828, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10Seeing how hard congress was trying to take out Clinton to the point that the federal government actually shut down, that they wouldn't investigate seriously any of his pardons is ridiculous.
  • FredFredrickson, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9I'll second that hipnerd... NonLeftistDiggr needs to crawl back under the rock from whence he came.
  • alsowoldguy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Agreed. Then perhaps Tony Snow should not have made the comparison.
  • angusm, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7I'm looking forward to the moment when Snow peels off his "Mission Impossible"-style rubber facemask and reveals that he is actually Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, the former Iraqi information minister under Saddam. Then it will all make sense.
  • BrapAllgood, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Props for an awesome simplification. No sarcasm, whatsoever.
  • bort, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Two wrongs don't make a right?

    Why is it ok for one politician to do something as long as another already did it before him?
  • biotch, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7They're doing whatever they can to try to make Clinton out to be a hypocrite...
    It all distracts from the real issue here that we have an administration official who obstructed an investigation into its own administration and then was commuted by that same administration to keep his mouth shut.
  • Wargalas, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Snow is wrong, there was an upheaval about Clinton's pardons, but it was from Republican's. Democrats wanted to "move on". As a side note, Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, noted fugitive, tax evader, and major donor to the Clinton Presidential Library. He also pardoned members of FALN, a known terrorist group. He also pardoned Susan McDougal for her role in the Whitewater scandal, she refused to testify against Clinton. He also pardoned his half brother, brother in law, as well as others. I'm not saying what Bush has done was right, but let's not get overly excited over Bush and not get equally pissed at Clinton and other Presidents who've done similar things.
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Unless they read the ***** news.
  • roodscreen, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6The investigation of Clinton's pardons was, by-in-large, to see if there was anything to be done to reverse them. There was not. This is a privilege given to the President and whether we like it or not, it is normally given to the rich, the privileged, or those with connections to the same.

    If you are going to get your panties in a bunch about Bush, then please be as indignant about every Presidential pardon given in the past, oh 200 years. Bush has done nothing more than any other President has ever done. I am not saying it is good, it is just business as usual. To claim it is anything else, is to be dishonest with yourself and with those on Digg.

    This is really a non-story. Move-on, nothing to see here.
  • jtryba, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@ oloo "Libby was NOT pardoned....his sentence was commuted"

    Right. It turns out this actually makes things more difficult for anyone who would like to get information about other people's involvement out of Libby. He can't be subpoenaed because he can still plead the 5th while the appeals process is tied up in courts and the White House can continue to sidestep questions by not commenting on an ongoing legal process.

    Commuting the sentence was a strategic move, not an attempt to make sure Libby pays his debt to society. He even got out of probation.

    Incidentally, I couldn't care less about what kinds of pardons Clinton made before leaving office. The time to debate those actions was 7 years ago. Why are we talking about Clinton again? Oh yeah, to distract us from the issue at hand.
  • reed311, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Well, I've got to hand it to you. You proved my point quite well.
  • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4The fact that madfrogurt said "pardon" when he should have said "commutation" does not change his point that bringing Clinton into it is essentially a ad-hominem-tu-quoque fallacy generalized to anyone who doesn't constantly condemn clinton.
  • Smight, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5He's getting to be pretty good at just making stuff up to proove his points. http://danielisright.blogspot.com/2007/06/tony-greenspan-snowjob.html
  • popothebright, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7The two aren't comparable.

    All presidents use 'pardons'

    Bush however, pardoned a man who lied to protect the president. That's *way* different. That's essentially pardoning yourself.
  • Gregamell, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3http://digg.com/politics/Jon_Stewart_Don_t_they_know_we_re_recording_all_this_stuff

    i know we've already been over this
  • madfrogurt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2As Bush has said, a pardon is not off the table. And a commuted sentence means he won't be spending those 2.5 years behind bars. He has to pay $250,000, is on probation for a couple years, and probably won't get to practice law. Do you think that he won't immediately get a job for any one of a dozen think tanks or companies this administration has ties to?

    What if he eventually does get a full pardon? Would it be unacceptable then, or would it still be a normal, scummy pardon instead of a morally and politically abhorrent one?

    So what about that was wrong? I'm outraged that this guy is getting off with almost no true repercussions. If you want to argue that a $250,000 fine, parole, and a loss of law practice is worthy of obstruction of justice for an executive level crime, then my lack of designating between a commuted sentence and a full pardon can be called wrong.
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I still don't understand what Bill Clinton has to do with George Bush's communting the sentence of convicted felon Lewis Libby.
  • yanked, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Clinton pardons: 396.
    Reagan pardons: 393.
    Nixon pardons: 892.
    Eisenhower pardons: 1,110.

    So what?
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2FU*CKED UP BUSHBITCH LOGIC FOR YOU

    getting a blowjob from a legal aged female: bad

    wanting to GIVE a blowjob to an underaged male:good

    It doesn't matter if American lives are being lost in Iraq based on a corrupt puppet president's lies, just as long as we all remember who won last November.

    Let me get this straight, BushBot morons, SPEND BILLIONS ON BUILDING OTHER NATIONs and you are a patriot. Spend billions on your own nation and you commie, terrorist loving, america hating liberal. nice logic.

    There was also not a Terrorist attack from 1994 to 2001, does that mean that Clinton did a good job fighting Terrorism?
    Moronic Logic.

    You notice the party that bitches loudest about "Terrism" screws our fine men and women in uniform by making them fight a illegal war based on lies, that bitches loudest about abortion screws over children the most. They protect the rich tax cuts but don't want to raise the minnuim wage.

    Had enough of the GOP corruption yet?
    Let's see, Clinton lied about a blowjob. It didn't hurt the nation and nobody died or lost money. For that we abandoned the most prosperous decade in over a hundred years and went with the GOP.

    Then we got:

    A war that was started on lies and false pretenses in Iraq.

    As many dead soldiers as people were killed on 911 and no end in sight.

    GOP Tom Delay indicted for felonies.
    GOP Safavian indicted for felonies.
    Bush'e largest campaign leader in Texas Ken Lay convicted on 6 felonies.
    GOP VP chief of Staff Libby indicted on felonies.
    GOP lobbiest Abramoff convicted on felonies.
    Numerous GOP governors and representative such as those in Ohio and Kentuckey under numerous criminal investigations.

    The list goes on and on. Had enough of fake nazi propaganda posing as "news"?!!

    The party of "Family values" my ass...
  • mattxb, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but I think this was expected. We all knew Libby was just taking a hit for the team, and that he would be pardoned if convicted. And really, what has Bush got to lose by pardoning him? Hes already lost the house and senate and has a record low approval rating. Hes made it clear that hes given up on winning us over, and instead is planning to be popular with imaginary "future" people when history will supposedly vindicate him.
  • MWeather, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2She served her time, so no, it's not remotely the same.
  • biotch, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Bush has pardoned many others and hardly anyone cared because the circumstances werent quite like this....
  • mabhatter, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2most was for contempt of court, because she wouldn't let herself be put on the stand so the prosecutor could twist her words. It was abundantly clear even at the time, she wasn't going to "tell the truth" as prosecutors had already suborned several other Clinton accountants in the case to commit perjury that they told the Clinton's to lie about their financial dealings. The whole issue was one where it was questionable and there would have been IRS fines, but wasn't criminal for the Clinton's unless the accountants knowingly broke the law and told the Clinton's they were doing it.

    Guys like Donald Trump and Bill Gates get those $100,000 fines several times due to taking advantage of all the tax rules they can.. it's part of the game. The investigators were way out of line prosecuting the entire Whitewater case.
  • DephexTwin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Well, go to diggue.co.uk if you don't want any bias toward American stories.
  • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3The controversy is not that bush used his legal authority to commute Libby's sentence. The controversy is that Bush seemingly used his pardon as a bargaining chip to induce Libby to lie under oath in order to protect Bush's senior cabinet members.
  • reed311, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Right Wingers: I'm currently working on a script that will automatically reply to any story about Bush with a "But Clinton". You can donate to me on PayPal and I'll save you guys the trouble of whining about it and having to use the same logical fallacy.
  • bort, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Oh, and Clinton is relevant how? Unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe he's the president anymore.
  • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Clinton didn't pardon McDougal DURING the investigation.
  • Wargalas, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I'm not speaking about "severity", I'm speaking of the hypocrisy of left wingers. When someone pardons another, and Republicans got pissed (especially for Susan McDougals case where she refused to testify against Clinton and then got a pardon), they were told to move on. When Bush does something similar (note he commuted the sentence rather then a full pardon), everyone jumps down Bush's throat. I'm not saying one is better or worse then the other, I'm saying don't get all upset at one and tell others to move on about the other. That's hypocrisy.
  • neuropsychguy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I just wanted to say that Pres. Bush's pardon seems quite tame compared to the ones Pres. Clinton did.
  • MWeather, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1..
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I notice you attacked his explanation without refuting it. Is he wrong or inaccurate? What's your problem with the explanation he gave?
  • HigherLogic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think Clinton already did it.
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Which word is inaccurate?
  • fredrated, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Homerr is simply being, how shall I say this? accurate! Hopefully that is not yet a crime, since it is already in short supply.

    You on the other hand are responding to something that was not said, that he thinks Libby won't be pardoned. Please try to read more carefully in the future.
  • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1actually I said exactly what I meant to say. What exactly is your issue again?
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Waaaaaa .... pot meet kettle.
  • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1And furthermore, I said exactly what I meant to say - Bush used his authority to pardon as a bargaining chip. Bush gave Libby clemency, and is reserving the right to pardon Libby as well - he just can't do it until his last day in office because Libby can't plead the fifth once he's pardoned - but he can plead the fifth as he has clemency.
  • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Do your homework - The authority to pardon and the authority to grant clemency are identical. It's Article 2 Section 2 regardless of whether you are talking about clemency or pardon.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.