Joe,
I know you're busy, but I was hoping you might be able to spend a few minutes
and explain why people such as yourself, who have defended Clinton in the past
are not giving him the benefit of the doubt on the Marc Rich pardon.

When fair-minded reporters like Gene Lyons and yourself seem to conceed the
point that the pardons are indefensible, it makes me wonder what it was
that moved you from "He could be innocent" to "IF he can justify" his actions.

It's unlike you to assume the charges are true.
What am I missing?
 
It's my opinion that if the Marc Rich pardons had not happened, the press
would look for the second-most outrageous pardon, then hammer away.
If the second-most outrageous pardon had not happened, they would focus
on the third. In other words, the press would scream no matter what.

Nobody but Clinton could possibly have the full story on this.

Granted, this is a hypothetical, but if Barak told Clinton that Marc Rich
HAD to be pardoned, even if Clinton didn't want to do it, would that not
make Clinton not only innocent, but a hero as well?

Even Jimmy Carter, with his "disgraceful" rhetoric, cannot possibly know
as much about the situation as Barak and Clinton, yet he has no qualms
about making headlines with his accusations.

In closing, can you tell me why Clinton doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt?
When I ask people, they say, "Oh, come on, every KNOWS he's guilty.

Can you explain?

Thanks, I'm a big fan,

BartCop
bartcop.com