Gene,
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 Joe Conason 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
From: Gene Lyons
My reasons are the same as Bruce Lindsey's, I guess.
It's mostly the political appearances I've
written about.
Do I think Clinton took a bribe or did anything
else improper?
No. I've written that in the end no charges
will be filed.
But if the charges are so improper and he's a billionaire, he ought to
be able
to beat them. I just think it sends the wrong
signal about what the Democratic party's
supposed to be about to go out of your way
to pardon a zillionaire contributor.
As I wrote last week, the whole thing's being blown wildly out of proportion,
because Rich wasn't going to spend a minute
in jail whether he got pardoned or not.
It's just uncharacteristic of Clinton not to have given them as easy one like this.
You're right that they'd just have gone to the next damned thing anyway.
But if he was willing to take the heat, he
should have pardoned Jim Guy Tucker.
GL