PDA

View Full Version : DEAR LEADER SUBPOENAED



LWW
01-23-2012, 04:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ATLANTA (AP) - A judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and can't be president.

It's one of many such lawsuits that have been filed across the country, so far without success. A Georgia resident made the complaint, which is intended to keep Obama's name off the state's ballot in the March presidential primary.

An Obama campaign aide says any attempt to involve the president personally will fail and such complaints around the country have no merit.

The hearing is set for Thursday before an administrative judge. Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi on Friday denied a motion by the president's lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up. </div></div>

DOES THIS JUDGE NOT REALIZE THAT DEAR LEADER IS THE LAW! (http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16567672/ga-judge-orders-president-to-appear-at-hearing)

nAz
01-23-2012, 05:45 AM
dude what do you think was he born in the U.S. of A.?

LWW
01-23-2012, 06:46 AM
I have never said that he wasn't.

I do think a full release of his records would reveal to the world what actually resides in the White House ... except to the Obatron class of folks who will never realize it.

nAz
01-23-2012, 06:54 AM
what records do you refer to?
wasn't the release of his full Birth certificate enough to put an end to this already?

LWW
01-23-2012, 06:56 AM
If he would have, it would have.

This is the second fraud that the O-cult has accepted as the "TRUTH" of his birth records.

Stretch
01-23-2012, 09:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If he would have, it would have.

This is the second fraud that the O-cult has accepted as the "TRUTH" of his birth records. </div></div>

Watching birthers like you desperately trying to make this an issue is comedy at it best. St.

Soflasnapper
01-23-2012, 01:01 PM
Actually, under the separation of powers doctrine and practice, the POTUS is relatively untouchable by the courts.

Why would that be?

Because the courts rely upon the executive branch for enforcement. Which the POTUS heads.

That's true even when it's the federal courts that are in question.

This STATE COURT, at a low level (administrative court), cannot make the beginning of the cut, on a Constitutional question.

The remedy for lawless presidents is impeachment and removal upon conviction of impeachment articles, and then normal forms of law enforcement may be brought without prejudice to the high office.

However, to allow such proceedings as this one to compel the president's attendance would potentially tie him in knots, and prevent his performing the duties for which he was duly elected.

LWW
01-23-2012, 04:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, under the separation of powers doctrine and practice, the POTUS is relatively untouchable by the courts. </div></div>

And that is one of the many defects in leftist ideology.

Conservatives see the POTUS as a head of state ... leftists see the POTUS as a king.

Soflasnapper
01-23-2012, 05:24 PM
Ha ha! Always with the rewriting of history.

And that is one of the many defects in <s>leftist ideology</s> our sacred founding documents inspired from God

Conservatives see the POTUS as a head of state ... leftists see the POTUS as a king.

As we may remember, the Founding Fathers and their citizenry of the time wanted to make George Washington a king (he refused), and/or president for life (he refused, creating the precedent for 2-term presidents).

And yet his contemporaries, the FFs, still entered into a cult of personality, with the Capitol Rotunda featuring the artwork entitled 'The Apotheosis of George Washington,' complete with his Greek/Roman style toga, his 13 vestal virgins entourage, above where he was to be laid to eternal rest, as a Lenin in Red Square was. The Capitol was to be his Mausoleum, ancient potentate style. (While his immediate family agreed, the next generation demurred.)

Most recently, it has been the neo-conservatives and their ilk who have elevated the president in wartime as a complete tyrant, without any effective checks and balances on his sole discretion to do... almost anything. While it's true the neo-cons are either old hardline Trotskyites or Leninists themselves, or come from that stock, WHERE WERE THE CONSERVATIVES opposing such grave usurpations of our rule of law?

Qtec
01-23-2012, 05:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Most recently, it has been the neo-conservatives and their ilk who have elevated the president in wartime as a complete tyrant, without any effective checks and balances on his sole discretion to do... almost anything. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"I'm the decider </div></div> link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irMeHmlxE9s)

One week later.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stepped down as defense secretary on Wednesday, one day after midterm elections in which opposition to the war in Iraq contributed to heavy Republican losses.

President Bush nominated Robert Gates, a former CIA director, to replace Rumsfeld at the Pentagon.

Asked whether his announcement signaled a new direction in the war that has claimed the lives of more than 2,800 U.S. troops, Bush said, “Well, there’s certainly going to be new leadership at the Pentagon.”

Bush lavished praise on Rumsfeld, who has spent six stormy years at his post. The president disclosed he met with Gates last Sunday, two days before the elections in which Democrats swept control of the House and possibly the Senate.


Military officials and politicians dissatisfied with the course of the war had called for Rumsfeld’s resignation in the months leading up to the election. Last week, as Bush campaigned to save the Republican majority, he declared that Rumsfeld would remain at the Pentagon through the end of his term. </div></div>

Q

Soflasnapper
01-23-2012, 06:33 PM
W set new lawless limits for a POTUS, and unfortunately, they've now become the writ that any presidency (save Ron Paul's, imo) will continue to assert and defend.

Quite apart from that, however, state judges cannot have the power to compel the POTUS to do anything. Do you know how many such judges exist? And that it's common for state judges to be elected by popular vote?

Allowing such a practice is a recipe for the president to be tied up endlessly in partisan wrangling in state courts, and you know what? He has an important and singular job that cannot be interrupted for this (or really, any) kind of crap proceedings.

Qtec
01-23-2012, 07:07 PM
I was always against him producing his BC. A total waste of time. People like LWW will always believe what they want, irrespective of the facts.

nAz,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what records do you refer to?
wasn't the release of his full Birth certificate enough to put an end to this already? </div></div>

LWW,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If he would have, it would have.

This is the second fraud that the O-cult has accepted as the "TRUTH" of his birth records. </div></div>

???????????????????

Need I say more?

Q

LWW
01-24-2012, 03:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ha ha! Always with the rewriting of history. <span style="color: #3366FF">At least you were honest with your stated goal.</span>

And that is one of the many defects in <s>leftist ideology</s> our sacred founding documents inspired from God

Conservatives see the POTUS as a head of state ... leftists see the POTUS as a king.

As we may remember, the Founding Fathers and their citizenry of the time wanted to make George Washington a king (he refused), and/or president for life (he refused, creating the precedent for 2-term presidents). <span style="color: #3366FF">Some did. Some wanted to stay with England. And your point is what?</span>

And yet his contemporaries, the FFs, still entered into a cult of personality, with the Capitol Rotunda featuring the artwork entitled 'The Apotheosis of George Washington,' complete with his Greek/Roman style toga, his 13 vestal virgins entourage, above where he was to be laid to eternal rest, as a Lenin in Red Square was. <span style="color: #3366FF">Yo, yo, yo ... you be trippin dude! Bad Vlad was placed in a glass sarcophogas (SP?) where people lined up for decades to view the moonbat king.</span> The Capitol was to be his Mausoleum, ancient potentate style. (While his immediate family agreed, the next generation demurred.) <span style="color: #3366FF">So you argue you are right by arguing you are wrong? Why am I not surprised?</span>

Most recently, it has been the neo-conservatives and their ilk who have elevated the president in wartime as a complete tyrant <span style="color: #3366FF">You mean like WWII when Japanese were rounded up without cause ... oh, wait, that was demokrook.</span>, without any effective checks and balances on his sole discretion to do <span style="color: #3366FF">You mean like Obama just signed into law ... but, he's a demokrook also?</span> ... almost anything. While it's true the neo-cons are either old hardline Trotskyites or Leninists themselves, or come from that stock, WHERE WERE THE CONSERVATIVES opposing such grave usurpations of our rule of law? <span style="color: #3366FF">Protesting ... and trying to get a word in against the cacophonous wailing and gnashing of teeth by statists much like yourself.</span>





</div></div>

Soflasnapper
01-24-2012, 03:15 PM
I always opposed the neo-con derived theory of the unitary executive. I opposed the internment of the Japanese, although with the benefit of hindsight.

As for the conservatives you think were protesting and trying to get a word in edgewise or whatever, I guess you'd admit that there were none such in evidence in the Republican Party in the Congress (save Ron Paul). Which means either there are no conservatives left in the Republican Party at the national level, or that they were fine with the theory, so long as it was their own guy wielding the power.

But frankly, outside of the libertarian side of conservatism (which is always anti-war, and anti-government over-reach), and some of the paleo-cons (Pat Buchanan, etc.), all of whose stances I admire, there were no mainstream alleged conservatives raising these issues, to my knowledge.

Can you point out a few to my attention? Thanks in advance.

LWW
01-25-2012, 04:21 AM
Repeat after me ... RINOs are not conservatives.

Soflasnapper
01-25-2012, 01:46 PM
RINOs aren't conservatives, and Neo-Cons aren't conservatives.

Since W's policies became captured by the Neo-Cons (cf: Rise of the Vulcans), and the GOP had become captured by W, mainly the entire GOP supported non-conservative policies.

So which conservatives do you say opposed his dictatorial moves? The only ones I can think of were a handful of persons at DOJ, who behaved honorably and Constitutionally by pushing back some of the worst abuses, by a threat to resign en masse. Still didn't work, except to delay some of the implementation, and soon, those guys were replaced.

Soflasnapper
01-29-2012, 12:33 PM
Thursday's come and gone at this time.

Obama ignored the judge's order, as is his right.

Next move?

LWW
01-29-2012, 02:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thursday's come and gone at this time.

Obama ignored the judge's order, as is his right.

Next move? </div></div>

Let that one live ... sofanapper finally confesses his belief that dear leader is above the law, not that anyone had any doubts.

Soflasnapper
01-30-2012, 01:17 PM
It's a long-standing CONSTITUTIONAL position.

To get legal process on a president requires he no longer be president, by expiration of the term, or by successful conviction upon impeachment.

Why? Because all the officers of law enforcement able to enforce due process on a president work for the president, and a house divided cannot stand (-- Lincoln, quoting Jesus).

Look back at the warnings about the independent counsel law (now no longer in effect).

LWW
01-30-2012, 05:06 PM
Then you should be able to point me to where it says this in the COTUS?

What's that?

You can't?

I know.

Soflasnapper
01-30-2012, 05:34 PM
Show me any mention of 'separation of powers' in the COTUS. Not mentioned, but it's nonetheless a feature of the structure.

Any POTUS's constructive sovereign immunity is likewise inherent in those same structures, and likewise unmentioned, explicitly.

Soflasnapper
01-30-2012, 05:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then you should be able to point me to where it says this in the COTUS?

What's that?

You can't?

I know. </div></div>

When the bare language of the COTUS is mute on a question, we usually turn to the Federalist Papers or the Founders in their day to see what they had to say about it.

Alexander Hamilton weighed in in a Federalist Paper and at the Constitutional Convention itself that a POTUS needed to be impeached and removed before any action under the law could take place. Thomas Jefferson, and several other Founder generation leaders also agree.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Can a Sitting President Be Prosecuted in a Criminal Trial or Must Impeachment Proceedings Precede Any Criminal Proceedings with respect to a President?

It is an unsettled question whether a sitting President may be the subject of a criminal trial or whether removal by impeachment must precede any criminal proceedings which might be brought against him.(9) While the courts have addressed somewhat related questions such as whether the President may be subject to judicial subpoenas to provide evidence in criminal cases against others,(10) whether the President may be subject to judicial process in the context of civil litigation based on official acts(11) or based on unofficial conduct occurring before the President took office,(12) or whether the President is subject to the Administrative Procedure Act,(13) the courts have not ruled on the question of whether a sitting President may be prosecuted while in office.



There is an indication that at least some of the Framers regarded the unique nature of the presidency as requiring removal through impeachment before a President could be subjected to criminal trial. Senator William Maclay of Pennsylvania, in his diary of the First Congress, wrote of a conversation with Vice President John Adams and Senator Oliver Ellsworth on the subject on Saturday, September 26, 1789. Senator Maclay records the exchange in pertinent part as follows (phrasing, punctuation, capitalization and spelling as in the original):



. . . When I first went into the Senate Chamber this Morning the Vice President &lt;,&gt; Elsworth and Ames Stood together . . . . Ames left them and they seemed rather to advance afterwards, said the President personally was not . . . subject to any process whatever, could have no action Whatever brought against him . . . . was above the power of all Judges Justices &ca. For What said they would You put it in the power of a common Justice to exercise any Authority over him and Stop the Whole Machine of Government. I said that altho, President he was not above the laws. both of them declared You could only impeach him. and no other process Whatever lay against him. I put the Case suppose the President commits Murder in the Streets. impeach him. But You can only remove him from Office on impeachment. Why When he is no longer President, You can indict him. . . .(14)



Similarly, Alexander Hamilton, in a speech at the Constitutional Convention on June 18, 1787, stated that the President



may be impeached for any crime or misdemeanor by the two Houses of the Legislature, two thirds of each House concurring, and if convicted shall be removed from office. He may afterwards be tried & punished in the ordinary course of the law--His impeachment shall operate as a suspension from office until the determination thereof.(15)



In The Federalist Papers, No. 69, Hamilton echoed this conclusion:



The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.(16)



Thomas Jefferson appears to have expressed concern over the impact upon a President that could result from subjecting him to judicial process, as reflected in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to United States Attorney George Hay in connection with the trial of Aaron Burr, from June 20, 1807:



The leading principle of our Constitution is the independence of the Legislature, executive and judiciary of each other, and none are more jealous of this than the judiciary. But would the executive be independent of the judiciary, if he were subject to the commands of the latter, & to imprisonment for disobedience; if the several courts could bandy him from pillar to post, keep him constantly trudging from north to south & east to west, and withdraw him entirely from his constitutional duties? The intention of the Constitution, that each branch should be independent of the others, is further manifested by the means it has furnished to each, to protect itself from enterprises of force attempted on them by the others, and to none has it given more effectual or diversified means than to the executive.(17)



This letter reflects concerns raised by Chief Justice Marshall's holding in United States v. Burr, 25 Fed. Cas. 30 (No. 14,692d) (C.C.D. Va. 1807), that a subpoena duces tecum could be issued to the President. Jefferson raised similar concerns in a letter to George Hay dated June 17, 1807, regarding dicta in Burr on the issue of whether a court might compel personal attendance of the President at a trial: "To comply with such calls would leave the nation without an executive branch, whose agency, nevertheless, is understood to be so constantly necessary, that it is the sole branch which the constitution requires to be always in function."(18)



In 1833, Justice Joseph Story stated in ?1563 of his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Vol. III, at 418-419:



There are other incidental powers, belonging to the executive department, which are necessarily implied from the nature of the functions, which are confided to it. Among these, must necessarily be included the power to perform them, without any obstruction or impediment whatsoever. The president cannot, therefore, be liable to arrest, imprisonment, or detention, while he is in the discharge of the duties of his office; . . . .(19)



More recently, in "The Constitutional Tangle," New Republic, October 6, 1973, 14, 15, Alexander M. Bickel addressed the issue of whether a sitting President may be indicted:



The case of the President, however, is unique . . . . In the presidency is embodied the continuity and indestructibility of the state. It is not possible for the government to function without a President, and the Constitution contemplates and provides for uninterrupted continuity in that office. Obviously the presidency cannot be conducted from jail, nor can it be effectively carried on while an incumbent is defending himself in a criminal trial. And the incumbent cannot be replaced or suspended or deprived of his function as President while he is alive and not declared physically disabled, as he now may be under the 25th Amendment. (That the 25th Amendment applies only to physical disability is clear from its legislative history; the amendment would be a dangerous instrument indeed if it were otherwise.) Hence a sitting President must be impeached before he can be indicted.</div></div>

Also covers the other side of the argument. (http://usinfo.org/ref/house/impeachment.htm)

LWW
01-31-2012, 03:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Show me any mention of 'separation of powers' in the COTUS. Not mentioned, but it's nonetheless a feature of the structure. </div></div>

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gif

You really should considerREADING (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html) the document.

Might I suggest that you start with ARTICLES 1/2/3?

LWW
01-31-2012, 03:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When the bare language of the COTUS is mute on a question, we usually turn to the Federalist Papers or the Founders in their day to see what they had to say about it.</div></div>

It is funny to watch a leftist reach out for original intent ... which in all other cases has been denounced ... to support a straw argumnet.

Where is Obama being prosecuted ... or even charged with ... a crime?

Soflasnapper
01-31-2012, 09:27 AM
The 'crime' would be contempt of court, from ignoring the proceedings and the subpoena.

If there is no sanction that the court may bring, such as a contempt finding and jailing the POTUS who remains in contempt, then the claim of jurisdiction of the court fails, through lack of an enforcement measure.

This is exactly what Jefferson is quoted above complaining about.

So paralleling your language, it is funny to see a self-proclaimed Constitutionalist and Originalist fail to even begin to address what Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson said on the subject, in the normally dispositive Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention.

You do not make a sensible point about my consistency by refusing to be consistent to your own principles. But it's funny, and such an indication of otherwise speechlessness that it's gratifying all the same.

But it's almost too easy, and beginning to be a bit boring.

Stretch
02-01-2012, 03:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 'crime' would be contempt of court, from ignoring the proceedings and the subpoena.

If there is no sanction that the court may bring, such as a contempt finding and jailing the POTUS who remains in contempt, then the claim of jurisdiction of the court fails, through lack of an enforcement measure.

This is exactly what Jefferson is quoted above complaining about.

So paralleling your language, it is funny to see a self-proclaimed Constitutionalist and Originalist fail to even begin to address what Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson said on the subject, in the normally dispositive Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention.

You do not make a sensible point about my consistency by refusing to be consistent to your own principles. But it's funny, and such an indication of otherwise speechlessness that it's gratifying all the same.

But it's almost too easy, and beginning to be a bit boring. </div></div>

Easy, because none of what he posts are his own oppinions, making them difficult to defend or justify. So he dosn't. Relying instead on his catalog of one liners, and Party Approved put downs and taunts to muddy the water. St.

LWW
02-01-2012, 03:34 AM
You can't even come up with your own one liners.

Lame, very lame.

LWW
02-01-2012, 03:42 AM
Why do you believe in mythology so?

What's that?

You despise the thought that a godking might be called to account for their actions before a tribunal of mere mortals?

But ... I already knew that.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON -- In a startling ruling that puts the White House ever closer to the core of the Whitewater scandal, President Clinton was ordered by a federal judge yesterday to testify in the criminal trial of Susan and James McDougal, the Clintons' former partners in the Whitewater Development Corp. </div></div>

6 February, 1996 (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-02-06/news/1996037004_1_mcdougal-clinton-whitewater-grand)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON — In an extraordinary step, the Whitewater grand jury has issued a subpoena to compel President Clinton's testimony in the Monica Lewinsky investigation, a government official said yesterday.

Such a subpoena raises significant legal and political questions at the White House.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, offered few details about the subpoena, saying only that the grand jury had issued it recently. </div></div>

26 July, 1998 (http://articles.philly.com/1998-07-26/news/25738568_1_presidential-subpoena-grand-jury-clinton-defenders)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON — A federal judge declared Friday that he has "the naked power" to force President Bush and former President Ronald Reagan to testify at the upcoming trial of former White House aide Oliver L. North.</div></div>

28 January, 1989 (http://articles.latimes.com/1989-01-28/news/mn-1153_1_reagan-administration)

Qtec
02-01-2012, 04:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON -- In a startling ruling that puts the White House ever closer to the core of the Whitewater scandal, President Clinton was ordered by a federal judge yesterday to testify in the criminal trial of Susan and James McDougal, the Clintons' former partners in the Whitewater Development Corp. </div></div>

Did he testify?

I thought all that Whitewater crap fizzled out to nothing?

You can't impeach the POTUS just because you disagree with his policies numbnuts.

Q

LWW
02-01-2012, 06:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON -- In a startling ruling that puts the White House ever closer to the core of the Whitewater scandal, President Clinton was ordered by a federal judge yesterday to testify in the criminal trial of Susan and James McDougal, the Clintons' former partners in the Whitewater Development Corp. </div></div>

Did he testify?

Q </div></div>

Yes. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/whitewater/may96/clinton_testifies_5-9.html)

LWW
02-01-2012, 06:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought all that Whitewater crap fizzled out to nothing?

Q</div></div>

That's funny.

What actually happened is that, as usual, you ignored reality because it put a leftist godking in a bad light.

FIFTEEN INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF FORTY CRIMES (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_controversy#Convictions)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, removed from office (fraud, 3 counts)

John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax fraud)

William J. Marks, Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker business partner (conspiracy)

Stephen Smith (Whitewater): former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned.

Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)

Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)

Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple fraud) Bill Clinton pardoned.

David Hale: banker, self proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)

Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)

Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud) Bill Clinton pardoned.

Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)

Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.

John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)

Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)

Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery) </div></div>


Four were granted pardons, one was blatantly bought off, and at least one died under very suspicious circumstances ... plus a few others who died suspiciously before being charged.

Soflasnapper
02-02-2012, 10:43 AM
The Independent Counsel law provided standing for a executive branch member (an appointed officer) to prosecute the president.

Absent that law being in effect (and it was heavily argued that it was unConstitutional, and has since lapsed without renewal), there is no competent officer in the executive branch who can enforce such a matter. Federal judges cannot do that, for instance, whatever they claim they may order.

That Clinton went along with this was a political decision, based upon the political problems not going along would occasion (with impeachment looming on the horizon).

I believe you'll find the suggested subpoenas for both Reagan and Bush were quashed, even as Reagan was no longer president.

Soflasnapper
02-02-2012, 10:44 AM
Not a single one of these convictions had anything to do with Whitewater, except that some of the convictions were for people also involved in Whitewater (although for unrelated matters).

LWW
02-03-2012, 05:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not a single one of these convictions had anything to do with Whitewater, except that some of the convictions were for people also involved in Whitewater (although for unrelated matters).

</div></div>

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gif

TRANSLATED: None of the convictions had anything to do with Whitewater other than those involving Whitewater.

So ... taking depositor money to pay off Clinton losses, see the McDougals, is entirely unrelated?

Soflasnapper
02-03-2012, 11:05 AM
So ... taking depositor money to pay off Clinton losses, see the McDougals, is entirely unrelated?

This is a nonsensical claim.

WhiteWater preceded the creation of Madison Guaranty, and Madison Guaranty wasn't involved in funding that project.

Once McDougal got into the S&L business, he engaged in various frauds, leading to a loss of monies about 100 times the entire loan funding the WW (approx. $200k on the loan, approx. $20 million or more in lost money).

UNRELATED TO WHITEWATER. As are all these convictions.

It's only historical shorthand to CALL all of these things 'Whitewater,' as they came to light once McDougal came under scrutiny FOR Whitewater, and was found to have engaged in these later, separate fraudulent activities.