In casting a ballot in the Presidential Race 08, voters are asked to consider who they would call at 3 a.m. in the morning in an hour of crisis...
Well, if the issue pertains to a clandestine "pardon", Hillary would win, by a long shot.
After all, she'd only have to turn over and shake the hubby (if he'd stop snoozing, for a moment or two) to arrange it, quick as a wink. And, all the strings - especially the sinister details as to who pulled 'em - would remain invisible, too.
Of course, in recent days, there has been a big flap in the media - and over at the Obama camp - over the questionable practices of "pardons", especially when they crept up to the Clinton's doorstep in the dead of night.
At issue...pardons Bill bestowed on a posse of close-knit citizens on his last day in office - to a handful of shadowy figures engaged in varying degrees of criminality stateside. And, the Clinton's refusal to release pertinent records pertaining to said individuals, the nature of the "blessings" received, and documents rife with strident opposition from the U.S. Department of Justice.
Obama's stick-to-it gang of inquisitors are on an all-out crusade - openly criticizing Hillary for not taking a more "hands on" approach to the scandal - which has reared its ugly head in the home stretch of the presidential race.
In view of her molasses-in-January speed at dealing with things - it appears to many - that she is thumbing her nose at everyone, lamenting in the process - "I'm not my husband's keeper."
Some critics on the sidelines conclude that if she refuses to hasten the release of red-letter documents at this juncture,
"Why would she offer 'em up, if she is president in the future?"
In a bold-faced effort to effect damage control (as usual) Hill and Bill are inclined to wrestle their way out of the dilemma by pointing accusing fingers at the Federal archivists at the oh-so prestigious Clinton Presidential Library - who they allege - are responsible for blocking the release of hundreds of pages of White House docs. In particular, those relevant to pardons Bill gave a seal of approval to in respect to convicted felon, and head honcho pal, Marc Rich.
The masters of smoke 'n mirrors argue that disclosure of advice received from their aides in respect to pardon issues should remain confidential, bottom line.
Especially if there is incriminating evidence afoot, if you catch my drift.
Heh, it's potent stuff!
The bulk of the materials contain info on pardons granted on the last day Mr. Clinton was fiddling with cigars in the Oval Office; for example, not only the pardons granted to controversial figures such as commodities broker Marc Rich (as aforementioned) but wife, Denise, too - who not only contributed campaign funds to the Clinton bid - but also donated $450,000 towards the start-up fund for the Clinton Library.
And, of course, the docs include volumes of paperwork that take an insightful focus on the eye-brow-raising pardons dolled out to two convicted felons - one charged with mail fraud, the other over illegal drugs. Curiously, it was later revealed, that Senator Clinton's brother actually received a pay-out of $200,000 to act on their behalf in that scurrilous instance.
As usual, Hillary and Bill knew nothing of the transaction. Zip!
Gee, for a couple that knows so little about what goes down in their own family circle, it boggles the mind to fathom how they expect to keep track of all the constituents and their needs, if they ever land back in the White House!
The saga gets more sinister, though, in the aftermath.
When USA Today sought documents under the Freedom of information Act, files arrived in true, Clinton-esque fashion...memos to and from Mr. Clinton and the Justice Department were redacted or withheld entirely, for instance.
The abuse of power did not end there, though.
In 2004, when Judicial Watch sought documents through the courts - in spite of the fact the Judge ordered them released - the "pardon documents" showed up at the watch-dog's headquarters - with key information blacked out.
The Clinton's swear up-and-down to the public, the media, and anyone within earshot that...it is the fault of Administrators at the National Archives who seek to protect the status quo; but clearly, their arguments do not pass the smell test.
Christopher Farrell, Director of "Watch", said it all in a nutshell when he argued that it is a ridiculous notion to withhold clemency petitions over privacy concerns.
"These are people who were convicted in a court and those cases are a matter of public record."
Mr. Farrell, it should be obvious by now...
A proper review of all pertinent documents are bound to reveal the extent of Clinton corruption, not that of the felons in question.
Just betcha, there's a nasty pile of dirt on the Clinton's tucked away in the shadows, bound to cause Hillary the election.
Yup, that's what all the fuss is about, in my estimation.