Was Hillary Clinton aware of this?

[Coexist]

Run time: 04:28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfCkQ-p2beo   Posted on YouTube: April 26, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: April 26, 2008 By DU Member: Coexist Views on DU: 6823

 
I am not familiar with this at all. Anyone have any memory of this?

I got it from Americablog: http://www.americablog.com/2008/04/hillarys-other-terrorist-pardon-problem.html

[murray hill farm]

1. Can we get this out!!

Will the news programs gleefully run with it? Or will none of them touch it?

[AvaMae]

40. CAN WE GET THIS OUT?

You don't want it out...

You don't want this context to degrade further into lobbing hard balls... That is not what Obama wants...

What you want to do with this is make SURE the Obama campaign has it... get a confirmation they
will get it to Axelrod or someone in strategy...so Obama has it on the end of his tongue if she
lobs another nasty his way..

She's demanding another debate, he's refusing, because she only uses them to lob the nastys.... I hope he sticks by his guns and continues to refuse.

It was so telling that she jumped him about Ayers, and he waited quietly until the timing was just
right to dump the fact that Bill had pardoned two Weather Underground members....

Let Obama decide when and if to use it.. but get it to them ASAP

[Sander]

47. While I Support Barack Obama - I do NOT support this hatchet job

Dems do not need to be destroying each other with innuendo and the politics of personal destruction. This is what I might have expected from John McCain, Bush, and the Swiftboaters.

Isn't that Dick (Clinton-hater) Morris narrating? This is not an Obama attack. It is not a MoveOn attack. It is a Republican 527 Swiftboat attack.

I like Hillary Clinton, even though I support Barack Obama and think he will make a better President and stands a much better chance of healing our nation. I also disapprove of Hillary's campaign strategy and her use of ad hominum attacks. If, by some wild-assed stretch of the imagination, Hillary were to pull this nomination out of the fire, I will support her against any Republican. So this type of attack against her makes me want to gag.

[dbonds]

60. This is a preview of what the republicans will run against her in the GE.

You are right, it is from the republicans and not much we can do about it. But Hillary supporters should take note that this will be the type of attacks run against her. She is in NO WAY vetted.

[Duke Newcombe]

74. Agreed...

However, the Obama campaign should have it, fully sourced and confirmed, in their hip pocket, and the Clinton campaign should know that they do. This would stop the "stupid season" attacks cold.

Duke

[Dessalines]

99. I agree with you. I just wish Hillary agreed with you as well.

Has Hillary said anything about the Willie Horton ad run against Obama. Last I checked, it was denounced by the RNC, John McCain, the DNC and dam near everybody but Hillary. Has she brought up Rev. Wright lately? Has she declared McCain more fit for command as of late? While I find these tactics nefarious. I am having more and more trouble defending her when used against her. What her campaign has taught me is that Hillary is not against Mellon-Scaife tactics she is jealous she did not think of them first.

[George II]

75. Why "get it out"? It's been out for years and is now stale news.

[Enthusiast]

122. While it might be old

it is new news to many. It is particularly damning. I remember first hearing it when I was a died in the wool Clinton supporter. I remember wondering how something like this could be true of the Clintons.

[George II]

133. Damning? I have to disagree...

All of the negative comments in this thread and in response to one of my posts prompted me to go back and watch the video again, and I picked up a few nuggets that TOTALLY EXPOSE the phoniness of the video and obviously the premise behind it.

So, here's what I saw a few minutes ago.

About 1:55 into the video, an unnamed guy is talking about the "pardons" (that false word again!!!). He said:

"In September of 1999, right in the middle of her senate campaign, was approached by councilman Rivera" who handed her a packet, and two days later the "pardons" were granted.

Ok, so what's wrong with that you ask?

1. "SEPTEMBER 1999" - the clemencies were granted in AUGUST 1999!!!!!! Fully a MONTH earlier!
2. September 1999 - "Right in the MIDDLE of her Senate campaign" - SHE ANNOUNCED HER CANDIDACY IN DECEMBER 1999! How could she have been "right in the middle" of a campaign three months before that campaign began!

Unfortunately because something is said in a slick, emotional video most people believe the lies presented. Hopefully everyone who reads this realizes how disgusting this video and the personal, false attack on Clinton really is.

Oh, by the way, I voted for Obama in our primary and hope he wins the nomination. But crap like this is nothing better than Rovian gestapo tactics.

[Lady-Damai]

2. Thanks for the video.....

Interesting-

[George II]

136. Interesting, but false. Sad that people have to resort to such character assassination here.

[bbinacan]

3. Ouch n/t

[gateley]

4. The Senate in a 95/2 vote denounced Clinton's clemency of this group of people?

And HRC knew nothing about it? I'm assuming it was on the news at the very least.

I was going to give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe not having paid attention to the specifics and taken the person at his word that those pardoned weren't involved in violence -- at the very least irresponsible wielding of the clemency pen. More likely pandering to the PR vote for Hillary in NY, which is par for the Clinton course.

But when I heard about the Senate -- in such a weighted vote -- denouncing Clinton's action... Just too difficult to believe she was unaware.

EDIT: I'm starting a slow burn on this -- there is no end to the crap they've pulled and still remains hidden.

Go to YouTube and move it up.

This has to get out - this goes so far beyond the typical dirty political machinations. In essence, Bill pardoned terrorists who killed and attacked US citizens on US soil.

[Coexist]

73. gately - the more I look into this

the more I wish it wasn't Morris, because this could be fatal to her in the GE.

This seriously goes to the issue of electability in the GE.

[George II]

121. Yes, it would threaten her electability, IF IT WERE TRUE!!!

[George II]

85. Bill DID NOT "pardon" terrorists who killed and attacked US citizens on US soil!!!!

PRESIDENT Clinton gave clemency to them - each of which had already served as much or more time as anyone else who had committed similar crimes. NONE of those given clemency ever killed or attacked a single US citizen on US soil or soil anywhere else in the world. NONE of them were convicted of murder or manslaughter!

You really need to check into the facts of your claims before you embarass yourself. It's amazing you made this comment in your post:

"I was going to give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe not having paid attention to the specifics and taken the person at his word that those pardoned weren't involved in violence -- at the very least irresponsible wielding of the clemency pen. More likely pandering to the PR vote for Hillary in NY, which is par for the Clinton course."

YOU were going to give them the benefit of the doubt for maybe not paying attention to the specifics?

Do YOU know "the specifics"? Obviously not. First, and most importantly, they were NOT "pardoned", as you say.

As far as "pandering to the PR vote", that is ludicrous! Clinton won by 12% and would have gotten a majority of the PR vote in NY anyway, running against Republican Rick Lazio. Do you have an idea how many "PR"s voted in the 2000 senate election? Certainly not enough to change the result of the election, even if 100% of them voted for Lazio (a real stretch at best!)?

[ClayZ]

5. K and R

[LakeSamish706]

6. Anybody know why Bill pardoned these guys? n/t

[BOHICA06]

To get the PR vote in NY for Hillary?

Run time: 04:28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfCkQ-p2beo   Posted on YouTube: April 26, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: April 27, 2008 By DU Member: BOHICA06 Views on DU: 6823

 
As good a guess as any!

[LakeSamish706]

8. Wow, that goes beyond criminal intent... Is there anything these Clintons..

would not do?

[gateley]

9. As much vile crap as we've learned,

this one blows me away.

As I said, Bill pardoned terrorists who killed and attacked US citizens on US soil! Over 30 bombings!

[George II]

82. WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!

1. Clinton didn't "pardon" any of them. They are still convicted felons! What he did was give them clemency, which is far different from a pardon.

2. NOT ONE of those people were convicted of killing OR attacking US citizens. NOT ONE!

Do some research before making wild-ass claims that are totally false.

[BOHICA06]

10. Unseemly, yes. Illegal, no.

Quid pro quo in politics are what makes the system work ... and it also corrupts it. Without them, politicians have no power and cannot be effective.

In this case it took the votes of thousands to fulfill any "agreement", hardly a bankable occurrence.

[gateley]

11. I think pardoning terrorists goes a bit beyond 'unseemly'. nt

[Popol Vuh]

14. "Unseemly"?

I bet if this same act were done by Bush you'd be using much different language to describe it. Just goes to show what your consistency of principles are and how much of a blindly follower you probably are.

*Sigh*

[crankychatter]

16. Felony Conflict of Interest - "Bankable" = Prosecutable but DOES NOT = INNOCENT

Clinton is guilty as fuck of felony conflict of interest

...not prosecutable based on provable "quid pro quo," but being philosophical about it, and proclaiming it "politics as usual?" that's not prosecutable either... but it borders on accessory after the fact.

"You who, philosophize DISGRACE... and criticize our fears... bury that RAG deep to your face... for NOW is the time for your tears." B. Dylan

I suppose you think 50 BULLETS is justifiable force as well.

[BOHICA06]

35. Unfortunately, in the system we live with ...

1. The constitution only means what 5 folks in black robes says it does.

2. The President's pardon authority is almost unrestricted (treason being the only exception).

3. 12 jurors decide what is justifiable force.

Now if in 2001, you were screaming to your congressional reps for a an investigation of the Clinton pardons - then you can continue to assume what I think. However, we do agree that Clinton is guilty as fuck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy

[George II]

78. Clinton won by 12 percent in 2000, she would have won if not a single PR voted in the election!!!

So, the theory about trying to get the PR vote is ridiculous!!

This is just a cheap attack on Clinton, nothing else!

[BOHICA06]

110. In 1999, she didn't know she would win by 12% ...

... she had to make sure all the bases were covered. Marc Rich is even more unseemly ... but they both stink.

[George II]

119. At the time PRESIDENT Clinton granted the clemency HILLARY Clinton had no idea she was running!!!

What "bases", the clemency was granted four months before she announced her candidacy.

So much for the "coincidence" of the clemency, eh?

[BOHICA06]

126. Oh please, like she woke up one morning and said ...

...I'll run for Senate. Give her more credit for planning than that! She had her ducks properly lined up, and Bill was doing everything he could to be forgiven.

[George II]

132. Good point - ALMOST! See below

Your comment prompted me to go back and watch the video again, and I picked up a few nuggets that TOTALLY EXPOSE the phoniness of the video and obviously the premise behind it.

So, here's what I saw a few minutes ago.

About 1:55 into the video, an unnamed guy is talking about the "pardons" (that false word again!!!). He said:

"In September of 1999, right in the middle of her senate campaign, was approached by councilman Rivera" who handed her a packet, and two days later the "pardons" were granted.

Ok, so what's wrong with that you ask?

1. "SEPTEMBER 1999" - the clemencies were granted in AUGUST 1999!!!!!! Fully a MONTH earlier!
2. September 1999 - "Right in the MIDDLE of her Senate campaign" - SHE ANNOUNCED HER CANDIDACY IN DECEMBER 1999! How could she have been "right in the middle" of a campaign three months before that campaign began!

Unfortunately because something is said in a slick, emotional video most people believe the lies presented. Hopefully everyone who reads this realizes how disgusting this video and the personal, false attack on Clinton really is.

Oh, by the way, I voted for Obama in our primary and hope he wins the nomination. But crap like this is nothing better than Rovian gestapo tactics.

[gateley]

7. The film clip intimates

it was because the spokesperson for the Hispanic Community in NY asked her to use her influence to obtain the clemency.

Hillary was looking to run for NY Senate, and needed the hispanic backing.

[George II]

80. Why did she need the hispanic backing?

She would have won a majority of the hispanic vote anyway against Rick Lazio, and she won with a final margin of 12%. Surely, even in NY, the Hispanic vote is nowhere near TWENTY FOUR percent!

Let's get real here.

[hedgehog]

113. Was she running against Lazio or Guiliani when these people were given clemency? nt

[George II]

118. VERY good question, which brings out the ludicrous point of this entire thread...

Here is the chronology:

AUGUST 11, 1999 - PRESIDENT Clinton grants clemency to 16 FALN members
DECEMBER 11, 1999 - HILLARY Clinton announces her candidacy

FOUR months difference - I would think the Clintons at that time had no idea Hillary would run for the senate.

This chronology REALLY throws cold water on that ridiculous video AND the conspiracy theories about President Clinton's ulterior motives.

[hedgehog]

120. OH COME ON! You really believe that in August, 1999, Hillary Clinton

has NO plans to run for the Senate? I bet you believe that in 2006 she planned to serve a full second term in the Senate, too, with no plans to run for President!

[George II]

134. The film clip says she was approached in September 1999 by Rivera, but...

President Clinton granted clemency to the 16 in question in AUGUST 1999!!!! How could the Rivera incident have prompted a "pardon" (the word used in the clip) have occurred two days after an incident in September?

Also, the comment was that it was "right in the middle of her Senate campaign", but she didn't even announce her candidacy until December 1999, THREE months after the Rivera incident.

Are you willing now to admit the falseness of this video?

[Lost-in-FL]

52. Because they did not take part of ANY bombings.

They were guilty of other crimes but to killing anyone. They have served the amount of time that others would serve for the same crimes. That's why the involvement of Carter and Tutu.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

87. I expect he was forced to by 'others'

[graycem]

12. Yeah, but

Obama went to a party at an "unconvicted" person who was an alleged terrorist 40 years ago when he was 8 years old. C'mon is this REALLY important?? :sarcasm:

[still_one]

13. This was news at the time. It was one of bill clinton's wonderful pardons /nt

[mcctatas]

15. It looks bad, but with dick morris connecting the dots...

I have to take this with a grain of salt. He wasn't a credible source to me before I became and Obama supporter, and he still is not much more than a bitter old toe-sucker...

[gateley]

18. Remove Dick Morris from the mix, and the story still has legs.

1. The FALN was designated as a terrorist group.
2. The FALN bombed US locations and killed US citizens.
3. Councilman Jose Rivera asked HRC's help in getting the participants clemency.
4. Bill granted Clemency
5. The Senate overwhelmingly denounced Clinton's clemency of the group.

So that leaves a few questions:

What would be Bill Clinton's motivation to grant clemency to a group of terrorists who had attacked Americans on American Soil?

I don't find fault with Dick Morris's statement that HRC - NOT a New Yorker - needed support from New Yorkers for her senate run. That's just logical and makes sense.

According to the WaPo on November 10, 1999, they state it was possible Bill did this to help in Gore's run for Presidency:

As recounted in a Nov. 10, 1999, story in the Washington Post, this politically motivated pardon of terrorists was indeed also designed to help Al Gore's 2000 presidential bid.
A White House memo written on March 6, 1999, by Jeffrey L. Farrow, co-chairman of the White House's interagency working group on Puerto Rico, said: "The VP's Puerto Rico position would be helped" if the terrorists were granted clemency. The memo noted that clemency was also a priority for three congressional Democrats with large Puerto Rican constituencies.

If that's the ONLY reason Bill pardoned them, that's still treasonous behavior, regardless of if it's technically treason or not.

And regardless of the reason, do you believe Hillary, gearing up for a Senate race, wouldn't have been aware that the Senate had spoken out so strongly against the clemency Bill granted to FALN?

I'm trying to track down a copy of the letter shown in the video, so we can see exactly what it says, lest we believe one word from that toe sucker.

I think that in your willingness to dismiss this just because of Dick Morris being on camera, you're throwing out the baby with the bath water.

[RufusTFirefly]

19. But why would Rivera and NYC's Puerto Rican community support releasing terrorists?

Trust me, I'm definitely no fan of HRC, but are you suggesting that Rivera would support setting murderers free?

Sorry, but there's got to be more to this.

[gateley]

20. Politics.

It's possible a large part of the Puerto Rican community felt these guys were unjustly charged. That they were patriots.

And here's the clip from the WaPo article again -- politics is the motivator. Even if it doesn't make sense to us to let murders go free, it apparently makes sense to some.

AND, if there was more to it, if it was really the "right" thing to do, why did the Senate condemn it?

As recounted in a Nov. 10, 1999, story in the Washington Post, this politically motivated pardon of terrorists was indeed also designed to help Al Gore's 2000 presidential bid.
A White House memo written on March 6, 1999, by Jeffrey L. Farrow, co-chairman of the White House's interagency working group on Puerto Rico, said: "The VP's Puerto Rico position would be helped" if the terrorists were granted clemency. The memo noted that clemency was also a priority for three congressional Democrats with large Puerto Rican constituencies.

[RufusTFirefly]

22. Both Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu supported the prisoners' release

Two Nobel Peace Prize winners. I guess they were just "playing politics" too.

"None of them were convicted of doing bodily harm to anyone. And they had all served sentences that were considerably longer than they would serve under the sentencing guidelines which control federal sentencing now," (Bill Clinton) said.

"I did not believe they should be held in incarceration -- in effect -- by guilt by association," he said.

Asked about the difference of opinion between him and his wife, Clinton said he never spoke to the first lady about the offer.

"It was up to her and entirely appropriate for her to say whatever she wanted to about it. But I did what I thought was right," Clinton said.

The president said he received petitions on behalf of the prisoners from hundreds of people, including former President Jimmy Carter, South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, other religious leaders and congressmen.

CNN

[Muttocracy]

24. That's interesting info but I'm confused about two lines

Did they talk about it or not?

Asked about the difference of opinion between him and his wife, Clinton said he never spoke to the first lady about the offer.

"It was up to her and entirely appropriate for her to say whatever she wanted to about it. But I did what I thought was right," Clinton said.

[DrZeeLit]

26. Hmm...how could it be "up to her" if he "never spoke to her" about it?

Somebody's spinning this a million miles an hour in the Clinton Drama Machine.

Baggage?
Nah, Hillary doesn't have any baggage left to sort.
Ahem. Cough. Cough.

I hope, for the gentleman who lost his father, someone has explained/apologized/or at least had the deceny to talk with him?

[gateley]

25. No, I would never accuse Jimmy Carter or Desmond Tutu

(who is my wallpaper, by the way) of just playing politics.

I'm accusing Bill Clinton of playing politics.

In the WaPo snip, is there any mention of anything OTHER than political gain?

The more I learn of the Clintons, the more I doubt they've been motivated by much else.

[George II]

86. You only read the WaPo "snip"? Nice. Nothing like an informed electorate, eh? HAHA

[gateley]

124. Excuse me?

You can't be talking to me because I actually did several internet searches on it and read other references and news stories.

What have YOU come up with in YOUR research, eh? HAHA

Standing by.

[xioaping]

29. That;s what Clinton said Carter and Tutu said

But did they really say it? Did they really sign a petition asking for clemency? Or was this another memory under sniper fire?

[George II]

140. Two comments...

1. None of the 16 offered clemency were "murderers", none were even convicted of violent acts, murder, manslaughter, causing any injuries, etc.

2. The video claims that Rivera met with Hillary in Sept. 1999 to ask her to intervene on their behalf, but the clemency offers took place in August 1999. Why would he ask for something that had already happened a month earlier?

[George II]

142. Sadly the video lies and misleads....

According to the video Rivera asked for Hillary's intervention in September 1999, but the clemency was offered a month earlier on August 11, 1999. How could Hillary intervene a month LATER?

There is also the comment that the Rivera/Hillary meeting took place "right in the middle of her senate campaign", but she didn't even become a candidate until DECEMBER 1999.

The video is misleading and an undadulterated hatchet job!!

[xioaping]

28. Toe sucking. That's it. Nothing credible to say.

Every time I hear someone talk about Morris and toe sucking I think to myself, this must be Hillary herself of some other mindless person that thinks the citing someone's sexual preferences is a substitute for intellegent debate.

Let us know what you do when you are home alone and then we can discount every opinion you have. Come one, I'd love to hear what you were doing today? Maybe you are a secret toe sucker yourself.

[mcctatas]

34. ...

I didn't realize there were so many dick morris fans to offend. Fine, take out the toe-sucking reference, I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, but I think it must be acknowledged that he has made it his mission to undermine and smear her at every opportunity.

As for insinuating I am mindless, please go cheney yourself :hi:

[xioaping]

48. toe sucker two

You raised toe-sucking as a debating point, not me. Cheney yourself yourself.

[mcctatas]

66. actually, I raised it as an ad hominem character assasination...

but I digress...

[xioaping]

71. what were we talking about oh yes, now I remember

and can stop digressing. What exactly was it that was at issue. Oh yes, something about Hillary. Diversion - even if it will fail you in Logic 101 - does work.

[mcctatas]

107. I thought we were talking about toe sucking!

:rofl:

[The Wielding Truth]

55. My take also. I would need better info.

[George II]

135. Yes, a grain of salt to say the least...

Check the chronology presented in the video vs. the REAL facts, and the video is exposed as an utter falsehood. Its based on TOTAL lies!

[Usrename]

17. I remember when he pardoned them.

It's all very reminiscent of the Bush affiliations with terrorists sought in Cuba and Venezuela.

[1776Forever]

21. And let us not forget the case of Marc Rich...............

Clinton Pardons - Jewish Disgrace
Sermon given April 27, 2001, by Rabbi Barry H. Block

http://www.beth-elsa.org/be_s0427.htm

(snip)

The leaders of this New Square community are unfortunately not as honest as their neighbors. Four of them had been “convicted of robbing the government of $11,000,000, by setting up a fictitious yeshiva to receive federal student aid money.” The school did not even exist. The convicts and their attorneys justified their actions “on the grounds that . . . the funds were channeled back into the community<, and not> for personal gain.” (Yoffie)

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President of our Union of American Hebrew Congregations, has written that, “for Jews, this is not simply another case of fraud and embezzlement. This is a case of religious people inventing an imaginary Torah institution to steal from the government, using the funds for other activities of their religious community, and then defending their actions on the ground that the money did not go into their own pockets. There is an implication that in some way, religiously acceptable. But of course not. Their actions are nothing short of a hillul Hashem, a desecration of God’s name. Jews who break the law in God’s name and turn Torah into an instrument of thievery are bringing Judaism into disrepute.”

The truth be told, though, you and I and most Americans would never have heard of these criminals, were it not for former President Clinton. In the final days of his tenure as President, Clinton commuted their sentences, permitting them to leave prison early.

Were these commutations explicitly bought with votes? Probably not. Did these thieves receive special treatment because of their town’s overwhelming numbers of ballots for Senator Clinton? Perhaps. Did President Clinton think he was being a friend to the Jewish people when he commuted these sentences? Probably.

We can be certain, though, that the Torah does not permit thievery, even for the sake of a community. Our Rabbis teach us that committing a crime in the name of God shames the Jewish people, dishonors the Torah, and desecrates the Name of God. Though President Clinton surely intended no harm to the Jewish people, he did us no favors when he publicized the crime by granting pardon to the unrepentant sinners of New Square, New York.

The case of Marc Rich is much better known. In some ways, it may seem to be less of a Jewish problem, per se. Rich’s alleged crimes, tax evasion and breaking an embargo against Iran, are shocking. Unlike the crimes of New Square, though, Rich’s actions were not committed in the name of Judaism, God, or the Jewish people. Bill Clinton is the one most often charged with wrongdoing in the matter of the Rich pardon, not the Jewish people.

[Muttocracy]

23. Wow. So much for Ms. Fully Vetted and ready for the general election. nt

[BeatleBoot]

33. Don't Worry. The Closet is full for Mr. Obama.

Timing is everything.

Do your homework.

[Pryderi]

130. ooooo...such a frightening post. Care to share your innuendo?

[Lost-in-FL]

27. ...

[Mozcram]

30. If it is accurate, another blunder

The man's comments at the end are interesting; they don't entice me to join him in condemning hillary in general though. Of course he is upset and hurt about what happened. He would feel a bit better if he were able to see the pardon as having
nothing to do with his dad personally. If HRC did as the video suggests, it's just
one of those terrible, misinformed judgements that often occur with politicians...

[stratomagi]

31. I forwarded the link to the Obama campaign

wanted to make sure they were at least aware of it even if they only ended up using it in a pot vs. kettle sort of way.

[George II]

141. The video is NOT accurate...

It claims the so-called meeting between Rivera and Hillary took place in September 1999 and two days later the clemency was offered. The truth is that the clemency was offered on AUGUST 11, 1999, a month BEFORE the alleged meeting!

[BeatleBoot]

32. Dick Morris - GOP Shill ? The Same Dick Morris Telling Republicans to Vote Obama in Texas ?

Funny shit.

More video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt_jnhsyqg0

[Window]

36. My, my.

The Clintons...make my head hurt.

[brindis_desala]

37. Dick Morris is full of crap. Hillary did NOT support this

The controversy then took an even more dramatic turn over the weekend when the first lady said the offer should be rescinded -- comments that drew criticism of her from leading New York Hispanic politicians.

And these men were NEVER convicted of setting the bombs. Please do the research before going off half cock. This is NOT the Free Republic.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9909/09/faln.clemency/

[liberalcanuck]

43. I agree with you after reading that link. I'm not sure if this really

amounts to anything and I for one can't stand Hillary Clinton.

From the link you provided:

"Many critics accused Clinton of taking the action to help his wife gain support among New York's Puerto Rican and larger Hispanic community.

The controversy then took an even more dramatic turn over the weekend when the first lady said the offer should be rescinded -- comments that drew criticism of her from leading New York Hispanic politicians."


Unless we want to go the sleaze route and ape HRC's campaign by bandying about half-truths - is that where we're headed?

[gateley]

67. If "the first lady said the offer should be rescinded" --

how does that jibe with her saying she was unaware of it? She either knew about it, or she didn't. She says she didn't, but...

My thoughts: She said the offer should be rescinded AFTER the flap about Clinton doing it for HRC's PR support in NY -- sorry, but that's how I view her these days.

And she lied about not being aware of it.

Again, my thoughts only.

[Window]

72. Yeah, like NAFTA. After the fact, "it should be rescinded." Of course,

she who didn't discuss this with the president, would say that.

[George II]

104. Did she really say she was unaware of it?

Maybe she was talking about being unaward of "pardons", not clemency? Those are two HUGELY different offers!

I'm not pleased with her, but on this issue I don't think it's fair to say she lied about it.

[DissedByBush]

56. That is the lamest excuse

Yes, they weren't convicted for setting the bombs. Yes, they received very long sentences for their convictions. This nitpicking misses the big picture.

These people were part of an organization that was willing to kill people to establish a Marxist-Leninist government in Puerto Rico, no matter what the Puerto Ricans thought. Anybody in that organization was part of a conspiracy to commit mass murder in order to overthrow a government. Of course they deserve to spend the rest of their lives in jail.

[gateley]

68. What were they convicted FOR?

They were in jail for SOMETHING.

What about the deaths of the patrons of the pub? Were they found guilty of that?

Was no conviction of "setting the bombs" a technicality type thing?

This issue has angered me more than just about any other. I think Clinton needs to be confronted with this.

[DissedByBush]

131. Convicted for making bombs, robbery, etc., IIRC n/t

[BREMPRO]

38. pardoning terrorists for votes, then lying about it., AND attacking Obama for a loose association...

with a member of the weather underground.... sounds like condoning criminal acts, lying, coverup, and hypocracy for votes. Is this the President you want folks????

[cjsmom44]

39. RE: SO TRUE WELL SAID

HILLARY CLINTON IS A POLITICAL OPPORTUNIST :mad:

[Gonnuts]

41. Three words

Pandering vote whore. If this women thought it would get her elected she'd eat a bowl full of shit.

[truedelphi]

64. Instead she is making us eat the bowl

Gag!! WHile Rove helps stir the pot.

[George II]

143. Three words...

...the video LIES.

See my other posts in this discussion.

Thanks.

[Kittycat]

42. Can I get a summary? I'm having trouble viewing the clip.

:(

[xioaping]

50. Summary of video

Bill Clinton offered clemency to Peurto Rico terriorists that bombed restaurants and other public places in the U.S. in the 80's. The video started with a guy recounting how great his father was until he turned nine-years-old and then his dad was killed by one of the bombings.

The movies says the terrorists were granted clemency at the urging of a political acquaintence of Hillary and that Hillary must have in turn pushed Bill to grant it. Congress voted 92-2 (sorry, not exact number) to condem the granting of clemency.

Hillary has denied any knowledge about it or connection to it. It was all Bill's doing.

The video has clips of Dick Morris saying of course Hillary knew about it which has caused some on here to say it can not be true because Morris likes to suck on toes while having sex.

Taking Morris out of the video, the decision is: Were they terrorists? If they were, should they have been released? If they were released, is is plausible that Hillary had nothing to do with it?

Personally, I think she was baking cookies at the time and could not have known about it.

[George II]

145. More on the summary....

Morris says that Hillary Clinton met with NYC Councilman Rivera in September 1999, "right in the middle of her Senate campaign", and two days later President Clinton pardoned the 16 FALN members.

The TRUTH, however, is that Clinton had already offered CLEMENCY (not a "pardon") back in August 1999, a month earlier. Also, she announced her candidacy for the Senate in December 1999, so the alleged Rivera meeting couldn't have been "right in the middle" of her campaign which hadn't officially started yet.

The video is a fraudulent collection of phony "facts" that many people believe because they don't check the truth.

Sad, but it's a total hatchet job.

[George II]

44. I thought Democrats were running against Republicans in the fall...

....I guess I was wrong. More democrats destroying democrats, leaving the field wide open for the republicans to sweep back into office and maybe majority in the Senate.

This destruction is disgusting.

[Lost-in-FL]

45. This video is full of half truths...

and is made only for political purpose and miseducation. Forget for a second that it is about Hillary and think...maybe there's got to be a reason why these people are now free? Why the involvement of Desmond Tutu and Carter?

For years members of the Puertorican Independent movement (a peaceful political party for whom our Sen Al Sharpton contributed with getting the NAVY out of Vieques) has been asking for their release because they were fighting for the cause of freedom from Colonial rule in PR after seen the abuses committed on Puertorricans since the beginning of the colonization.

Examples of abuses: (1) Political prisoners (not this kind of prisoners but those wanting independence for PR or "communists") subjected to Radiation experiments with the aim of studying their effects (2) the mass sterilization of females of child bering in the island from the early 60's to 1984 which consisted of hysterectomies on poor uneducated women (3) full scale trial of the birth control pill in PR, not voluntarily and again on poor uneducated women who trusted their doctors. Many died and some developed cancer due to high doses of hormones (4) the "Puerto Rico Cancer Project" where under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations an american Dr was accused of purposely infecting his Puerto Rican subjects with cancer cells and causing the deaths of thirteen of 13 puertoricans (5) and the testing of chemical and biological weapons in PR. I didn't think I needed to show links to prove my point since you can all find this with a simple google search.

Don't worry people I don't see Puerto Ricans coming here killing Americans (which they happen to be American but are seen as just another group of brown people that others must be scared of). The attempts started early the last century suppressing the island to reach emancipation paid off very well now. Differently that Osama and McVeigh who killed people for the fun of it they only wanted to attack US targets just like the ETA (Basque separatists) does in Spain. There was dead innocents in the process. As a Puerto Rican I support the cause of freedom for PR and any country but only done by laws and dialogue, violence is not getting anyone anywhere.

Edited to include...
None of the 16 at the heart of the clemency offer was convicted in any of the bombings. They were convicted on a variety of charges, ranging from bomb-making and conspiracy to armed robbery, and given sentences ranging from 35 to 90 years; the activists served 14 to 19 years in prison.

[RufusTFirefly]

46. Sorry, but your thoughtful discussion is not wanted here.

I'll go toe to toe with almost any Democrat on my level of Hillary disgust, but this is obviously a piece of propaganda. But asking thoughtful, troubling questions about it only spoils the fun of those on this thread who are dead set on using it to work themselves into a mob-like frenzy.

There are PLENTY of legitimate reasons to strongly object to Hillary Clinton. Please, don't undermine them by distorting this complex story into a simplistic smear.



P.S. Thanks for trying, Lost-in-FL. It's hard to stop a juggernaut.

[Lost-in-FL]

51. I just didn't expect this level of ignorance from democrats. n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

53. Alas, we're all spoon-fed the same simplistic junk

Democrats aren't completely immune to the dumbing down of American discourse, I'm afraid. What's more, I think maintaining a smug sense of invulnerability to the general wave of bombastic ignorance actually makes one more vulnerable to its effects, not less.

The United States of Stupidity

[Vinca]

49. We need to make sure the Obama campaign sees this video.

He won't use it, but the knowledge he knows about it might make a difference. Superdelegates need to be aware of it as well. This has all the appearance of favors for votes and what a big favor!

[mystieus]

54. I think I'm going to be sick..

[Cleita]

57. What a hit piece.

Also, am I the only one that smells the subtle race baiting? I'm not a Hillary fan but I think that the only thing she could be faulted for in this is maybe lying about what she knew if even that is true. Has anyone done any further digging to get the complete story?

[Lost-in-FL]

79. Race baiting... here? Nah...

:mad:

[Gman]

58. This thread is really bringing out the DU closet FreeRepublic members

that come here to disrupt.

Nothing gives an Obamabot a bigger hard-on than right wing attacks on Hillary.

[ooglymoogly]

59. KR for exposure.....nt

[Coexist]

61. Wow - I thought this thread would be mostly ignored

I had no idea - after I saw the response I Googled on this issue and still don't quite understand the reasoning behind the pardons - but I suppose I have a "post 9/11" thinking or something.

It does seem that Hillary was against the pardons, but with the 2-fer that the Clintons are, this could really hurt her in the GE.

Sorry I offended so many with the post - I didn't film it. I had just never heard of this controversy, and thought one or two people would direct me to a good article on this. I see it hit a nerve. Interesting.

[gateley]

69. Was Hillary against the pardons "she was unaware of?" Those pardons? nt

[Coexist]

70. I went by this article

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/08/congress.faln/

it says she was against the clemency because they would not "immediately accept the conditions".

I can't find anything that suggests her position prior to that.

the WSJ has a different take, though:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120277819085260827.html

Given all this, why would Bill Clinton, who had ignored the 3,226 clemency petitions that had piled up on his desk over the years, suddenly reach into the stack and pluck out these 16 meritless cases? (The New York Times ran a column with the headline, "Bill's Little Gift.")

Hillary Rodham Clinton was in the midst of her state-wide "listening tour" in anticipation of her run for the U.S. Senate in New York, a state which included 1.3 million Hispanics. Three members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus -- Luis V. Gutierrez (D., Ill.), Jose E. Serrano, (D., N.Y.) and Nydia M. Velazquez, (D., N.Y.) -- along with local Hispanic politicians and leftist human-rights advocates, had been agitating for years on behalf of the FALN cases directly to the White House and first lady.

Initial reports stated that Mrs. Clinton supported the clemencies, but when public reaction went negative she changed course, issuing a short statement three weeks after the clemencies were announced. The prisoners' delay in refusing to renounce violence "speaks volumes," she said.

The Clintons were caught in an awkward predicament of their own making. The president had ignored federal guidelines for commutation of sentences, including the most fundamental: The prisoners hadn't actually asked for clemency.

OKAY - here it is - she DID initially support the pardon of the terrorists:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/02/clemency/

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton's campaign said she supports the clemency offer - provided those covered renounce violence.

That is 'Soft on Terror' on a stick right there. That one statement could kill her in the GE - and I mean BURY HER.

[gateley]

112. Thanks for the research.

I understand those who are against condemning her falsely - or their concern that those of us who are outraged might be rushing to our judgment without all the facts -- it's happened before!

But my sense of the big picture on this, is still that it stinks.

They didn't give McVeigh the offer of clemency "provided he renounce violence."

[George II]

114. This is all specious editorial opinion, nothing concrete and no "smoking gun"..

This whole thread is a trashy attempt to smear Clinton. I voted for Obama in our primary and I want to see him win the nomination, but I want to see him win cleanly without all this horseshit.

[George II]

103. She couldn't have been against or, for that matter, in favor of the "PARDONS"

Most importantly because there were NO PARDONS. President Clinton granted CLEMENCY to the 16 in question.

[gateley]

111. That's my fault -- using the two words interchangeably. nt

[gateley]

128. Pardon vs Clemency

A pardon is the forgiveness of a crime and the penalty associated with it. It is granted by a sovereign power, such as a monarch or chief of state or a competent church authority. Clemency is an associated term, meaning the lessening of the penalty of the crime without forgiving the crime itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon

Fallout from Clinton pardons for FALN prompts reform measure, renewed debate

By Terry Frieden
CNN

February 8, 2000
Web posted at: 6:08 p.m. EST (2308 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Fallout from President Clinton's controversial pardons of 16 members of a Puerto Rican nationalist group last summer prompted Republicans Tuesday to introduce a measure to reform the pardon process and require input from victims and their families.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/08/faln.pardon/

Here's the justice department on Clemency BY Pardon

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clemency.htm

[George II]

139. But Clinton's action wasn't a PARDON, it was an offer of CLEMENCY with conditions. Furthermore....

it was completely divorced from the false accusations linking any meeting in September 1999 between Hillary Clinton and Councilman Rivera. The clemency was offered a month before this alleged meeting.

[Lost-in-FL]

77. "I had no idea"

Like that's going to solve anything.

[George II]

102. Unfortunately your thinking was wrong.

Just goes to show how posting false or questionable information get's attention.

After reading the responses to the post, are you STILL calling them "pardons"? If you googled the issue surely you would have seen dozens of links referring to President Clinton's grants of CLEMENCY to these 16 people, much different than PARDONS.

[JDPriestly]

62. What interests me is that we had a very serious terrorist threat here

and yet we had no panic. These events were not used to deprive Americans of their civil rights. Thus, the current laws against our civil rights are not necessary. The current terrorist threat is probably not as great as the one involving the Puerto Ricans. The number of Al Qaeda supporters in the U.S. is minimal, far less than the number of supporters of Puerto Rican independence at the time of this horrible bombing.

Another reason to stop the Bush administration's infringement on our civil rights.

[mmm413]

63. WE don't need to do anything.

The GOPhers probably already know about it and are just biding their time. I have to say, though, that I'd be much more inclined to believe this IF someone other than Dick Morris appeared in this.

[DesertFlower]

65. being a former new yorker, i am familiar with

FALN. i worked for mobil corporation and they bombed that building in 1977. one man was killed and he wasn't even a mobil employee. he worked in the travel agency in the lobby.

i can't tell you how many times we had to vacate that building due to more bomb threats. i remember thinking "what does this have to do with me -- i'm just trying to make a living".

[George II]

76. Are you serious?

You have the gall to post this and then in small print at the bottom say "I am not familiar with this at all"??? This is simply a cheap attempt at a smear.

Shouldn't someone posting something like this at least spend a few minutes on google so he/she wouldn't have to admit "I am not familiar with this at all" ?

Do some research, PLEASE!!!

[Yael]

83. I'm familiar with it -- and it is something every DUer should know about

The FALN pardons (pandering to the hispanic vote for her senate run) were well known back in 2000. At least to those of us who couldn't stand her and enjoyed the schadenfreude.

[Lost-in-FL]

84. What part of the "not involved in the bombings"

don't you understand? Your opinion shows how Un-familiar you are about any of this. Why don't you do some research? Not from FreeRepublic tho but from real sources.

Pandering to who? Puerto Ricans in the island do not even vote for the president.

[Yael]

89. What part of pandering to the Hispanic vote in New York was not clear?

[Lost-in-FL]

92. You sound very ignorant...

this is about manipulation of the facts for political purpose with the aim at inciting hatred against a group of Americans that has nothing to do with the actions of those individuals. This is not about who's pandering to who. Do not mistake me with a Hillary supporter. I'm just another Democrat who is watching how Obama and Hillary supporters are destroying our chances to get to the WH with bullshit posts like this ones.

Get the facts straight before you get to conclusions. Do not say you are familiar with something you obviously don't know fuck about.

[Yael]

95. What an asshatish post

4 people were killed by these people. They didn't ask to be freed. Hillary took the request from another person to Bill, who complied.

She was a carpet bagger who needed to "become" a New Yorker.

Do some checking before you accuse people of not knowing the case.

If you think that one anonymous poster on an internet message board is the cause of the friction in the party as opposed to Slash and Burn Sith Lord Hillary, then I pretty much don't have any use for you. I prefer to keep my conversations on a more intellectual level.

*plonk*

[Lost-in-FL]

97. I cannot talk in a more intellectual level...

when you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. What are your sources a link provided in this post? Please...

4 people killed by this group... that's rich. Get the facts straight.

[George II]

101. "Asshatish post"?

Your points...

1. ZERO people were killed by "these people".
2. Hillary did NOT take the request from another person to President Clinton. Why didn't you name that "other person"?
3. PRESIDENT Bill Clinton granting clemency to those 16 people didn't make Hillary Clinton a NYer. Moving to NY made her a NYer.

Aside from these fact checks above, you were already wrong on two points in other posts (one of them #1 above), appears that you're the one lacking in checking skills.

Finally, the ubiquitous "plonk", sure sign of someone recognizing he's in too deep and losing the debate. Nice courage. And keep searching for YOUR "intellectual level", I suggest you start looking down!

[Yael]

106. 4 people died at the hands of the FALN bombers -- in the attack featured out of the 130 they did

Did you even watch the video?

I don't remember the guy's name who wrote and asked her to have Bill pardon the FALN 16. It, along with a copy of the letter is featured in the video.

I OWN a copy of Hillary: The Movie -- out of curiosity as to what the RW has dug up that we haven't heard about yet. I already knew about the FALN issue (I was still a Republican back then, and my former party made HUGE political hay out of the details as opposed to the Democrats who stuck their fingers in their ears about the Clintons and hummed along to the "they can do no wrong" song). I haven't watched it a second time and don't remember the man's name.

I haven't been able to access YouTube for days now (damn Comcast cable), but if you surely don't have the time to watch it for yourself, just let me know and I will be happy to pop the DVD in and scan through for it.

[Yael]

108. Just for you -- I watched it again. His name was Jose Rivera

Communique No. 3: http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/puertorico/FALN-3.pdf (Note -- that is a .pdf)

Here is a quick google on Mr. Rivera on this topic:

Bill Clinton's pardon of 16 terrorists in order to benefit his wife's Senate run: Two days before the president announced the clemency deal, NYC Councilman Jose Rivera personally presented Hillary with a packet on clemency, including a letter asking her to 'speak to the president and ask him to consider granting executive clemency' to the prisoners

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/VIDEO_Hillary_Bill_Clinton_and_the_FALN_Terrorist_Pardons

Although the commutations were opposed by the FBI and the Clinton Justice Department, Bill Clinton granted them to all 16 terrorists. Once again, Hillary claimed to have “no involvement in or prior knowledge of the decision.” Her statement is ridiculous. Two days before the announcement of the pardons, New York City Councilman Jose Rivera personally presented Hillary with a packet of materials including a letter asking her to “speak to the president and ask him to consider granting executive clemency to the prisoners.” What a coincidence — the sentences were immediately commuted!

http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4FF4B454-D5C0-4941-B357-19C6C96E6F5C

Hillary has claimed to have had "no involvement in or prior knowledge of the decision." Yet as the New Republic noted at the time: "Two days before the president announced the clemency deal, New York City Councilman Jose Rivera personally presented Hillary with a packet on clemency, including a letter asking her to 'speak to the president and ask him to consider granting executive clemency' to the prisoners."

http://specialitysites24-7.blogspot.com/2008/03/lying-about-terror.html

I don't know who these sites are. Just noting that SOME people have been paying attention to the CLintons and not choosing to look the other way...

[George II]

137. Just for you I watched it again...

According to you and the video, Mr. Rivera asked Hillary Clinton to pressure President Clinton to pardon the 16 FALN prisoners. The video says this alleged encounter between Rivera and Hillary took place in September 1999.

Unfortunately, the CLEMENCIES (not pardons) took place in August 1999 - A MONTH before the video claims that the Rivera/Hillary meeting took place.

President Clinton has a lot of talents, but foretelling the future is not one of them.

Further, the video claimed that this encounter and the "pardons" (i.e., clemency offers) and the Rivera/Hillary encounter took place "right in the middle of her Senate campaign", but the fact is that she didn't even announce her candidacy until three months later, December 1999.

How do you explain that?

[George II]

94. Perhaps the fact that Hispanics didn't represent, IN TOTAL, enough to defeat Clinton in 2000

Clinton won by 12%, more than the percentage of Puerto Rican voters in NYS. Most of them would have voted for her anyway, so where's the "pandering"?

[hedgehog]

115. Upthread, someone said they were convicted of manufacturing

bombs. They may not have placed them or set them off, but do you suppose they thought someone was going to use the bombs as paperweights?

[Lost-in-FL]

117. But they didn't...

used them as paperweights or to blow them off themselves.

[George II]

88. Sure, you're so familiar with it that you call what they got "pardons"? THEY RECEIVED CLEMENCY!!!!

[Yael]

90. This is HUGH!! SERIES!!!!

:eyes:

Tell that to the guy in the video whose father was killed by these assholes. I'm sure that will make him feel better.

[George II]

91. His father wasn't killed by "these assholes".

YOU are the one claiming to be familiar with this, but now you're wrong on two counts!

[Yael]

96. Check the facts before you spew about what you know not.

Or do you think that they were just innocent bystanders who were thrown in jail for no reason?

[George II]

100. OK, what were the crimes they were convicted of, eh?

Were any murder, manslaughter, etc.?

Not one of the 16 was convicted of killing or even INJURING anyone!

Surprised? I'll bet you are.

"Check the facts"? Your turn.

[Lost-in-FL]

93. How about the thousands of lives...

affected by US policies in Latin America which caused individuals to commit crimes like the ones you said these people did? We are all losing here not just him.

[hedgehog]

116. The key point is that they got out of prison before their sentences were up. nt

[Lost-in-FL]

123. That's the point of "clemency", to leave prison before their sentences were up.

[Yael]

81. This is a clip from Hillary: The Movie

It is a focus on the Clinton scandals starting in 2000 with a few 1990s zingers thrown in.

Peter Paul/Ed Rendell's financing fraud (that got Clinton fined $35,000) and the after effects of Travelgate are main sections -- and they are devastating.

[Barrymores Ghost]

98. I'm an OBAMA delegate, and I call BULLSHIT.

This story doesn't pass the smell test, and nobody in this forum, from any camp, should perpetuate any clearly GOP-based propoganda laced with as many half-truths and distortions as this piece contains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy

Knock it off.

[Yael]

109. You call bullshit on Mr. Rivera asking Hillary to influence Bill in this?

Sorry -- that is a given. It was in WRITING.

[Barrymores Ghost]

125. No, I call bullshit on the insinuation that those whose sentences were commuted...

...(and they were NOT "pardoned", contrary to many in this thread)...were convicted of planting bombs or injuring ANYONE. They had served 19 years on charges of conspiracy and sedition -- unheard of sentences for similar convictions. Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter], the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico.

[George II]

138. Yes, but it IS bullshit! Watch the video again...

you'll see the unnamed shill saying that Rivera met with Hillary Clinton "in September 1999", and also adding "right in the middle of her Senate campaign". Now the truth:

1. If Rivera met with her in September he was a month LATE!!! President Clinton already offered clemency a month earlier, on August 11, 1999!

2. Since Hillary Clinton didn't announce her candidacy until December 1999, how could the meeting with Rivera three months earlier be "right in the middle of her senate campaign"?

Clearly these two documented facts show the utter falseness of the video and accusations.

[jgraz]

105. Ugh... prostitute toe-sucker Dick Morris? Fuck that

We've got more than enough ways to blast Hillary without bringing this kind of filth into the mix.

[mcctatas]

127. pssttt...

watch out, I have just learned (the hard way) that bashing dick morris' affinity for toe sucking is yet another thing we must now add to the argument starters;)

[Pryderi]

129. Getting this out will help "toughen" her up if she gets the nomination, right?

[haymakeragain]

144. Right-wing hatchet bullshit, and Dick Morris is an opportunist douchebag

He'd fuck a snake if you held its head.

That whole tug at your heartstrings shit about the cop is what really turns me off to that. did he actually parrot "fgamily values" at the end? Ahh geez.

I don't know what happened here but am not really interested.