GORE LINK TO PARDONED PILL-PUSHER Wednesday,February 7,2001

BY BRIAN BLOMQUIST, MARILYN RAUBER AND VINCENT MORRIS

WASHINGTON - Bill Clinton's last-minute pardon of herbal-pill con artist Glenn Braswell was pushed by one of Al Gore's Florida recount lawyers, sources said yesterday.

Braswell, now under federal investigation in Los Angeles for alleged money laundering and hiding taxable assets in offshore accounts, was represented in the pardon matter by Miami lawyer Kendall Coffey, who was on Gore's legal team in the Florida fiasco.

Sources say Coffey never met directly with Clinton to press for Braswell's pardon, and it was unclear if Gore played any role.

Gore's former aides said the ex-veep couldn't be reached because he was teaching in New York yesterday.

They said the only time they recalled hearing of Braswell was when they learned during last year's recount fight that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush had written an endorsement of Braswell's products. The Gore team used the letter to bash the GOP, which announced it would return $250,000 from Braswell.

House investigators are considering hearings on Braswell but concede they're puzzled by the pardon since there's no clear explanation of why Clinton granted it.

Braswell - who sells pills he claims cure baldness, sex woes and weight problems, sparking warnings from federal health watchdogs - was sentenced to three years in jail. The Justice Department says the pardon has no effect on the current investigation.

Clinton spokesman Jake Siewert said Clinton was unaware that Braswell was under a current criminal investigation when he bypassed normal procedures and pardoned Braswell just before leaving office.

The House Government Reform Committee holds a hearing tomorrow on Clinton's controversial pardon of fugitive oil trader Marc Rich, ex-husband of Clinton megadonor Denise Rich.

Committee chairman Dan Burton (R-Ind.) asked for an intelligence briefing after reading a Post report that Rich worked for Israel's version of the CIA, the Mossad.

After the top-secret briefing yesterday, Burton said, "Any American who could see this information would be deeply troubled by it," but refused to elaborate, citing classified secrecy rules.

Meanwhile, in the flap over the Clintons' gift grab, the National Park Service said it hasn't found any record showing furniture taken by the Clintons was White House property - but is still checking.

At least three donors claim the goodies they gave during a 1993 White House renovation were meant as gifts to the White House and not to the Clintons.

The gifts, worth tens of thousands of dollars, were part of a $190,000 kitty taken by the Clintons when they left office last month to decorate their new homes in Washington and New York.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said yesterday she wants "the situation clarified," but denied the flap was distracting her from her new job.

Pardoned con man has connections to Al Gore through one of Al Gore's Florida recount lawyers, sources said

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), February 21, 2001

Answers

“Clinton spokesman Jake Siewert said Clinton was unaware that Braswell was under a current criminal investigation when he bypassed normal procedures and pardoned Braswell just before leaving office.”

Can there be anyone on this PLANET stupid enough to believe this horseshit?

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 21, 2001.

Meanwhile, in the flap over the Clintons' gift grab, the National Park Service said it hasn't found any record showing furniture taken by the Clintons was White House property - but is still checking. So you automatically discount the fact that Clinton didn't know about the current investigation. How would he know? And if he did, he would have pardened him for that too, by your reasoning, so he probably didn't.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 21, 2001.

Cherri,

So why the reason for Clinton to bypass normal pardon procedures for all of these - just laziness, maybe ineptitude, or maybe he's afraid someone might say a pardon is a really bad idea for these well-heeled mega-rich socialite felons?

-- clinton is his own worst legacy (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), February 22, 2001.

Daddy Bush never consulted the prosecutor who prosecuted The Iran/Contra Six Who Were Pardoned By Daddy Bush.

He also did not go through the "normal" channels you say Clinton did not go through.

Of all of the pardons Clinton is being bashed about, I dare you to find one thing he did or didn't do that wasn't exactly the same thing Bush did or didn't do, including having people he had worked with get paid money for lobbying for their pardons.

I find it so strange that the things Clinton is being denounced for are the same exact things that other presidents had done in the past 30+ years. Why are these things suddenly considered wrong when it is Clinton doing them?

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 25, 2001.

Cherri:

[Why are these things suddenly considered wrong when it is Clinton doing them?]

Nothing sudden about it. They were wrong when Bush did them, they remain wrong when Clinton does them. Why do YOU insist it's OK for Clinton to be crooked because Bush was as well? I've never seen someone pop up as often as you to argue that two wrongs make a right, so Clinton is squeaky clean.

I wonder if I'll ever see you say that Clinton did something wrong. Sexual harrassment? That's OK, others did it. Lying under oath? That's OK, others did it. And if we find he committed murder, will you claim that's OK because others have murdered as well?

The pardoning power can hardly help but be "misused" in someone's eyes, because presidents can't pardon anyone who doesn't need it for some reason. By definition, these people have been found guilty of something. Exonerating guilty people will always paint a target on the president, for others to attack.

As far as we know, selling pardons is legal. Not ethical, just legal.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 25, 2001.

"Ain't Gonna Happen",

What is your purpose in sharing this information with us? What is it that you wish us to learn from this?

-- Mahareshi Yogi (yabba@dabba.doo), February 25, 2001.

Flint. Sit down. In my opinion Clinton was wrong in his pardon of Rich. I believe he was wrong for not looking into the details of the case instead of just listening to the one side he recieved by those who asked for him to do it. There. Clinton was wrong for messing around with Monica. Any person who is married is wrong, in my opinion, for messing around. There are exceptions, but in my view, very few.

I believe that Bush was blatently corrupt for his pardon of people who were set to testify and could have testify against him. Compairing the two situations brings up the degree of corruption that has been accepted from republicans. Tell me what you think about Bush letting that company pay $10,000.00 for a 10 billion dollar gold mine, then going to work for them right after leaving office.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 25, 2001.

Cherri:

I think the same thing you do. At these rarefied heights, the distinction between statesman, politician, lawyer and crook seems blurred. Steal a dollar, you're a theif. Steal a billion dollars, you're "virtuous" (until they change the law to prevent anyone else from doing it the same way).

I've said for a long time that those who want power the most are the worst possible people to give it to. We see it at all levels, from "Old Git" up through US presidents. The error comes when you start to think either party has a monopoly on corruption. Better to reconcile ourselves to the fact that they are ALL corrupt, and then concentrate more on the big picture. The petty things Bush and Clinton have done are just that -- petty. Just *imagine* how much Clinton would have to have stolen to do as much damage to this country as his socialized medicine proposal would have done. That gives you some perspective on the difference between someone lining one pair of pockets, and that same person fleecing *everyone else's* pockets.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 25, 2001.

Flint,

What is your definition of ethical?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), February 25, 2001.

Thug:

I always liked Kant's formulation, which states (very roughly) that when faced with a decision, the ethical person decides the way they would want everyone to decide in an equivalent situation. In other words, the ethical person does something that's helpful for themselves, ONLY when they sincerely believe that society would improve if everyone else did the same thing in the same situation. So for example, he drives the same speed on the highway that he wants everyone else to drive. In Kant's world, there is no "free rider" syndrome.

What's NOT ethical is redefining the rules to favor your current circumstances. One of the principles of politics is "where you stand is where you sit", meaning your position on a given issue depends entirely on whether you personally get a net benefit or loss. Kant wanted a fair, shuffled deck. It's unethical to stack the deck in your favor, and unethical to try to change a policy simply because your own circumstances have changed and that policy now works against you. If you'd acted properly in the first place, you'd have adopted a policy you'd be willing to accept *no matter what* your circumstances. Nothing but even trades, in the sense that you'd make the trade in either direction.

Adam Smith's formulation is interesting in this respect. Smith argues that, because *nobody* will act ethically in Kant's terms, the system should be arranged so that everyone's individual efforts toward personal advantage cancel out, while the overall trend is to everyone's advantage because everyone (in the hopes of selfish gain) is working as hard as they can.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 25, 2001.

"Ain't Gonna Happen",

It appears that some participants are using this information you posted as a basis for argument, creating a conflict.

Was that your intent in posting it, or am I missing a more valuable message? Is there something to be learned from this information which will enhance our spiritual experience?

-- Mahareshi Yogi (yabba@dabba.doo), February 25, 2001.