Former President Bush granted last-minute pardon to contributor's son

March 7, 2001 Web posted at: 1:57 p.m. EST (1857 GMT)

From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- While former President Bill Clinton has come under fire over last-minute pardons linked to wealthy donors who contributed to the Democratic Party and to his presidential library, CNN has learned about a pardon granted by former President Bush to Edwin Cox Jr., whose family contributed nearly $200,000 to the Bush family's campaigns and to Republican campaign committees from 1980 to 2000, according to documents obtained by CNN.

Time magazine, which first reported the story on its Web site Tuesday evening, also reports that Cox's father, Texas oilman Edwin L. Cox Sr., contributed at least $100,000 to the George Bush Presidential Library near Austin, Texas.

Bush pardoned Cox on January 18, 1993, two days before leaving the White House. Cox, a former Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission chairman, pleaded guilty to bank fraud in 1988, served six months in prison and paid $250,000 in fines.

CNN has obtained a copy of a memo sent by James Baker, then White House chief of staff, to C. Boyden Gray, then White House counsel, on November 24, 1992, concerning a pardon for Cox.

In the memo, Baker writes, "Former Texas Gov. Bill Clements called me and asked me whether or not the president would consider a pardon for Edwin Cox, son of Ed Cox, who is a longtime supporter of the president's."

Baker copied the president, and asked Gray to let him know "what, if anything" he could tell Clements.

Time magazine reports that while the Justice Department vetted the Cox pardon application, an official with the former Bush administration said it was rushed through at the last minute.

Time also reports that 11 months after the pardon was granted, Cox Sr. made a pledge to the Bush Presidential Library. Time reports Cox's name is etched in gold on the exterior of the library as a "benefactor," with benefactors contributing between $100,000 and $250,000 -- the exact size of Cox's donation to the library is unknown because the Bush library has declined to release the amount each of its benefactors has contributed.

Cox Sr. is a trustee of the Bush Presidential Library.

CNN has learned that members of the Cox family contributed $8,500 to the former president's presidential campaigns, $31,500 to George W. Bush's gubernatorial and presidential campaigns and $153,500 to Republican campaign committees. The total amount contributed could be more since soft money did not have to be reported before 1991.

According to the Time article, a woman who identified herself as an assistant to Cox said that Cox's contribution to the Bush presidential library was not at all related to the pardon. She said Cox gave because "President Bush is a longtime friend."

Gray told Time that he could not recall the case or Baker's note, but said Baker's mention of Cox being a "longtime supporter" would not have affected the president's decision.

"It was boilerplate to put it in," Gray told TIME.

Gray told Time that he did not see any problem with Cox's contribution to the library because it was made after the pardon. Time also reports that no one politically linked to Bush is known to have been paid to pursue the Cox clemency.

In the case of Marc Rich, the fugitive financier that Clinton pardoned on his last day in office, Rich's ex-wife contributed $450,000 to the Clinton library before the former president pardoned her husband.

"What's semi-toxic for Clinton was raising money for the library while he was still in office and letting people know, by the way, we're open for pardons, too," Gray told Time. "We never solicited Mr. Cox's application."

Another difference between the Cox and Rich cases is that while Rich fled the country and was never prosecuted for the crimes of which he was accused, Cox admitted making false statements about collateral to back his loans, and served time in prison and paid fines for his crimes.

*****

HEY AIN'T! WHADDAYA THINK OF THAT MAN! CLINTON MUSTA LOOKED BACK AT WHAT THE OLD BUSHMAN DID AND SAID, OH, SO THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS!! PRETTY COOL HUH??

-- HEY AIN'T (CHECK IT OUT DUDE!! @ REPUBLICANS LOVE. HYPOCRISY! THEY THINK IT'S COOL MAN!!), March 08, 2001

Answers

HEY AIN'T!! CHECK THIS OUT! IT'S A RELATED STORY DUDE!! I WONDER WHY TRENT LOTT ALL OF A SUDDEN CHANGED HIS MIND ABOUT PROBING CLINTON?? IT WOULDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH FINDING OUT ABOUT WHAT DUMBYA'S OLD MAN DID, WOULD IT??

Lott says it's time to 'move on' in pardons probe

March 6, 2001 Web posted at: 12:19 p.m. EST (1719 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott says it is "time to move on" and end a Senate committee probe of pardons granted by President Clinton on his last day in office.

Lott spoke Monday after a spokeswoman for Clinton denied a report that Clinton was considering a request to discuss his last-minute pardons with Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, who has been leading the Senate Judiciary Committee's investigation.

The Associated Press quoted Clinton aide Julia Payne as saying the offer was under consideration, but Payne later denied the story to CNN.

"President Clinton is not considering Sen. Specter's request at this time," she said. Payne later added, "That's not something we would consider at all."

Clinton issued 140 pardons hours before he left office, and many of them have been criticized, especially that of expatriate financier Marc Rich. Listed as an international fugitive by the Justice Department, Rich had been indicted in 1983 on tax and fraud charges, but left the country before he could stand trial.

Lott, R-Mississippi, suggested Clinton's refusal to talk to Specter should effectively end the Senate investigation into the pardons matter.

"I don't think we should get into trying to force him to come to the committee, so it is my inclination that it is time to move on," Lott said.

Lott said the Senate's goal from the beginning was not to reverse the pardons, but to look for some "remedial action," and that there had "already had enough" hearings to achieve that objective.

The Republican leader called Specter's invitation to Clinton to tell his side of the story "reasonable," but that "if he [Clinton] doesn't want to do that, it's his decision."

Specter said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" that he had talked informally with Clinton's chief of staff, Karen Tramontano, and suggested "very professional questioning by me with another Democrat, if the president chooses, in an office, his office if he would like, getting to the basic facts."

The pardons are also the subject of a House committee investigation and a criminal probe by a federal prosecutor in New York.

-- A RELATED STORY!! (WHY NOW @ BROWN. COW???), March 08, 2001.

Ya ain't gonna save him so do yourself a favor and quit trying. Bill D. Cat refuses to be saved.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), March 08, 2001.

WHATSA MATTER CARLOS??? I THOUGHT YOU LOVED THIS PARDON STUFF!! AREN'T YOU GLAD THAT YOUR REPUBLICAN HYPOCRITE FRIENDS ARE THE ONES WHO INVENTED IT?? THEY THOUGHT IT WAS SUCH A BIG DEAL IT WAS ALL WE HEARD ABOUT ON THE NEWS FOR THE LAST MONTH! YOU SHOULD BE GLAD THAT THEY ARE FINALLY TELLING ABOUT HOW THE REPUBLICANS DO IT TOO!! HOW COME THE "LIBERAL" MEDIA ISN'T GIVING THIS MORE COVERAGE??? ARE YOU SURE THE MEDIA IS LIBERAL??? MAYBE THEY SHOULD BE BLASTING THIS STORY ALL OVER THE FRONT PAGES SINCE THEY ENJOYED IT SO MUCH WITH CLINTON!!

-- (HEY I GOT AN IDEA!! @ HOW ABOUT. ANOTHER INVESTIGATION!!!!), March 08, 2001.

"INVENTED"? You give too much credit my friend.

Your Bill is just Bill and you're gonna have to live with it. Old scoop would have been good scoop (Woodward & Bernstien ring a bell?) if there had been a Pub to hang.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), March 08, 2001.

"Your Bill is just Bill and you're gonna have to live with it."

THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!! HE'S A CRIMINAL REMEMBER?? JUST LIKE DUMBYA AND HIS DAD!! THEY SHOW HIM HOW TO DO THE CROOKED STUFF AND HE IMITATES THEM!!

-- (BILL IS COOL @ JUST LIKE. REPUBLICANS!!), March 08, 2001.

"Gray told Time that he could not recall the case or Baker's note,"

BWAAAHAHAHAAAA!! THAT'S A GOOD ONE! DID HE LEARN THAT FROM REAGAN??

"but said Baker's mention of Cox being a "longtime supporter" would not have affected the president's decision."

ROTFLMAO!!! OF COURSE NOT!! HE WOULD NEVER LET HIMSELF BE INFLUENCED BY MONEY!! BUSH DOESN'T EVEN LIKE MONEY, HE'S JUST A NICE GENEROUS COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE!!

-- (DUMBYA AND DAD @ KINDER. GENTLER CROOKS!), March 08, 2001.

The Democreep's and the Republicon's are BOTH lyin',cheatin',stealin' pieces of shit,wake up yaw'll!!!

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 08, 2001.

Off now?

-- (clean@up.crew), March 08, 2001.

Dubya's dad sucked as a President, and so did Clinton. They were both corrupt, through and through, and cheating bastards. But I still think the tax break should go through - across the board, not some bullshit "targeted" tax cut that lets some bureaucratic dweeb pick and choose the "deserving" and add to the thickness of the already bloated tax code.

-- they both sucked (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), March 08, 2001.

The only support Clinton gets is "Bush did it!" Not one Dem has said that they approve of Rich's pardon. NOT ONE! Their only retort is "What about Casper?" and "the power to pardon is absolute". I agree with the latter but the former has no bearing on the subject, no comparison. But upon closer examination, even the most liberal of all Liberals will see that Clinton did it for money or favors or sex or some other personal gratification. Wake up and smell what you've been shovelin'.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 08, 2001.

Maria, I don't think the Rich pardon is really defendable, except possibly in a legal/technical sense (Former Nixon WH council Dean thinks it is.) But what I personally found so distastful, and I'm sure many others would agree, was the hypocracy shown by the republican "prosecuters" on the hill - a hypocracy which was reflected more coursely here in this forum.

It's as if people were using a fake naivete as an arguing position.

You knew that if investigators went down the list of every pardon Reagan and Bush Sr. granted, they would find things like this. I'll bet there are more examples out there, some probably worse, some hidden well enough with "lost" document trails and well-zipped lips that they can't be uncovered anymore.

But Clinton was always the originator of all things evil in the office of President, and the Bushes are devout Christian saints who want to usher in a golden age of honesty to the executive banch.

Hypocracy, ignorance, or fake, forced naivete, I don't know which trait I've found more unseemly in the Republican side during this latest crusade.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), March 08, 2001.

"I've found more unseemly in the Republican side during this latest crusade" Are you saying right wing conspriacy too? I think the repub are keeping a very low profile on this and letting Mary Jo be the bad guy.

Oh I'm sure we can find all kinds of skeletons in all the prez's closets. I agree with that. And if the dems didn't like it, they should have said so (they were in the majority) at that time. Certainly the media should could called him on it and the congress could have investigated. But IMO, there wasn't anything there to begin with.

Clinton crossed a line; he didn't follow the rules, handling lots of this stuff behind closed doors; he didn't get the reports about these people; he ignored the advice of his staff (yea, he doesn't have to follow any advice); and it smells. It should be investigated. If there's nothing to hide then why are witnesses pleading the 5th? Yea, it's their right not to come forward and does anyone really believe Jon Benet's parents? If it looks and quacks like a duck...

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 08, 2001.

Maria,

No one, no one, no one that I know supports Bill Clinton’s use of the presidential pardon in the Rich case and a few others. Although I despise the game "Let's ignore what MY guy did – look at what YOUR guy did!", in this case it is somewhat justified, IMO. Bush Sr., as did Clinton after him, abused the power of the pardon for personal gain, for his friends, associates & party. Of this I have little doubt. Paybacks & back washing are effortless when risk is removed from the equation.

It is important the general public be informed of the fact that presidential use of the pardon is sometimes unethical in the extreme, exercised with NO checks/balances, used for personal gain, & should be held up to close scrutiny. These guys must be publicly humiliated, as this is the only weapon - albeit a weak one in the case of those without conscience - the citizenry have at their disposal.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 08, 2001.

Rich, I can't disagree with anything you said. It just reminds me of the OJ defense continuing to move discussions off the accused. Maybe Bush did something bad. But then there needs to be an investigation. And that doesn't acquit Clinton... Do you think the glove fits?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 08, 2001.

most of these mental midgets don't realize that Bush Sr. is ot president.

-- dudesy (dudesy@37.com), March 08, 2001.

Maria: "The only support Clinton gets is 'Bush did it!'"

I find it funny that the same Republican supporters who were last seen professing purple outrage at Clinton's pardon of Rich are not in a similar high dudgeon now over Bush, Sr's pardon.

To quote one of our resident moralists, "Where's the outrage?"

Could it be because the right wing media whores are not directing their own outrage at this, so their followers aren't getting the correct Pavlovian cues? Too funny.

And yes, in case you were wondering, Clinton's pardon of Rich was pure sleaze and smells pretty rank no matter which way the wind blows. Not because I think Clinton accepted a bribe, but because Rich got his ticket punched without even having to show up in court, all because he's hugely wealthy. There are plenty of ways to buy a pardon, without the mess or fuss of an actual bribe.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 08, 2001.

The power to pardon is extremely difficult to use with discretion. Again, it's hard to pardon anyone who doesn't need one. These guys have all been convicted of something (or would be if we could get at them). Pardoning means letting crooks get off the hook. The very enterprise has an unpleasant odor.

What smells worst to the public is when the pardoner (the president) experiences immediate personal gain as a result. In a heirarchy, pardoning those who may have got a raw legal deal is least damaging. Pardoning your friends or contributors (payback pardons) smell a bit worse. Actually *selling* pardons for big bucks just stinks.

So "where's the outrage"? It's expressed when we reach the bottom rung of this heirarchy. Clinton reached it, and Bush Sr. did not (quite).

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 08, 2001.

"Clinton reached it, and Bush Sr. did not (quite)."

LOL!! Gee Flint, you're not hypocritical at all, are you??? ROTFLMAO!

-- (cute double standard @ ya. got there!), March 08, 2001.

HEY AIN'T!! WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU?? ISN'T THIS A GREAT STORY?? I KNOW YOU LOVE IT BECAUSE REPUBLICANS LOVE TO TALK ABOUT CORRUPT PARDONS!! HOW COME THIS STORY ISN'T ON THE DRUDGE PAGE YET?? ALL OF OUR FELLOW REDNECKS WILL LOVE TO READ ABOUT THIS!!

-- (SPREAD THE WORD!! @ BUSH IS SLICKER. THAN SLICK!!), March 09, 2001.

"HEY AIN'T!! WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU?? ISN'T THIS A GREAT STORY?? I KNOW YOU LOVE IT BECAUSE REPUBLICANS LOVE TO TALK ABOUT CORRUPT PARDONS!! HOW COME THIS STORY ISN'T ON THE DRUDGE PAGE YET?? ALL OF OUR FELLOW REDNECKS WILL LOVE TO READ ABOUT THIS!! "

Which 'Bush' are you talking about. As far as I know, the current President has not pardoned anyone yet.

-- huh? (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), March 09, 2001.

Little Nipper, it happened eight years ago. Kinda like old news isn't it? Why should the media pounce on it? Why should the repub cry foul? Yes and the only retort from the Dem side of the aisle is "Bush did it". Not much of a defense. If Bush did something so horrible why did the dems cry out at the time? Looking through the article it doesn't look like much of a crime. Bush pardoned a son of a contributor, Cox, a former Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission chairman, pleaded guilty to bank fraud in 1988, served six months in prison and paid $250,000 in fines. How much did Rich pay in fines and did he serve any prison time? Nothing and no. The guy just dealt with Iran for profit and renounced the US.

and that the Cox pardon application, ... was rushed through at the last minute Did Clinton go through the process at all? No. He didn't get any FBI reports or info. Further Bush didn't make the pardon on inauguration day but two days before leaving the White House

Also, 11 months after the pardon was granted Who gives a shit what happens after the pardon? What do you think Bush would do if this supposed bribe wasn't paid? Go to the police and say Cox won't pay up for the pardon? Give me a break!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 09, 2001.

"As far as I know, the current President has not pardoned anyone yet."

Clinton is not a current president either, but the hypocrite repugs are still raising a stink about it, threatening to convict him on criminal charges.

It makes no difference whether the crime was committed 8 years ago or 3 months ago, it is still a crime. If what they are saying about Clinton is true, they should be investigating Bush senior as well.

-- (repugs use @ double. standard), March 09, 2001.

And what grade level is your reading comprehension?

-- gigglymoomoo (mad@cow.disease), March 09, 2001.

There's a magical cutoff point somwhere in between Clinton's pardons and Bush's (Defacto statute of limitations?)

Republican "prosecuters" can see this cutoff point clearly, I don't know why the rest of us are having a problem.

Bush Jr. was very quiet about Clinton's pardon record, and for good reason. It's the same way with term limits and campaign finance reform - our leaders can only fight these battles half-heartedly, because they can't shake the "there, by the grace of god go I" feeling.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), March 09, 2001.

Dems = the Doomers of the new millenium.

-- demzies (doomzie@demzies.paranoid), March 09, 2001.

Yeah, it was the Dems that went around screaming about how "Klintoon" would declare "Marshall Law" and make himself President For Life before he would ever give up the White House. Such doomers, those guys.

-- (demzie@not.doomzie), March 09, 2001.

President-Reject Dumbya is seen here telling a reporter he "does not recall" whether his father pardoned anyone who made contributions to the Bushes. Senator Tom Daschle (seen in the background), doesn't appear to buy this explanation, to say the least.

-- (bwahahahahaa!! @ the hypocrisy. is laughable!), March 10, 2001.

Yeah they sure didn't whine about some imaginary right-wing coup in a shrill voice.

-- Demzies send me your money (for@preps.now!), March 10, 2001.

For only $49.95 I will sell you my report on what secretly happens at GOP conventions.

-- Demzies send me your money (for@preps.now!), March 10, 2001.

"It is time to move on. Congress and the American people need to put this pursuit of the last president behind us, and work toward the future. Mooove on. Moo-moo-mooooove on."

Translation: "Leave that fucking Clinton alone you stupid bastards! If you keep accusing him of this shit the Democrats are gonna start digging into the past of the Bush Dynasty. If they start investigating the shit we did, the entire Bush family is going to prison for life! FUGGEDABOTTIT!!"

-- (dumbya@speak.translator), March 10, 2001.

All you nigs should be shot!WE WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- yo yo yo (brobash@hotmail.com), March 12, 2001.

Maria, perhaps you do see a clear, bright dividing line between the 'honorable' pardons of Bush the Elder and the 'despicable' pardons of Clinton. I see your distinctions as roughly the equivalent of arguing what the definition of "is" is.

Senior Bush used the Weinberger pardon to shield his close associate from prosecution. More importantly the Weinberger trial would certainly have cast a harsh light on the legality of Bush's own actions in Iran-Contra and would have cast serious doubt on Bush's deposed testimony that he was "out of the loop." In the same way that Clinton left himself open to the charge that he was unduly influenced by the Rich's money, Bush left himself open to the more serious charge that he was covering up his own perjury.

This Cox pardon leaves Bush open to the further charge that he engaged in a quid pro quo. "...Cox's name is etched in gold on the exterior of the [Bush] library as a 'benefactor', with benefactors contributing between $100,000 and $250,000..." To coin a phrase: that ain't hay.

Both of Bush and Clinton have "cover stories" that, if believed, exonerate them from these charges. The Bush spokesman said, "We never solicited Mr. Cox's application." Clinton said, "There was no quid pro quo."

Simply put, you believe Bush's cover stories. You don't believe Clinton's. When you explain why this is so, you sound remarkably like you are rationalizing, Maria.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 12, 2001.

LN, the contribution came AFTER (11 months after) the pardon. Does that sound like quid pro quo? No to me. What's your definition?

Never said Bush's pardons are honorable. As a matter of fact I said, "And if the dems didn't like it, they should have said so (they were in the majority) at that time. Certainly the media should could called him on it and the congress could have investigated. But IMO, there wasn't anything there to begin with." If there was indeed some criminal behavior, it should have been investigated at the time. The opposition is NOW crying about Bush's pardons only because of Clinton's shitty dealings, no other reason. Again with "He started it" (as Cherri called it in her thread).

Capser smells too, just as bad as Clinton's last deals for his lying under oath.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 12, 2001.