I haven't been able to follow this whole discussion, but what could the
justification possibly have been for pardoning his own brother, who was arrested
for trying to sell coke to a cop?? I mean is it just that accepted that people
can use their office for personal purposes that this kind of thing isn't even
questioned. Is this just understood to be a 'perk' of the job? Why wouldn't
anyone have to justify why others who had commited the exact same crime--or
lesser crimes--were not pardoned? I read a couple newspaper articles on the
pardons and Roger was mentioned and his picture even included, but other than
stating what the crime had been, that he is Clinton's brother, and that he was
one of those pardoned, little else was said. On the other hand, a number of the
other pardons were subjected to some analysis. I didn't even hear of any
conservative/Repub criticisms of this.
Speaking of drugs and crime, I found this link to be good for a chuckle or two:
<http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/streetterms/Default.asp>
Street terms for drugs and the drug trade from the white house. Even without
first hand knowledge, you can tell how 'off' some of this info must be...
Mat
