I followed your link to Joe Conason's article, and I'd like to comment.
I think the "Clinton Pardon Scandal" is better understood if you look at the chronology and process of its development instead of the specific charges and (lack of) evidence.
Immediately after the Bush inaguration there was a series of front-page "Clinton scandals," one after another after another:
The "White House Trashed" scandal - false, fizzled out
- The "Air Force One Trashed" scandal - false, fizzled out
- The "Clinton Gifts" scandal - false, fizzled out
- The "Hillary Gift Registry" scandal - false, fizzled out
- The "Expensive Office Space" scandal - false, fizzled out
- The "Clinton Stealing Furniture" scandal - false, fizzled out
- Are there any I missed? (I have a feeling that Washington journalists
could tell us about several others that were tried out but didn't have what
And then there was the "Clinton Pardons Rich" scandal. This charge "stuck" because events could be twisted to SOUND LIKE Clinton took a bribe. (Sound familiar?) Never mind that like all the Clinton "scandals" the charges are false if the evidence is closely examined.
By getting bogged down in an examination and refutation of each charge we miss seeing and exposing the bigger picture. Each charge is obviously part of a campaign, or process, to create a "scandal" - ANY scandal. If this charge hadn't "stuck" there would be another, and another, and another until one did, just like the charges that led to Lewinsky. (Remember "selling Arlington cemetary plots to campaign donors?" Remember the "$200 haircut?")
Someone (Karl Rove?) wanted to create a perception that Clinton "disgraced himself by the way he left office". I am sure that focus groups were conducted to find the best wording. ("If you were told that Mrs. Clinton had a gift registry, would this change your opinion?" "If you were told that Mr. Clinton received a large donat
...