```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 218 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 218

    Expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should 
  categorically disavow any intention of issuing pardons to James or 
                   Susan McDougal or Jim Guy Tucker.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 25, 1996

  Mr. Bachus submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    Expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should 
  categorically disavow any intention of issuing pardons to James or 
                   Susan McDougal or Jim Guy Tucker.

Whereas it is incumbent upon the United States House of Representatives to 
        oppose any action that would have the effect of undermining the rule of 
        law or the American people's faith in the jury system;
Whereas on May 28, 1996, the President of the United States' former business 
        partners were found guilty of a total of 24 felony counts by a jury of 
        12 Arkansas citizens;
Whereas Susan McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker have been sentenced for their crimes 
        by a Federal district judge in Little Rock, Arkansas, and their 
        codefendant James McDougal is awaiting sentencing by the same judge;
Whereas on September 4, 1996, Susan McDougal was held in contempt of court for 
        refusing to answer questions before a Federal grand jury relating to (1) 
        the President of the United States' knowledge of the fraudulent 
        transactions for which she was convicted, and (2) the truthfulness of 
        the President of the United States' testimony at her trial;
Whereas in a televised interview broadcast on September 23, 1996, the President 
        of the United States stated that any requests for a presidential pardon 
        made by James or Susan McDougal or Jim Guy Tucker would be reviewed in 
        the normal course, thereby leaving open the possibility that pardons 
        might indeed be issued at some later date;
Whereas any presidential pardon of James or Susan McDougal or Jim Guy Tucker 
        would seriously undermine the confidence of the American people in our 
        criminal justice system, by essentially nullifying felony convictions of 
        friends and associates of the President of the United States rendered by 
        a jury of 12 Arkansas citizens on charges initially brought by a grand 
        jury comprised of 23 other Arkansans; and
Whereas the September 23, 1996, remarks by the President of the United States 
        could be construed by his recently convicted friends and associates as 
        offering them an inducement to refuse to testify honestly and openly 
        about matters under investigation by Federal law enforcement 
        authorities: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the President of the United 
States should categorically disavow any intention of issuing 
presidential pardons to James and Susan McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker, 
and thereby affirm the principle that in the American system, no one is 
above the law.
                                 <all>
```