```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 72 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 72

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 27, 1996

   Mr. Shelby (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Grams, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. 
Faircloth, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Santorum, Mrs. Frahm, Mr. Thurmond, 
    Mr. Helms, and Mr. Bennett) 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 a pardon to James or 
                  Susan McDougal or to Jim Guy Tucker.

Whereas it is incumbent upon the Congress to oppose any action that would have 
        the effect of undermining the rule of law or the faith of the American 
        people in our jury system;
Whereas on May 28, 1996, former business partners of the President were 
        convicted of a total of 24 felony counts by a jury of 12 Arkansas 
        residents;
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 knowledge of the President with respect to the fraudulent 
        transactions for which she was convicted, and (2) the truthfulness of 
        the testimony of the President at her trial;
Whereas in a televised interview broadcast on September 23, 1996, the President 
        stated that any request 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 one or more 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 rendered by a jury of 12 
        Arkansas residents on charges initially brought by a grand jury 
        comprised of 23 other Arkansans; and
Whereas the September 23, 1996, remarks by the President 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 Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the President should 
categorically disavow any intention of issuing a Presidential pardon to 
James or Susan McDougal or Jim Guy Tucker, and thereby affirm the 
principle that, in the system of justice in the United States, no 
person is above the law.
                                 <all>
```