SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever?

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Zoltan! who wrote (3497)8/31/1998 8:21:00 PM
From: Doughboy  Read Replies (3) of 13994
 
I beg to differ on Reno. Reno has her hands tied by the way the law is written. In order to name an IC, she either has to have a direct conflict of interest or she has to find credible evidence that the law was broken. For Gore's alleged acts, there is no conflict of interest because that portion of the Act only covers the President and herself. As for the "credible evidence" there was none of that either because the way the law is written Gore could lawfully call from the White House to raise soft money. The Strauss notes were the first indication that someone in Gore's office knew that hard money was raised (which is still a far shot from saying that Gore knew). Reasonable people can disagree on how the law should be applied (e.g. whether the fundraising scandals implicate the President to an extent that they require an IC or not) but it is simply inexcusable for people (including misguided media-types) to accuse Reno of having no integrity on matters relating to the OIC. It's a flawed law, and she has to be the fall-guy in applying it. No one was complaining more loudly than Democrats when she named ICs for, in succession, Henry Cisneros, Mike Espy, Ron Brown, and the President.

Doughboy
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext