Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (66505)	3/17/2000 8:56:00 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

LOL!! JLA

To: Bill who wrote (66505)	3/17/2000 9:01:00 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Clintons Beat the Rap: Thursday March 16, 2000; 6:43 PM EST OIC Failed to Pursue Central Issue in Filegate, Say Experts After closing out Filegate with no indictments on Thursday, the Office of the Independent Counsel admitted that it did not pursue the central issue in the FBI files scandal -- the White House's illegal acquisition of over a thousand confidential background files on Republicans who worked for past administrations. "The Office did not investigate alleged violations of the Privacy Act of 1974," Independent Counsel Robert Ray said in a press release issued Thursday afternoon, "because such offenses are excluded from the jurisdiction of an independent counsel." "I'm sure that Mr. Ray feels that he's on firm legal ground," Landmark Legal Foundation's Mark Levin told NewsMax.com, "but I'm not aware that he's affirmatively barred from looking into the Privacy Act. Obviously he was free to seek the Attorney General's permission and if she rejects it, the court's permission to examine Privacy Act violations." "I don't think any examination of Filegate could be complete without that," Levin concluded. Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, the legal watchdog group pressing Filegate in civil court, said he was mystified by the OIC's failure to examine Privacy Act violations. "This alleged misuse of FBI files pertains to the Privacy Act," Fitton told NewsMax.com. "I don't understand that part of Ray's press release." Fitton said that Ray's decision would have no effect on Judicial Watch's lawsuit because former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr failed to follow key leads in the case. "The fact is the evidence is there but Starr and Ray didn't pursue it," said Fitton. "Linda Tripp was never seriously questioned. Bernard Nussbaum testified he was never brought before the grand jury on Filegate. Hillary Clinton was only questioned for nine minutes by Ken Starr." Tripp, a longtime employee in the White House counsel's office, saw what she believed were FBI files being misused inside the White House. Former White House counsel Nussbaum was the subject of a criminal referral from Congress, requesting that Starr investigate him for possible perjury in Filegate. Contemporaneous notes taken by former FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene indicate that Mrs. Clinton had recommended the hiring of Craig Livingstone, the former bar bouncer who, once he became director of White House security, collected the FBI files. But don't worry, Larry Klayman @ Judicial Watch won't let it rest.........

To: Bill who wrote (66505)	3/17/2000 9:12:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Clinton refused, membership cheers: No mulligans here Disturbing news from Chappaqua, where first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and her sometime house guest, the president, are settling into the new digs. "Today, it's 70 degrees," an unnamed correspondent from Westchester County tells the Arkansas Democrat Gazette about the golfing weather and President Clinton's thwarted ambitions to join a suitable country club with a good golf course. "There are two country clubs in town and I belong to one," says the correspondent. "I've heard through the grapevine that overtures have been made and rejected at both. "Some of it is due to the fact that many members don't like him. More opposition is due to the near-unanimous feeling that it would be a severe disruption to the members, and who needs it? "Also, there is the strong sense that he isn't going to be around much, or long, or both, so why should we bend over backwards, as it were? This will probably become more contentious as the grass starts to grow." Fore, anyone? washtimes.com