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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (9742)	8/29/2000 11:48:42 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

Somehow all of these articles seem to end with attacks on Janet Reno and/or Bill Richardson. But reading the article, it would appear that it is the FBI, or at least an FBI agent, who was responsible for misleading the court. And "government prosecutors" who were prodded by "leaks" from a "congressional committee". Why exactly is it that the article doesn't call for an investigation of the FBI, or at least the agent himself, as well as the congressional leaks? If the trail leads higher, so be it. But surely, one should start at the beginning. Or so at least it seems to me. s.

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (9742)	8/29/2000 12:04:26 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9980

I've got a theory. When the Lee case came up, the Administration was taking a lot of heat about Chinese money and influence. IMO, if Lee HAD been associated with the Chinese gov't or was spying for them, there would have been none of this stuff dumped on him. However, since he did NOT have any such connection, it was a perfect opportunity for this hypocritical Administration to "prove" they didn't favor the Chinese by treating Lee like dirt. As for the FBI's lack of truthfulness, yawn. What else is new? It has been a long time since I've believed anything the Feebs, the BAT-effers, or the DEA has had to say. About 8 years, coincidentally. jim