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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Surething who wrote (5683)	2/10/1998 2:39:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 20981

"Tis true. Excellent lead editorial in today's NYT on Clinton's war against the truth: Washington's Information Wars February 10, 1998 Everyone believes that information is power, so it is no surprise that in these turbulent times it is a matter of combat in Washington. Balanced political decisions and, ultimately, the authority of the law both depend on full public disclosure of the best available information. The White House's weekend counteroffensive against Kenneth Starr was dazzling as a matter of tactics. But it is essential to remember its two real objectives. One is to change the subject from President Clinton's behavior and truthfulness. The other, as with all White House leak crusades in any Administration, is to dam the flow of information to the American people. The legal battle, like the polls, will ebb and flow until Mr. Clinton or someone provides the full story of his and Vernon Jordan's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, whatever it was. Meanwhile, two other aspects of the information battle are being joined. The Times's report on Sunday on the Republican summary of the Senate campaign-finance investigation comes as a timely reminder that neither the public nor the Justice Department knows the full story of White House fund-raising in the 1996 campaign. A related issue is whether Attorney General Janet Reno will appoint an independent counsel to look into Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's ruling in favor of Indian tribes that contributed to the Clinton campaign. For all three cases, the principle to cling to is that of full and timely disclosure of the relevant facts. In that regard, the President's lawyer, David Kendall, and this week's designated spinner, Paul Begala, cannot prove their sweeping, televised assertions that Mr. Starr has illegally leaked grand jury testimony. If he did, the Federal court that supervises him and the Attorney General, who has the power to fire him, have the resources to deal with prosecutorial misconduct. The attack on Mr. Starr, packaged as a high-minded legal issue, is plainly another effort to stop his investigation. The report from the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee asserts that the "thirst for money" by Mr. Clinton's campaign created the most serious influence-peddling abuses in a generation and may well have jeopardized American national interests by virtually inviting exploitation by foreigners. That is a Republican point of view, of course. But the nonpartisan fact is that the Democrats took an amazing amount of money from suspect sources, and the Justice Department is only beginning to show signs of progress in investigating it. As for Mr. Babbitt, the Senate heard strong testimony to the effect that he responded to White House pressure in siding with tribal leaders who gave to Mr. Clinton's campaign. There were also detailed accounts from within the department that the decision was made independently of the contribution. Ms. Reno's staff is right in its recommendation that an independent counsel must sort out the truth. The independent counsel statute is getting its share of bashing from the White House and Congress now. But events in Washington confirm on a daily basis that without that law and, more important, without vigorous reporting, the public would have only a very sketchy picture of what has gone on within this Administration over the past six years. nytimes.com