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: Janice Shell who wrote (13144)	4/8/1998 7:49:00 PM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Slick and the Socialists keep marching on: THE MYSTERY MAN IN SOUTH AFRICA Accuracy in Media Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid Media Monitor THE MYSTERY MAN IN SOUTH AFRICA By Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid 4/07/98 President Clinton's trip to Africa was widely perceived to be a diversion from his problems at home. This reached a ridiculous extreme when he was asked whether he had invoked executive privilege for his aides in the Monica Lewinsky affair and he replied that the press would have to talk to officials back in Washington, D.C. The truth is that executive privilege would have to be invoked with the knowledge and consent of the president. But while Clinton was practicing the art of confusion and diversion, journalists neglected to focus on the dangers of the African trip itself. Here, too, Clinton was playing fast and loose with the truth. His visit to South Africa, touted by the press as an emerging "multiracial democracy," was a case in point. Last December, South Africa President Nelson Mandela delivered a blistering attack on white opposition parties and the white media, claiming they were frustrating needed reforms in South Africa. Alec Russell of the Daily Telegraph said Mandela had "dropped his usual reconciliatory tone for the rhetoric of a Marxist revolutionary..." To those familiar with Mandela's background, including his imprisonment as a Marxist revolutionary implicated in planning a terrorist bombing campaign, this wasn't a surprise. But some reporters prefer to play down or ignore completely this aspect of Mandela's past. In a story about Clinton's trip to South Africa, R.W. Apple of The New York Times insisted that Mandela had served time for being a "political prisoner." Apple also noted that Mandela has remained "friendly" with nations the United States considers rogues, such as Libya, Iran and Cuba, because they had supported Mandela's campaign to replace the old white-controlled South African government. A more accurate explanation would be that those governments supported Mandela because they are anti-American. In any event, Mandela, who is 79 years old, is widely believed to be on his way out, to be replaced by his top aide, the deputy president of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki. We searched in vain for mentions of Mbeki in the media and found very few. Yet he is destined to be the next president of the country, and he is reported to be a hard-core Marxist, a longtime member of the South African Communist Party. That's the view of Dr. William Stearman, formerly of the National Security Council. Stearman was in charge of briefing then-President Bush about Mandela's organization, the African National Congress, and how it was manipulated by the South African Communist Party. He says Mbeki and his fellow communists are moving to take control of South Africa by putting their agents in charge of all the important government ministries, including the military and police. During his trip, President Clinton announced several steps to increase trade with South Africa, including pledging $770 million in U.S. Government backing for private investment there. Clinton claimed investment in South Africa was a great deal. But Dr. Stearman warns American businessmen: "Don't invest in South Africa unless you can get your money back in three or four years." After that, he predicts South Africa will become a full-fledged socialist state with all major industries nationalized. AIM Home Page

To: Janice Shell who wrote (13144)	4/8/1998 10:21:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

So adultery is not wrong? You tell me. Are all morals relative? If so to what do they relate? Your mood? Just curious. JLA

To: Janice Shell who wrote (13144)	4/8/1998 10:50:00 PM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Starr report to suggest Clinton be Impeached The London Telegraph 4/9/98 Hugo Gurdon KENNETH Starr, the independent counsel, has already written much of a report to Congress confirming that he believes that President Clinton committed impeachable offences. Sources familiar with Mr Starr's investigation of alleged perjury, witness tampering and obstruction of justice confirm that prosecutors have damning evidence against the President. This had seemed ever more apparent since the weekend, when the White House cranked up its already intense efforts to besmirch Mr Starr. The Clinton staff's every nerve is now strained to undermine the independent counsel's credibility before his report gets to Congress, probably late next month, and then on to television and into newspapers. Mr Starr's staff have compiled evidence that they believe obliges them to notify Congress. This implies that they think Mr Clinton is guilty of crimes and misdemeanours, because the independent counsel law requires a report to the legislature only if there are "substantial and credible information . . . that may constitute grounds for an impeachment". The fact that the report has been partially written means the crisis surrounding Mr Clinton has moved into a yet more dangerous phase a week after the President celebrated the collapse of Paula Jones's sexual harassment suit against him. Leaders of the Republican majority, who have avoided comment hitherto for fear of seeming overzealous in trying to bring down a popular President, are now moving into the open and taking pot shots at Mr Clinton. They know they must chip away at his opinion poll ratings if they hope to use Mr Starr's evidence to impeach him. Richard Armey, the House of Representatives' majority leader, assailed Mr Clinton saying he was "a shameless person" and should resign. He said: "My own guess is that that man spends very little time and effort in his life pursuing anything other than his own physical comforts." Mr Clinton, continuing to project the demeanour of a statesman far above such grubby stuff, declined to comment, but his staff frothed with indignation. Paul Begala, a political adviser to the President, said: "If goofy ideas ever go up to $40 a barrel, I'd like to have drilling rights to Dick Armey's head." Mr Begala said Mr Armey's comments showed that the Republicans were trying to form an alliance with Mr Starr. This is a tried and tested tactic of Mr Clinton's. During the 1996 election, he used every speech and advertisement to suggest a link between his opponent, Bob Dole, and the Republican leader, Newt Gingrich, who was then deeply unpopular. Now that Mr Starr, with the help of White House staff, has replaced Mr Gingrich in the national demonology, Mr Clinton wants to link anyone critical of him to independent counsel. Although the Paula Jones case has been thrown out, it has left possibly perjured witness statements from the President and Monica Lewinsky, a White House clerk. In testimony to Mrs Jones's lawyers, who were trying to show a pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr Clinton, the two denied having an affair. This flies in the face of a mound of evidence. Miss Lewinsky did not file her affidavit with the court until after Mr Clinton's friend, Vernon Jordan, had secured her a good job in New York. She has been tape recorded by the FBI confirming that she had a long sexual affair with Mr Clinton. He has publicly denied it - so his credibility with voters is on the line. If he persuaded Miss Lewinsky to lie under oath, he would be guilty of perjury, inciting perjury, witness tampering and obstruction of justice. Strong evidence of such federal crimes would certainly require Mr Starr to report the President to Congress. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Janice Shell who wrote (13144)	4/9/1998 11:51:00 AM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

End Run Around the Constitution IntellectualCapital.com 8 April 1998 John H. Fund Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd (WV), a former majority leader, and GOP Sen. Fred Thompson (TN) do not often agree. But they both argue that the Clinton administration is doing an unconstitutional end run around the Senate's duty to "advise and consent" on appointments. An astonishing 59 of the 320 executive-branch posts that require Senate confirmation are being filled in violation of the Vacancies Act. In the Commerce Department, nearly a third of top jobholders are in violation. Vacancy vacuum The two senators are sponsors of a bill that would enforce the law's 120-day limit on how long an acting official can perform duties without a permanent appointment being made. Without a clear crackdown by Congress, Thompson says we could have "an entire government filled with temporary appointments, which could last for an entire administration." A president could then, in theory, appoint extremist policy-makers who could never be confirmed to their jobs and simply allow them to exercise power on an acting basis. A Congressional Research Service memo last year concluded that the Clinton White House's claim, for example, that the Justice Department was exempt from the Vacancies Act was untenable. CRS found that the acting heads of both the criminal division and the Office of Legal Counsel were holding their jobs in violation of the law. Since then, an appointment has been at OCS but the top job in the criminal division now has been vacant since Aug. 31, 1995 -- a mind-boggling 942 days with no end in sight. This vacuum has had serious effects on the ongoing probe of 1996 campaign-finance violations. John Keeney, the acting head of the criminal division, has had to recuse himself because his son is a lawyer for Democratic fund-raiser John Huang. That means Lee Radek, head of the public integrity section and a staunch opponent of the independent counsel law, directly briefs Attorney General Janet Reno on whether or not the law should be triggered. Radek is said to be a major reason Reno has refused to call for an outside investigation despite staggering evidence of Justice's conflict of interest in pursuing its own probe. Constitution under siege Clinton aides privately dismiss the Vacancies Act as burdensome, an obscure law passed in 1868. That is reminiscent of the argument they made that Vice President Al Gore was not really covered by the 1882 Pendleton Act barring fund raising in federal buildings because the law was old and unwieldy. In fact, it was because presidents such as Richard Nixon failed to observe the original Vacancies Act that Congress updated and strengthened it as recently as 1988. The Constitution makes clear that all top federal officials must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. An exception was made for a time when travel was much more inconvenient. A president can make a "recess" appointment if Congress has left town and the appointment lasts until the end of the next session. The Clinton White House has abused both recess appointments and the Vacancies Act. Byrd's patience with this cavalier behavior snapped last December when the Senate Judiciary Committee failed to confirm Bill Lann Lee as assistant attorney general for civil rights. Clinton promptly named Lee as acting head for civil rights and since then has shown no signs of naming a permanent appointee subject to confirmation. Byrd says Lee's continued service after his first 120 days in office are up next month will be in "defiance of the plain language of the Vacancies Act." He argues that if Congress allows a virtual government of temporary appointees to grow, the Constitution itself will be "under siege." Tightening the rules for 'temporary' appointees Byrd has filed legislation to put teeth into the Vacancies Act. It would clearly state, for the first time, that it supersedes all other provisions of law. Any temporary appointee serving in violation of the statute would have their pay and benefits halted. The principle here is that any officials placed in a position of power outside legal channels should have no more authority to make policy than citizens on the street. Their actions could be challenged in court and ruled invalid. Byrd and Thompson say it is such applications of the rule of law that separate this republic from banana republics where executives often feel free to make up the rules as they go. It is time to tell the Clinton administration to end "home alone" government and stay within the parameters of the law. John Fund is a member of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal. He is a contributing editor of IntellectualCapital.com.