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: Joseph Ziebarth who wrote (42)	8/20/1998 11:06:00 AM
From: Lel H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<How does this relate to whitewater investigation? Starr has the power associatd with the Spanish Inquisition.>> I don't think it is possible to know what exactly is contained in the developing Whitewater Independent Counsel Report, and it won't be known until Mr Starr submits his report to Congress. One thing about the Independent Counsel Law: it does not, as some have suggested on other boards, automatically give free rein to any Independent Counsel. At the onset of such an investigation, the Division of the Court, under the guidance of the Attorney General, defines the prosecutorial jurisdiction of the Independent Counsel (section 593(b)(3) of the current Independent Counsel Law). Expansion of this jurisdiction is detailed in section 593(c). The Independent Counsel makes a request to the Attorney General, who then conducts a preliminary investigation of the request. If the Attorney General finds that there are sufficient grounds for expansion, the Division of the Court will grant this request to the Independent Counsel. In order for Mr Starr to extend his investigation to issues of the President's dalliances, the Attorney General must have determined that there was sufficient justification for this expansion. There are checks on the Independent Counsel's authority, and it would appear that at least one Clinton appointee does not think that this authority has been exceeded. Some have argued that the investigation has lasted too long. Again, there are provisions for the termination of an Independent Counsel's investigation, as detailed in section 596(b)(2) of the current Independent Counsel Law. Through its own decision or at the request of the Attorney General, the Division of the Court may terminate the Independent Counsel investigation on the grounds that the investigation is substantially complete. Again, the Judicial Branch does have control over the Independent Counsel. I do not know whether Ms Reno has requested the end of Mr Starr's investigation. If she has, then the Division of the Court must have decided that there was still unfinished business. If she hasn't, then she herself must believe that there is still grounds for a continued investigation. This is just a summary of the law with some of my personal interpretation. I would welcome any thoughtful discussion, or other interpretation. Best wishes, Lel