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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doughboy who wrote (3471)	8/31/1998 2:59:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

"Self imposed exile". Ever hear of vacation? You can spin the facts all you want. Facts are the Judge censured the DOJ in two cases involving Klayman and in the Commerce case the Justice Department admitted its dilatory tactics and asked for judgment to be entered in Klayman's favor. Sorry. All wet again. Or should I say as usual. JLA

To: Doughboy who wrote (3471)	8/31/1998 5:40:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

..The Department of Justice gets a bad rap in all this. Their work has been exemplary and even-handed in virtually all of their involvement with the OIC and the Clintons, yet Reno is burned in effigy by know-nothing Republicans who take out their mounting frustration on anything that moves. Thanks for that absolute nonsense from a fully committed know-nothing. The New York Times has detailed Reno's obfuscation repeatedly and have stated that she runs the department as if she were Clinton's personal attorney. Most have come to the conclusion that her justice department is the easily the most politicized in recent history and that Reno is either stupid or corrupt. You can now add the San Jose Mercury to the list of major papers that have decided to expose Reno: Reno fails to see bones of a scandal A prosecutor should look into Gore's case EVIDENCE that Democrats violated campaign finance laws in the 1996 presidential election keeps poking up from a shallow grave, gathering into a pile of bones at the feet of Attorney General Janet Reno. ''It's a skeleton; call in the coroner,'' urge many of those around her in the Department of Justice. ''No,'' says Reno, grinding the bones into exceedingly fine powder: ''It's only calcium.'' Last week, the ever-inscrutable Reno ordered yet another lab test: a 90-day inquiry into whether Vice President Al Gore lied to Justice Department officials about fundraising calls he made. Once again, she is delving into minutiae, instead of recognizing that the whole matter of Democratic fundraising should be turned over to an independent prosecutor. Once again, she is focusing on lesser infractions instead of recognizing the bigger patterns of scandal. Last year, Reno concluded that an independent counsel wasn't required for the fundraising controversy, since it appeared Gore broke no campaign laws when he hit up donors by phone from the White House. Since then, evidence has surfaced that contradicted Gore's testimony. The immediate issue pertains to a 19th century law, written before the telephone's invention, that prohibits officials from soliciting campaign funds on federal property. Gore admits he made calls from the White House but says they were exclusively for ''soft money'' for the Democratic Party, a kind of fundraising that's not covered by campaign laws. But the latest evidence, a memo from a meeting Gore attended, indicates that a third of the money was to go directly to candidates' campaigns -- and so would fall under the law. The infraction that Gore may have committed would be petty compared with the allegations that Democratic fundraisers in 1996 solicited millions of dollars of illegal donations from foreigners and then laundered the money to make the contributions look legal. But the timing, amid President Clinton's troubles, is terrible for Gore, who has benefited from his image of Mr. Pure, the anti-Bill. And the implication that he may have lied in a coverup would be more damning than the violation itself. That was the lesson of Watergate, and it appears to be the public's view of Clinton's sex scandal. Reno, who prides herself on her own independence and probity, may not be acting to protect Gore. And she may not be purposely delaying her decision until after the November elections, as some Republicans have charged. But she is being obtuse about her responsibility under the special counsel law. She is being narrow in its possible application. And, at the threat of a contempt of Congress citation, she is refusing to disclose memos from FBI Director Louis Freeh and from Charles LaBella, the former head of her own campaign finance task force, urging an independent counsel to look into a range of fundraising charges. The law is clear: There's a conflict of interest when the attorney general has to investigate the president who appointed her. If there are serious allegations of wrongdoing against the president or high officials in the Executive Branch, an independent counsel should be named. Reno has applied the special prosecutor law liberally in her tenure -- so much that we are reluctant to see it used again. But allegations of serious fundraising violations, of which Gore's phone calls are a minute part, are credible and compelling. Reno should reconsider the advice she has been given and invoke the law one more time. mercurycenter.com