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 (3874)	9/4/1998 10:57:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 13994

Today's lead editorial of the NYT: September 4, 1998 Janet Reno May Finally Get It Attorney General Janet Reno is belatedly becoming more curious about the fund-raising abuses in President Clinton's re-election operation. This week Ms. Reno let it be known that she might ask for an independent counsel to examine the costly television "issue" ads directed by Mr. Clinton, and paid for by the Democrats' "soft-money" war chest, in a brazen effort to avoid Federal contribution and spending limits on his 1996 campaign. Whether Ms. Reno is seeing the light, as her people say, or feeling the heat from Congress, as we suspect, she is moving in the right direction. But she should get on with appointing an independent prosecutor to investigate all potential abuses, not just the limited range she has in mind. Ms. Reno's latest action in ordering a preliminary review of the television ads, disclosed initially by The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, is said to have been based on an audit the Justice Department subpoenaed from the Federal Election Commission. More likely, in our view, Ms. Reno was feeling pressure from the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, which also this week got a look at redacted versions of the internal memos from Louis Freeh, the F.B.I. Director, and Charles La Bella, the former chief prosecutor for campaign finance, advising her to step aside in favor of a prosecutor not beholden to the President. Some reports have suggested that Ms. Reno would ask for a prosecutor to look into the ads, paid for with unregulated soft money, in the campaigns of both Mr. Clinton and the Republican nominee, Bob Dole. That would be an excellent move bound to have broad political repercussions. Both the Republican and Democratic campaigns for the House and Senate are starting to run another round of expensive ads, once again paid for by soft money raised from special interests. Launching an investigation into this offensive practice from 1996 would warn both parties that they may be violating the law if they let these ads proceed outside strict Federal fund-raising limits. It also might prod the Senate to follow the lead of the House and pass legislation banning soft money altogether. For nearly two years Ms. Reno has stubbornly blocked an unrestricted investigation into one of the most corrupt election campaigns in modern history. Recently she began reconsidering on the narrow question of whether Harold Ickes and Vice President Gore may have lied about their own campaign practices. But there is no need for more dithering. The Attorney General should combine all the campaign issues, including such excesses as the Democrats' harvesting of millions of dollars in foreign money, possibly in return for favors to China, under the jurisdiction of one independent investigator. It has long been obvious that such a step is necessary. Ms. Reno should stop stonewalling and try to salvage her own reputation and that of the Justice Department. nytimes.com

To: Doughboy who wrote (3874)	9/4/1998 11:13:00 AM
From: WhipsawMcGraw	Respond to of 13994

Put it to the man DougHboy.

To: Doughboy who wrote (3874)	9/6/1998 11:41:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

I suggest you get a better lawyer. If he tries to ask clearly irrelevant questions in a deposition he's going to wind up disbarred. Ask him this: Is he putting forth the legal opinion that if I am deposing you in a suit where I am sueing (an acceptable spelling, by the way) another member of SI for defamation and am deposing you for the purpose of inquiring into your posting on this thread, I am entitled to demand that you give me the names of all the women you have ever had sexual relations with, and am entitled to demand that you tell me every stock investment you have ever made? If he says yes, I will be glad to report him to his state bar association. If he says no, which he will, my point is made. You are a perfect example of the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." And with your loose approach to truth, I'm not a bit surprised that you have been deposed.