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: j_b who wrote (4234)	9/9/1998 2:47:00 PM
From: Doughboy	Respond to of 13994

I certainly think that Kendall is involved, and I did not mean to imply that he is shut out now. With the President being possibly impeached for personal conduct, there is no black and white answer whether WH counsel or Kendall will take the lead in defending the President in a hearing. (Theoretically, the WH counsel is supposed to do it.) I think it's up to the President how he wants to deal with it and he would be wise to tap Ruff to do it, unless he has someone else, like George Mitchell, in mind. Ruff has done this before, has a reputation for integrity (while Kendall is a relative unknown in political circles), and has fairly clean hands on the previous testimony given by the President. Kendall is necessary because he maintains the lawyer-client privilege (which Ruff was stripped of) and he can be an outright attack dog behind the scenes. As I recall, with Nixon's impeachment, he went outside of the White House to tap an impeachment counsel, James St. Clair in Boston. But I don't know whether taxpayers paid for St. Clair's work or whether Nixon did personally. I believe Leonard Garment was the inside (WH) counsel at the time and they did a sorta inside-outside job on those proceedings. Doughboy.