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 : THE STARR REPORT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pezz who wrote (728)	9/13/1998 10:48:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1533

Hi pezz, I know you are not surprised that all there was in that report was a sex scandal. I know I wasnt surprised. Only 2 things were bewildering to me, 1) so many leaks out of the IC that there was absolutely no new news in the report, 2) such incredibly tacky lurid detail and published on the web no less.

To: pezz who wrote (728)	9/14/1998 7:43:00 PM
From: Coolwire	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1533

Re: "Who will investigate Presidental Crime if not the Special Prosecutor?" Crimes by the President have been exposed before (I resume Teapot Dome and Watergate) by an inquiring press. The Watergate story was being tilled and reported by the Washington Post. Once in the Press the Congress could, if it wanted, investigate the published reports, with all the power that Starr has, and vote to impeach, if it saw fit. I resume this is one reason the Founders gave us Separation of Powers. Its worked for over 200 years. The special prosecutor law is clearly out of hand and is leading to imbuing all political activity as criminal. It is as if, we vote for the head of the Executive Branch, but the real power behind the scenes is an unelected head of a special police unit, the Special Prosecutor, who is answerable to no one, with unlimited resources and little direction to what is an appropriate for investigate. This seems to me to be totally unconstitutional to invest such power in a "special prosecutor". It has operated as a fishing expedition with ever, expanding lines of inquiry. In the Mike Espey (former Ag Secretary) case (involving some free football tickets from Tyson to Espey) they were investigating activity at Tyson that transpired during the time Espey had been a kid in grade school, for example and interviewing people who last been employed there 30 yrs before scattered in almost every state in the union. Meanwhile others in the government, Newt Gringrich, accepted free trips, hotels, meals, for himself, wife, and staff on a holiday to London all provided free by some company. About the Newt trip, one could read accounts of this in the press. I read nothing further about that. Maybe this is a customary perk and is fully legal, but football tickets are not. Meanwhile, Mr. Espey will spend time in jail for accepting football tickets which were worth much less than Newt's perks. In the prime of his life, Espey's life is ruined. It does seem a little out of proportion, but this seems to be the nature of a special prosecutor.

To: pezz who wrote (728)	9/14/1998 8:03:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1533

<<If we get rid of the independent prosecutor how do we investigate a real crime committed by the president?>> The same people that investigated the Nixon issues - the Congress as part of their impeachment hearings. The OIC is the embodiment of Congress delegating that investigatory power. If they decide not to keep the OIC statute, the power to investigate reverts to them. Of course, the responsibility to investigate has always been theirs. The OIC is a way to deflect any unpleasant publicity away from Congress to a third party.