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: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (6824)	9/23/1998 10:56:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Henry Hyde has noticed the same think I did last Sunday. The democrats are deliberately confusing the public by making contradictory complaints: September 23, 1998 For IMMEDIATE Release Statement by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde: I fully agree with Minority Leader Gephardt's desire to see the House complete its work as expeditiously as possible. There is a difference, however, between expeditious work and artificial deadlines which only invite stalling tactics. The key is to remain faithful to our oath of office to discharge faithfully our constitutional duties no matter how long it takes. The President had 8 months to tell the truth, but instead he sent his staff out to declare his innocence to the world. Now the Democrats want to shut down an inquiry of his behavior in 30 days. I think the American people want and deserve a full, fair, and independent review of the allegations against the President, not a quick peek or passing glance. The House only received the Independent Counsel's report 2 weeks ago. The Democrats' mixed messages are thoroughly confusing and reveal a disturbing pattern: On the one hand, they want an expeditious process, on the other hand they attacked us last week for moving too quickly. On the one hand, they say we have all the materials we need to wrap this up in 30 days. On the other hand, they say we need more materials from the Independent Counsel's office before we can fairly resolve this matter. On the one hand, they say we should follow the Watergate precedent (which took 9 months to do its work). On the other hand, they want a timetable which was specifically considered and rejected by the House in 1974. In the interests of expedition, I have consulted with Mr. Conyers on a timetable for the remainder of this Congress which I hope to release in the very near future. As for the reports that the Office of the Independent Counsel has additional documents relating to the Lewinsky matter, I am prepared to seek, in consultation with Mr. Conyers, any materials relevant to the Committee's work if and when we proceed further. The immediate question before the Committee is whether the information we have received warrants further inquiry. If the House believes that it does, the additional documents will be given fair consideration. Finally, the White House continues to assert quite falsely that the Committee's actions are being dictated by the Speaker. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any statements to the contrary are merely political spin intended to undermine the credibility of the Committee's process.