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: halfscot who wrote (10153)	1/7/1999 6:53:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

>>(Hell, Gore declared, what, $200 in donations on his last tax return?) Actually, previously published analyses show that Dems are notoriously stingy in comparison to Republicans when it comes to giving to charity and go to unusual lengths to avoid even paying their "fair share". It is no simple illusion that their enthusiasm for high taxes entends to others paying them, not themselves. Heck, remember that Bill and Hillary deducted used underwear on their tax returns! They also avoid paying DC income taxes though they have no "domicile" in Arkansas or even really the intent to return there. Why won't Bill and Hill pay their "fair share" for the poor amongst their midst while they live in such lavish splendor? January 7, 1999 On Witnesses Witness. 1 an attesting of a fact; 2 a person who saw or can give a firsthand account of something. --Webster's. Democrats vowed "universal, unanimous opposition" to calling witnesses. --The Associated Press yesterday. Senate leaders were still working as we went to press on the framework for the historic impeachment trial of President William Jefferson Clinton, with the only settled matter apparently the Democrats' Red-Queen call for a trial without anyone who saw, heard or said anything. The fact is that witnesses have been routine in impeachment trials going back to Andrew Johnson, but most recently that of former federal judge Walter Nixon in 1989. But spend enough time around the legal world as Bill Clinton defines it, and you're likely to start believing in trials without witnesses. In fact, you could call it a firmly established Clinton precedent. After the House Government Reform Committee called hearings into the financing of Mr. Clinton's 1996 campaign, a total of 121 witnesses fled the country, pleaded the Fifth Amendment, or stonewalled the investigation. The list of Clinton no-shows included such key insiders as John Huang, Webster Hubbell, Charlie Trie, Mark Middleton and James Riady. John Huang was at the epicenter of millions in illegal foreign funds flowing to the Clinton apparatus and had access to both sensitive Commerce Department information and intelligence figures in Asia. But to our knowledge he has never been questioned by any formal inquiry, including the Justice Department and the Cox Select Committee on China. Indeed, the Cox inquiry into technology transfers to China and campaign finance contributions was resisted by witnesses who took the Fifth or remained overseas to avoid giving depositions. Former Clinton cronies Webster Hubbell and Susan McDougal have been particularly ardent practitioners of non-witnessing. The former Associate Attorney General, for example, dodged investigators' questions, all the while receiving more than $700,000 for phantom work from various Clinton friends. Susan McDougal did hard time rather than answer simple grand jury questions about whether Bill Clinton participated in a $300,000 Arkansas fraud, a portion of which went to benefit the Whitewater Development Co. Ms. McDougal is scheduled to go to trial in March for criminal contempt and obstruction of justice in the Whitewater inquiry. Her indictment lists the following questions to which Ms. McDougal has refused to bear witness: "Did you ever discuss your [illegal $300,000 Master Marketing] loan from David Hale with William Jefferson Clinton?" "To your knowledge, did William Jefferson Clinton testify truthfully during the course of your trial?" "What did you mean by the notation 'Payoff Clinton?' " [On an August 1983 check for $5,081 signed by Ms. McDougal, from a Jim McDougal trustee account, payable to Madison Guaranty.] "What do you know about Hillary Clinton's involvement in the Industrial Development Corporation [Castle Grande] property?" But, will come the retort from the President's legal defenders, this is all a waste of time because no one believes that any of this obstruction was the product of Bill Clinton himself giving the orders. Well, there is another famous phrase from the law textbooks that Senators and other onlookers should ponder--qui bono? Who benefits from all this absence of testimony? Besides, consider the alternative we know--letting the Reno Justice Department dispose of it all. Handed responsibility for prosecuting the likes of Pauline Kanchanalak, accused with others of illegally having steered some $695,000 to the Democrats, Reno Justice has somehow managed the feat of being unable to convince a judge that Ms. Kanchanalak and friends aren't protected by distinctions between hard and soft campaign money. By comparison with this limp prosecution, Kenneth Starr has a courtroom record of indicting 16 people and convicting 14 of them. When FBI Director Louis Freeh was asked in December 1997 during the campaign-finance inquiry by House Oversight Chairman Dan Burton if he had ever seen a case in which so many witnesses fled the country or took the Fifth Amendment, Mr. Freeh said, "Actually, I have. I spent about 16 years doing organized crime cases in New York City, and many people were frequently unavailable." Organized silence, omerta, hasn't yet become the accepted model of legal compliance in this country. Fundamentally, the issue of witnesses or no witnesses has been about whether even Mr. Clinton's impeachment trial would contribute to this White House's steady redefinition of what constitutes truth and justice under our system of government. We see no reason why the Senate of the United States should make itself complicit in that process of erosion. interactive.wsj.com