Originally Posted By cape cod joe They should ALL be prosecuted but NOT persecuted frivoulously with no indictments to follow. The point is George and others are being persecuted and not indictments. Whereas Clinton WAS persecuted arguably even more than George but he was impeached. I know, I know you'll say eventually............. Maybe but I think until we "get the dress" to make the analogy we should be civil and conjecture, yes, but not convict until we get the actual smoking dress.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So by that reasoning we shouldn't prosecute some criminals because other criminals have also broken the law?> Of course we should. But apparently it's not always against the law to take illegal campaign contributions.
Originally Posted By patrickegan Anyone every heard of JOHN HUANG orCharles Yan Lin Trie? Then, on 9 March 1997, the Washington Post reported that in the middle of 1996, the FBI had forewarned six members of Congress, including Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, that they had been targeted by China to receive illegal campaign contributions through foreign corporations. The plan reportedly involved spending nearly US$ 2 million to buy influence not only in Congress, but also within the Clinton Administration ("FBI warned six on Hill about China money", Washington Post, 9 March 1997). The episode produced an embarrassing flap for the Clinton White House: in mid-1996, the FBI had also informed two middle-level National Security officials about the Chinese influence-buying attempts in Congress. However, the NSC officials didn't relay the information to their superiors, so Mr. Clinton and NSC-director Anthony Lake were not aware of it at that time. The matter contributed to Mr. Lake's withdrawal of his nomination for CIA Director. Was Abramhoff selling missile technology to the Chinese?
