Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AnalogReigns
"Prosecutable" is key, because, having studied law myself, I know there is a lot of lawbreaking which due to cost/benefit of prosecuting, standards of evidence and etc. just are routinely not prosecuted--letting God work things out... On provable really serious matters however, I'm confident Ashcroft will come through. And I say that as someone with libertarian views who sometimes really disagrees with the man.

Fine. Then here is a simple test case. Last year (on Ashcroft's watch) Riady (of Chinagate fame) told a court under a DOJ agreement (which says that if he lies he looses his plea bargain and might go to jail), that the Clinton and DNC campaign organizations did NOT return the ILLEGAL contributions that he gave them ... AS THEY CLAIMED. Now the DNC and Clinton people already publically admitted that the money they got from Riady WAS ILLEGAL ... which is why they went to great lengths to say PUBLICALLY that they have returned all that money. So IF they did NOT return the money (i.e., the DOJ finds NO PAPER TRAIL indicating they did) shouldn't there be a trial underway charging them with a rather major violation of the law? And IF there is a paper trail indicating that they did return the money, then shouldn't Riady's plea agreement already be REVOKED and he be a fugitive from justice? Either way, someone should now be in jail. Show me how there wouldn't be enough evidence to prosecute in either case. Or show me that there IS an investigation of this matter underway. Otherwise, I'm left wondering if Ashcroft is a crook TOO.

69 posted on 01/17/2002 3:08:00 PM PST by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]


To: All
I don't think there will be incriminating evidence in them
slick willy was way too careful
but for people who carried out his corrupton for him
evidence for their actions may exist
probably so
I still consider it the greater crime that Sherryl Hall and Betty Lambert were threatened with jail for telling the truth
while clinton was in the process of breaking the Law
(refusing to turn over the subpoenaed email)
but of course every crime slick committed pales before his attempt to slick us out of our democracy altogether after George Bush won the election
Love, Palo
72 posted on 01/17/2002 3:31:34 PM PST by palo verde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson