Quote:
Originally Posted by stripersnipr
By the way wasn't one of the prosecutors let go by Clinton involved in the Whitewater investigation, or is it out of bounds to mention that?
|
It's not out of bounds, it's just a meaningless talking point
1) The prosecutor in place was fired along with the other 93 in a routine dismissal and replaced via Senate approval.
2) It's been
reported that the prosecutor who was fired, a Bush appointee had actually
resisted investigating Whitewater despite pressure from the Bush administration to do so
Quote:
On Oct. 8 [1992], [Attorney General William] Barr convened a joint FBI-Justice Department panel to examine the referral [naming the Clintons as witnesses in the Whitewater case]. But the panel concluded that the referral "failed to cite evidence of any federal criminal offense." The panel's comment about the referral ranged from "junky" and "half-baked" to that its allegations were "reckless, irresponsible" and "odd."
Nevertheless, Barr put a preliminary investigation into motion and ordered Banks to review it again and to report back by Oct. 16, two weeks before the Nov. 3 election.
But, in fact, Banks had already concluded, and the FBI in Little Rock had agreed, that "no action should be taken on the referral at that time." Banks had already prosecuted Jim McDougal in 1990 for alleged bank crimes, and McDougal had been acquitted. Banks said further that he believed "no prosecutable case existed against any of the witnesses," most notably the Clintons.
|
3) After years and millions of taxpayers money spent investigation Whitewater during Clinton's presidency, the investigation ended without any claims of wrongdoing
So the characterization that Clinton fired a specific Federal Prosecutor to impeed an investigation into his own dealings is simply not supported by the facts.
You know, some grapes would go nicely in your salad. And those little mandarin oranges
-spence