Reply #4: Not sure I'm following the logic here [View All]

First, the ruling clears ancillary folks from liability who weren't part of the fraud perpetrated on investors. If an investor didn't exercise his or her own due diligence, and didn't rely on what the banks or the accountants or someone else said about that investment, it seems a stretch to hold someone liable, just because they have deep pockets. And I say this as a legal secretary of 20 years' experience in litigation, mostly for plaintiffs.

Second, Clinton vetoed the original bill, but that veto was overridden by the newly-minted 1995 Republican majority in Congress. While there was a Republican majority in 1995, there wasn't a veto-proof majority. I'd say that any blame for this law attaching to the Clintons is pretty tenuous.

As for where that 1995 Republican majority came from, I'm quite willing to hold Tom Foley and the Democratic leadship from the 1993 Congress responsible for that. Their inept performance greatly depressed voter turnout, and enabled the Republicans to score a big victory in the 1994 elections (which was, in actuality, smaller than the Democratic victory in 2006) while they took only about a quarter of the votes of eligible voters.

Blaming this entirely on the Clintons, or even Bill Clinton, seems a very long stretch.