NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/bit/listserv/politics/20677

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 5.7 KB | 117 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!NETXWEST.COM!JFISHER
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:18:42 PST
Sender:       Forum for the Discussion of Politics <[e-mail]>
From:         Jonathan Fisher <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!
Comments: To: [e-mail]
Lines: 104

Let me just say on the record, that I think that Weinberger ought to be tried.
In fact, let me just let off some more steam.  Do you know why the indictment
was tossed out?  It was tossed out because the statute of limitations had
passed.  Why had the statute of limitations passed you ask?  Good question,
it was because Weinberger didn't produce his notes.  Walsh had to go through
5 years of hoops to get them.  So here we have Weinberger manipulating the
system long enough so that he gets off.  What a crock of ****!
> >>         Walsh is a loon who has wasted $40 million.  Yes there are people
 who
> >> are guilty of breaking the law, but Walsh has managed to let each and
>  everyone
> >> get off on technicalities or overturned convictions.  His desire to
 discredit
> >> Bush is obvious, and reminds me of a certain Senator named McCarthy.
> >This is incorrect.  Walsh has 11 convictions (2 were overturned because of
> >an overzealous congress).  It is conceivable now that Walsh is being
> >vindictive.  But Bush has had these notes since '86, why hasn't he turned
> >them over before now?
>
>         11 convictions, but none on "key" people that he has insisted were
> involved.  Of course Casey died before anything could be done about him.
 Walsh
> is 0-for against major political targets like North, Weinberger, Bush, Reagan,
> etc.
Although I did reply to this, Walsh convicted North.  He convicted Poindextor.
He would have convicted Weinberger.  Weinberger's trial could have given up
Bush and maybe Reagan.
>         As Weinberger said, Walsh was throwing his weight around and telling
> people that if they cooperated on getting dirt on Reagan, he'd go easy on
 them.
>         Walsh is simply grandstanding, trying to get a President indicted.
I heard Weinberger's allegations and truthfully, I find them very hard to
believe.  I am sure that Weinberger was offered a plea bargain in order to
"drop a dime" on our current or previous president.  But so what?  If the
president has done something illegal (and I believe that both of them did),
why not let a formally sympathetic character get an easier sentence to get
someone up the ladder.  This happens all the time.
>
> >>...
> >>         Like Weinberger, Bush's notes have been available for some time.
 The
> >> persecotor prefers not to acknowladge this and instead acts like there is a
> >> "cover up".
> >Why has Bush refused to acknowledge until recently that he had the notes?
>
>         Hard to say :).  Given Walsh's methods, perhaps he was waiting for a
> "please". :D
More likely, Bush realized that his notes would convict a number of people,
maybe even himself.  So he waited.
>
> >>         Perhaps he could explain how something he has been investigating
 for
>  N
> >> years can be "covered up"?
> >By classifying documents that don't need to be classified and therefore can't
> >be used in a criminal trial.
>
>         Walsh can still get ahold of them.  And classified documents can still
> be used in a trial.  The judge reviews the documents in private.
This is not necessarily true.  Walsh was refused documents time and time again.
And it doesn't address the issue of agencies which are staffed with people
sympathetic to the people in power delaying, losing, misfiling, shredding
documents which are needed for trial.  Further, it doesn't address the issue
of documents which were classified too high to even be seen by the judge.
Documents which were already made public at the Iran/Contra hearings.
>
> >>...
> >The justice department is obviously not independent.  The top people
> >are appointed by the president and can investigate what they want.
>
>         1) Make the terms cross presidential boundries
In the case of Reagan/Bush, this wouldn't have mattered.
>         2) Limit the terms served to one or two
ditto.
>         3) Apportion the appointments so that one president won't be able to
> appoint all the top positions (barring deaths).  Of course two term presidents
> and a string of one-party victories will hedge that somewhat.
This is an idea worth examining.  I like the idea of not being able to
appoint anyone in the justice department.  If there is any department that
should be non-partisan, it is this one.
>
> >Let's use as an example Iraq-gate (can't someone come up with a better
> >name?). [...great stuff deleted here ...]
> >
> >Jonathan
>
>         That's why I said "supposed" to be independent.  Any organization
> staffed through patronage will end up like this.
>
> Brett'
>
No argument here.

Brett', let me ask you this.  Let's assume that Clinton wins re-election and
then Gore wins election.  Towards the end of Clinton's second term, it
gradually becomes clear that Clinton had pursued illegal activities.  I am
sure that if I wanted to sit down and think about a scenario that you wouldn't
like, I could. But I don't, so you are going to have to imagine this!  Not only
does Clinton actively pursue some illegal activity but it's stupid as well.
It gradually comes out that his people lied extensively to congress and that
his policy actually hurt the US.  Would you still be defending the upper
people in his administration the way you are defending the Reagan/Bush people?

Jonathan