home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!paladin.american.edu!auvm!BROWNVM.BITNET!PL436000
- Message-ID: <POLITICS%92122910125166@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
- Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
- Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 10:09:24 EST
- Sender: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET>
- From: Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
- Subject: Re: well, pardon me!
- Lines: 26
-
- >From: James Sheldon <U7636JI@DOES1.BITNET>
- >
- >The Sunday Washington Post was full of commentary on the pardons, mostly negati
- >ve. One pundit ascribed it to Bush's trying to curry favor with the conservati
- >ves of the GOP. An interesting legal point is the pardons potentially increase
- >Bush's vulnerability as Weinberger et al cannot plead the Fifth Amendment in re
- >fusing to answer questions now that they're pardoned.
- >Uncle Ernie
-
- Hah! I made that interesting point three weeks ago. Thank you, thank you.
-
- I saw William Safire's column about the pardons today. He had this
- interesting angle.
-
- White House Counsel Boyden Grey essentially got the pardons for Cap & Co.
- He also effectively prevented a special prosecutor appointment for
- Iraqgate. Yet, he insisted on a special prosecutor for investigating
- the GOP inspection of Clinton's records. Why? Did he think the
- prying into Clinton's past was more important?
-
- Safire speculates that Grey was largely motivated by hatred for,
- and rivalry with, James Baker. Baker alone stood to be embarassed
- by the exposing the invasion of Clinton's privacy. In the other
- two cases, Grey was trying to cover the president's butt.
-
- Jamie
-