NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/bit/listserv/politics/20699

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 6.3 KB | 138 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:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 10:42:04 PST
Sender:       Forum for the Discussion of Politics <[e-mail]>
From:         Jonathan Fisher <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!, Version 2
Comments: To: [e-mail]
Lines: 125

> >>        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.
> >
> >So, in fact, Walsh did NOT "manage to get each and every [guilty party]
> >get off on technicalities or overturned convictions."
> >
> >Walsh did let North wiggle out. But it's not at all obvious that it was
> >his fault. It was hard to know in advance that the courts would rule
> >that North's immunized testimony tainted all of the evidence that Walsh
> >subsequently used.
> >
> >Nor did Walsh lose Weinberger, as Brett says he did. Weinberger had
> >yet to stand trial. Bush pardoned him. Now we'll never know.
>
>         The charge of lying to congress was thrown out.  That was Walsh's hope
> for getting Weinberger.
Actually, I believe that Weinberger was indicted on at least 1 other count.
And as I said before, the only reason that it was thrown out was the statute
of limitations had passed.  It wasn't thrown out because Weinberger wasn't
guilty of it.  (don't you love those double negatives!)
>
> >Nor did Walsh lose Bush. Yet. We'll see.
>
>         Frankly, I expect Bush to do what Nixon didn't.  "Lose" the documents.
I'll bet the relevant ones have already long since been shredded.
>
> >He did let Reagan get away. But, frankly, I'm not sure Reagan was
> >guilty in the first place. Stupid, but maybe not guilty.
>
>         Knowing how Reagan's White House worked, I'm sure it was Casey and
> North, with complicity from people like McFarlane.  It reeks of the CIA.
I think Reagan knew about it too.  Remember, it was Weinberger's notes which
stated (and I'm paraphrasing) "I told the president, selling arms to the
 Iranians
is illegal.  The president replied, 'I can live with the illegality but what I
can't live with is people saying that "big bad President Reagan" did nothing to
get the hostages out' ".  This note makes it seem pretty clear that Reagan knew
that what he was doing was illegal, but he didn't care.
>
> >>        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.
> >This is hard to believe. Brett is now willing to believe Weinberger's
> >totally unsubstantiated accusations?? We know for a fact that Weinberger
> >is quite happy to lie about these matters.
>
>         How so?  Weinberger is the one who resigned over Iran-Contra,
 remember.
> He didn't agree with the policy.
Not agreeing with policy and lying to congress about it are two different
 matters.
I think that Weinberger has shown that while he disagree with Reagan on this
issue, he is perfectly willing to lie and to drag his feet on participating with
the law.
>
> >>        Walsh is simply grandstanding, trying to get a President indicted.
> >
> >Well, he may be trying to get a president indicted. I think that's
> >a special prosecutor's job. Or was Archie Cox simply grandstanding?
> >
> >("Impeached" is the right word, I think.)
>
>         *If* a president is guilty.  But I think Walsh just wants to be able
 to
> say he got "a" president.  Bush is the only one left :).
Actually, (and you history buffs correct me if I'm wrong), being impeached only
means that the president should be put on trial.  In other words, to impeach a
president is to say that there is enough evidence to make him stand trial.  So
in the current conversation, "impeached" is the right word.  We need to see if
there is enough evidence to make him stand trial.
>
> >>>>         Like Weinberger, Bush's notes have been available for some time.
>  Th
> >>>> 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
> >
> >Oooh. Good answer. That's probably it.
> >
> >Note, though, that Bush could have saved a LOT of expense by acknowledging
> >that he had the notes much earlier.
>
>         He could have, but is there any reason why Bush should have cooperated
> with a man like Walsh earlier?  Walsh is using a shotgun, hoping he hits
> *something* before he runs out of ammo.
I don't think so.  Bush HAD to cooperate with Walsh because it's the law.  If
Bush really felt that Walsh was exceeding his authority, he could have had him
removed.  There are conditions for that.
>
> >>        That's why I said "supposed" to be independent.  Any organization
> >>staffed through patronage will end up like this.
> >
> >I agree. And Brett's suggestions about changing the way the Justice
> >Dept. is appointed make some sense to me.
> >
> >Until Mitchell, though, I don't think the Attorney General was
> >widely regarded as a "patronage" appointment. Now it's a commonplace.
> >Jamie
>
>         No, it was Reagan's appointments that started the downward slide.
> (Horrors, I've said something bad about the Great One :).  Most analysts agree
> that the justice dept. in the 60s was the high point for that organization.
>
>         BTW-I'm not saying that the figures in Iran-Contra should be let off
> the hook, just that (like in *any* justice situation), the powers of the
> prosecution should not be unlimited, and there should be specific goals and
> specific charges, instead of a series of "charge them first and then find
> something that sticks".
Before an investigation starts, it's hard to determine what specific goals and
charges the special prosecutor ought to be limited to.  Walsh was limited to
investigating Iran/Contra.  It was tailored to that.  As I said above, if he
exceeded his authority, Bush could have removed him.
>
> Brett'
>

Jonathan