NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/bit/listserv/politics/20711

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 1.6 KB | 36 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!SAIL.STANFORD.EDU!ANDY
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 12:01:10 -0800
Sender:       Forum for the Discussion of Politics <[e-mail]>
From:         Andy Freeman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: well, pardon me!
In-Reply-To:  <[e-mail]>
Lines: 23

I forget - what exactly is the "crime" we're dealing with here?

We don't appoint special prosecutors to go after people who accept
improper gifts.  We don't appoint special prosecutors to go after
people who lie to congress.  Therefore, Walsh was obviously tasked
with searching out some other activity?  What was that activity?

Was "arms for hostages" illegal?  I've loaned out my copy of the arms
export laws, but I "remember" that they let the president authorize
"guns" for anyone for any reason he sees fit.  If there's US money
involved, then Congress comes in, but if they aren't our "guns" to
begin with, then the only liable party is a foreign govt which may, or
may not, be breaking a "you won't ship these things to someone else"
agreement.  I suppose we might have a suborning perjury/contract
violation case, but ....

I note that Weinburger says his notes say that he disagreed with
improving the relationship with Iran, that he didn't make an arms for
hostage connection at the time.  Later, when he did, he objected to
it, but claims that it wasn't illegal, just bad policy.

-andy
--