From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: ZOE BAIRD: ATTORNEY GEN.
Date: 22 Jan 93 15:47:43 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


In article <29989@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, harvey@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Betty Harvey) writes:
> In alt.politics.clinton, mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
> >
> >>It seems pretty damn minor to me.  Plus, it seems like her husband was
> >>the one that handled the whole deal.  Apparently, it's only a civil case
> >>unless the INS deems that you are a chronic offender.  I wonder how many
> >>people, experienced and qualified for the cabinet, have not done something
> >>in their life which might disqualify them.  I guess I was done by the
> >>time I was 21.
> >
> It doesn't seem 'pretty damn minor' to me.  This will be a woman who is
> put into office to uphold our laws and be in a position to prosecute
> law offenders.  In my mind she should be prosecuted for knowingly breaking
> the law.  This is a simple case of the law pertains to other people -- not
> me.  
> 
> As part of her duties as Attorney General she will be the head of INS.  
> She knowingly broke the law.  She admits that she knowingly broke the law.  
> This isn't a case of a mistake -- she knowingly broke the law that she will 
> be entrusted to uphold.  She only paid social security taxes after she
> was caught.  Anyone else would be heading off to jail.  There is no question
> about her intent.  She intended to break the law.

Anyone else wouldn't be heading off to jail.  Anyone would pay penalties and
interest on the late-paid taxes, which she has.  People are rarely if ever
prosecuted for hiring illegal aliens.  Maybe they should be, but they're not.

Yes, she broke the law.  Not in a major way.  I happen not to agree with that
particular law, so though she may have broken the law, I don't think what she did
was wrong.  Should it rule her out as attorney general?  Maybe it should.  But I
think her actions should be put in perspective - it was a minor crime, a
victimless crime (except that she is now a victim of it), and a crime that is
almost never prosecuted.

> I can sympathize with the fact that she is a working mother -- so am I.
> Child care is not an easy answer in todays society but that doesn't excuse 
> the fact.

You don't have to excuse it - but put it in perspective.  She's paid far, far
more for this minor technical violation than most people pay for real lapses of
ethics.  The last two administrations were riddled with ethics violations and
conflicts of interest, major violations of law on global scales.  What punishment
have those people been given?  Whose been sent to jail for Iran-Contra?  Who took
Baker to task for his conflicts of interest as Treasury Secretary?  What
punishment are Weinberger and the others getting for lying to Congress?  What
kind of punishment did Ronald Reagan get for Iran-Contra?  Bush was part of it
and he got elected President!  Nixon was pardoned for Watergate!  Just try to put
things in perspective - what Zoe Baird did was minor, almost trivial.  Maybe she
should be ruled out for AG because of it, but it's still extremely minor.

    - Dave Borden
      borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton