X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 11:58:05 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >rattling against Serbia, and, in a striking Iran-Contra development, pardoned
> >six officials, including Caspar Weinberger, Alan Fiers, and Clair George.
>
>         Weinberger's I  agree with.  THe major charge against him was thrown
> out, and all the persecutor--err--prosecutor had left was vindictiveness
> against Bush.
>         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?

>
> >The pardons strike me as a very interesting move.  Clearly, the intention was
> >to lay the Iran-Contra scandal to rest, and Bush was willing to take some
 flak
> >to do that, now that he doesn't have to worry about polls and elections.  The
> >revelation that Bush himself took careful notes on Iran Contra, dating from
> >when it went public, combined with the pardons, has focused attention on
> >Bush's role again.  The late revealing of the notes will no doubt breathe new
> >life into the investigation, and Bush's reluctance to hand over the notes
> >gives a certain deja vu feeling (burn the tapes, george! burn the tapes!).
>
>         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?

>         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.

>
> >Thoughts, comments, snide attacks on the special prosecutor?
>
>         Pave it over and start over next time.  The special prosecutor has
> become an unworkable boondoggle.  We have justice dept. and they are supposed
> to be independent.  Let's work on getting that bureaucracy back into some
> semblence of a working institution.
>
> Brett'
>
The justice department is obviously not independent.  The top people
are appointed by the president and can investigate what they want.
Let's use as an example Iraq-gate (can't someone come up with a better
name?). A Federal judge has stated that he feels that this situation is
ripe with cover-ups, including the justice department, but Barr
appointed someone who was not independent and **surprise** he came back
and said that there was no need for an independent prosecutor!  As a
side note, I would point to William Safire's (not one that one would
call a 'liberal'!) articles on this, where he noted that the dependent
prosecutor that Barr appointed was not his first choice.  Barr's first
choice felt pressured by Barr to return with the result that Barr
wanted.  He refused and Barr appointed someone more mallable.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU