From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:16:27 GMT

tmayer@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Tom Mayer) writes:

>In article <bhayden.725731091@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:
>>eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>>
>>>In <Dec.29.13.58.49.1992.2135@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu sez:
>>
>>>Which means that North is factually, but not legally, guilty.  If you
>>>missed Al Thompson's attempt earlier this year to muddy this
>>>distinction (and my repeated explanations of why his take on the law
>>>was wrong), I will be more than happy to disabuse you of the erroneous
>>>notion that North's conduct was not criminal.
>>
>>I don't understand how you can be exonerated from a crime, and
>>yet you can be factually guilty. The judicial determination of
>>the guilt was essentially overturned. Yet you can sit there and
>>say that he was guilty anyway. 
>>
>>I do not believe that you sat through the entire trial. Therefore,
>>you are acting as a jury probably based on newspaper accounts of
>>the trial. This is exactly like the Rodney King trial, where
>>a great number of peoplwho didn't sit through all ofhe
>>testimony were sure that the 4 cops brutalized Mr. King. 
>>
>      I don't believe you understand the basis on which North's conviction
>      was overturned.   The appeals court did not say than North did
>      not commit the offences with which he was charged.  The court
>      (mostly Reagan appointees) came up with the novel idea that 
>      not only was North's testomony before Conress inadmissable at his
>      trial but that the prosecutor had to show that the testimony 
>      of all of the witnesses at the trial had not been affected by 
>      watching the Iran-Contra hearings.  This made the prosecutors task
>      virtually impossible.  By the way if North really believed he was
>      innocent he could of testified before Congress without immunity, but
>      then again he would have surely gone to jail in that case.
> 
I don't think you understand then what a reversal and/or a remand means.
It means that his guilty verdict was overturned. In American jurisprudence
you are innocent until proven guilty. He is technically innocent. Period.

The problem with your conclusion is that in order to convict (and be
"guilty"), you must have due process. He did not. You cannot say with
certainty that the information used against him would have been used
against him if he had not been forced to testify by Congress. 

What you are trying to do is isolate your term "guilt" from the judicial
process. You can't do that because in American jurisprudence, guilt
implies amoung other things that due process has been served.
It was not in North's case (and hence the reversal/remand).

>      I'm on the City Council here in Louisville Colorado.  To illustrate
>      what North did let me set up the following scenario.  Say the
>      the mayor of our town wants to give money to the Kiwanis but the
>      council says no and in fact passes an ordinance specifically
>      prohibiting that.  Then the Mayor goes out sells city police vehichles
>      on the black market.  With the money he gets he has eneough to buy
>      back a police car plus use the profits to give money to the Kiwanis folks.
>      I'm sorry but when we find out about it the Mayor is going to jail.
>      First for illegally misappropriating city property and then for 
>      violating the ordinance prohibiting giving the money to the Kiwanis.

Are you suggesting that Ollie was ever even charged with diverting money
to the Contra's? (i.e. violating the Boland Amts.)
> 
>      The Iran-Contra situation is exactly analaous to this.  In fact during
>      the Vietnam war one of the reasons given for why the president didn't
>      need a declaration of war was that since Congress had the power of the
>      purse they could always stop the war by cutting off the funding.
>      In the case of the Contras Congress did just that.  They prohibited
>      any funding of the Contras and the executive went ahead and ignored it.
>      To say that this is simply a "policy difference" is a gross mis-use
>      of the language.  In fact what North-Poindexter-Bush-Reagan did
>      was establish the basis for an elected dictator answerable to no
>      one.  After all there was a reason that the founding fathers set up
>      3 branches of government and I don't see an exemption in the constitution
>      for foreign policy.

If that is the case, then explain why North and Poindexter (and presumably
now Bush and Reagan) were not indicted under the Boland amendment?
Instead, the major cause of action against the ones that got pardoned
was lying to congress. (Note the distinction - those who profited
personally from the sales, etc. were not pardoned).>

As for a policy difference - It is well documented that Reagan made it
obvious his feelings about funding the Contras. In your case, the mayor
probably did not make his feelings known when he was running for election
that he would divert money to the Kiwanis. Reagan legitimately felt that
he had a mandate for his actions. Just because you don't argee with what
he did does not mean that a great number of Americans did not (and do
not) agree with him.
  
>>It has been repeatedly said that with an unlimited budget, one
>>can convict anyone of something. That is what happened here. 
>>Without any of the normal budgetary restraints placed on 
>>prosecutors to enforce some sort of prosecutorial discipline,
>>you have multimillion dollar prosecutions of what are at best
>>trivial offenses. 
> 
>      Repeating an untrue statement really doesn't make it true.
>      The fact of the matter is that crimes were committed.
>      Crimes such as perjury before Congress and misappropriation of
>      government funds and equipment.  I find it odd that that so
>      many Republicans have turned on Walsh (a lifelong Republican)
>      for trying to prosecute law breakers.  But then again Walsh
>      is one of those old fashioned conservatives who believes the law
>      applies to everyone.  One reason I stopped being a conservative
>      was just the sort of cynicism you see from the Reagan-Bush-North 
>      folks.  Laws were made for the other guys, not for important people
>      like ourselves.
> 
>>
Stating that a statement is untrue is even less successful in making
it untrue. . 

Lying to Congress by the president and his men has been common
since we have had presidents. It is well documented that FDR,
JFK, and LBJ lied to congresses controlled by their own party.
The difference is that this is the first time in 200 years
that presidental staff, acting presumably under the direction
of the president, were indicted for lying. Also, this is one
of the first times people have been charged with lying when
the statement was not under oath.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush