From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Date: 7 Jan 93 13:05:35 GMT
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

> North and Poindexter were convicted.  CONVICTED.  They were found to be guilt
> Their convictions were overturned not on the basis of any new evidence, o
> that they were in fact innocent,  but the fact that some of their admissions
> of guilt in testifying to congress may have tainted the court proceedings.
> Note, that if they hadn't admitted culpability to congress, then there
> could have been no tainting.

I really love it when I see a liberal gnashing his teeth about someone
"getting off on a technicality!". Warms my heart, it does.

> Walsh discovered a lot.  It's just been effectively reversed, or pardoned.

He's discovered a nearly endless source of cash, if nothing else.

> >    I realize the need for watchdogs and keeping politicians  
> >honest, but I also think that the special prosecutor law should have been  
> >modified so that there is a limit on what may be spent - say 5 million or  
> >so (funny how that seems like pocket change anymore) and if no solid leads  
> >are found, the investigation should end.
> 
> In other words, you give the Presidency a goal - if you can get enough
> Lt. Col's to lie to lie to congress long enough, and if you can bury the
> evidence deep  enough, so that it will take more than XXXX dollars to find,
> you win the game?   Not very palatable.

Hey, if lying were a crime, can you name one, *one* politician who
wouldn't be guilty of at least 100 counts? "Lying to congress" falls in
the same category of "robbing a mugger".

I'm not saying lying is right - the average politician - left or right -
is a contemptible jackal with the morals of a cockroach - but. Lying to
congress? I can't even say it with a straight face....

> Should we do the same thing for murder trials for mob figures?  If you can't
> convict John Gotti for less than $100,000, then we should forget it?
> In that case, all he has to do is buy enough crooked laywers to make it
> too expensive through injunctions, motions to dismiss, etc...

If it takes 7 years, and costs upwards of $20,000,000.00 to prosecute,
maybe I'd agree with you.

> >Walsh for the past year or so
> >has been desperate to find anything he can to save face.  
> 
> Either that, or he is showing the righteous indignation of a man who has
> seen massive government corruption, and yet cannot bring the villians
> to justice.

Cut it out, PLEASE. You're killing me. "Crooked Lawyers".. "Righteous
Indignation".. STOP! Please, I'll bust a gut if you keep coming up with
these!

> >while Walsh is throwing away millions which will benefit no one.  As for  
> >people who wonder why Bush would pardon people he claims are innocent, Why  
> >not?  Is it better to see how many more millions could be thrown down the  
> >drain?  
> 
> I don't wonder...   one, cover his own ass,  and two, he doesn't give a damn
> about the law, constitution, and the American people.   Just like Reagan.

And what are you holding up as an example of morality in action? The 535
brainless twits in the Capitol?

> Now we find out what he holds sacred - patriotism, not the law.

I have more admiration for a man who is willing to be scorned by the
whiners of an entire country in order to right something that he
actually believes in, than I have for someone who votes for things that
he knows are wrong simply for political gain.


--
"To call something 'Public' is to define it as filthy, inefficient and
dangerous. The public toilet is the epitome of social spending."
                                                 - P.J. O'Rourke