X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 10:53:35 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>        11 convictions, but none on "key" people that he has insisted were
>>involved.  Of course Casey died before anything could be done about him.
 Walsh
>>is 0-for against major political targets like North, Weinberger, Bush, Reagan,
>>etc.
>
>So, in fact, Walsh did NOT "manage to get each and every [guilty party]
>get off on technicalities or overturned convictions."
>
>Walsh did let North wiggle out. But it's not at all obvious that it was
>his fault. It was hard to know in advance that the courts would rule
>that North's immunized testimony tainted all of the evidence that Walsh
>subsequently used.
>
>Nor did Walsh lose Weinberger, as Brett says he did. Weinberger had
>yet to stand trial. Bush pardoned him. Now we'll never know.

        The charge of lying to congress was thrown out.  That was Walsh's hope
for getting Weinberger.

>Nor did Walsh lose Bush. Yet. We'll see.

        Frankly, I expect Bush to do what Nixon didn't.  "Lose" the documents.

>He did let Reagan get away. But, frankly, I'm not sure Reagan was
>guilty in the first place. Stupid, but maybe not guilty.

        Knowing how Reagan's White House worked, I'm sure it was Casey and
North, with complicity from people like McFarlane.  It reeks of the CIA.

>>        As Weinberger said, Walsh was throwing his weight around and telling
>>people that if they cooperated on getting dirt on Reagan, he'd go easy on
 them.
>This is hard to believe. Brett is now willing to believe Weinberger's
>totally unsubstantiated accusations?? We know for a fact that Weinberger
>is quite happy to lie about these matters.

        How so?  Weinberger is the one who resigned over Iran-Contra, remember.
He didn't agree with the policy.

>>        Walsh is simply grandstanding, trying to get a President indicted.
>
>Well, he may be trying to get a president indicted. I think that's
>a special prosecutor's job. Or was Archie Cox simply grandstanding?
>
>("Impeached" is the right word, I think.)

        *If* a president is guilty.  But I think Walsh just wants to be able to
say he got "a" president.  Bush is the only one left :).

>>>>         Like Weinberger, Bush's notes have been available for some time.
 Th
>>>> 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?
>>
>>        Hard to say :).  Given Walsh's methods, perhaps he was waiting for a
>>"please". :D
>
>Oooh. Good answer. That's probably it.
>
>Note, though, that Bush could have saved a LOT of expense by acknowledging
>that he had the notes much earlier.

        He could have, but is there any reason why Bush should have cooperated
with a man like Walsh earlier?  Walsh is using a shotgun, hoping he hits
*something* before he runs out of ammo.

>>        That's why I said "supposed" to be independent.  Any organization
>>staffed through patronage will end up like this.
>
>I agree. And Brett's suggestions about changing the way the Justice
>Dept. is appointed make some sense to me.
>
>Until Mitchell, though, I don't think the Attorney General was
>widely regarded as a "patronage" appointment. Now it's a commonplace.
>Jamie

        No, it was Reagan's appointments that started the downward slide.
(Horrors, I've said something bad about the Great One :).  Most analysts agree
that the justice dept. in the 60s was the high point for that organization.

        BTW-I'm not saying that the figures in Iran-Contra should be let off
the hook, just that (like in *any* justice situation), the powers of the
prosecution should not be unlimited, and there should be specific goals and
specific charges, instead of a series of "charge them first and then find
something that sticks".

Brett'
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics