From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Pardon stuff..Define please
Reply-To: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:36:14 GMT

In article 18267@cis.ohio-state.edu, csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>In article <TT.93Jan11220850@tarzan.jyu.fi> tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
>
>>>A pardon does not indicate guilt. It therefore can be used to stop the
>>>prosecution of an alledged crime.
>>
>>That reasoning isn't necessarily valid, however.  What I don't like
>>is using pardon to prevent the facts from coming out.
>
>The facts are already basically out. Arms were sold to Iran to obtain the
>release of hostages. Profits from the sale of these arms went to the contras
>in Nicaragua. Fait accompli. The question is, is this really something that
>should not have happened to the extent of running up $40 million is costs
>(so far) and prosecuting anyone you can? Remember the indictment that came
>down right before the election? Got thrown out three weeks later, so
>Walsh tried again. Is this guy after facts or kills? So far he has come
>up empty. No, I don't care who knew (even Reagan could have know, for all
>I care) I do not think it was so bad as to go through six years of this
>silly circus.
i think you summed it well, when you say "you don't care".  but, i do care.
lots of people *do* care about who knew what and when.  who went on
TV and lied.  who shredded documents.  who gave orders to prevent investigation.
when the people (the man) in charge of running *all* national investigations
is illegally manipulating our nation's investigative agencies for *personal*
reasons, then we *all* should care.  

>
>Also remember, that a trial is not a fact-finding function. The prosecutor
>is already supposed to HAVE the facts. If so, he can have them published
huh?  where did he get those facts?  not from any US investigative 
agency (Justice Dept., CIA, NSC, FBI, SS, IRS,...)  The legislative and 
judicial branches have zero investigative power.  maybe he got them 
from the NYT?

>and let the public decide for themselves. But I don't think that's what
>Walsh wants.
>
>>Or if you think he may be innocent but want to find out for sure,
>>whether any punishment follows or not.
>
>Again, that is not what criminal prosecution is for.
>
>>That was behind my original idea of allowing pardon only after
>>conviction.  In view of the cost of a trial, and the fact that it may
>>in itself be a punishment of sorts, I'm no longer sure that would be a
>>good idea either.  Life seldom offers simple solutions, alas.
>
>In the minds of most people Nixon is guilty. Of what, they do not know, but
>they consider him guilty. All that could be shown (and that inconclusively,
>in my opinion) was obstruction of justice, but most people blame him as
>the ringleader of the break-in itself, which even his detractors who were
>close to the case do not believe.
>
>Yet, he was pardoned, without any prosecution. It is almost as if the
>pardon MADE him guilty. However, the press had already convicted him, so
>what difference did it make.
>
>I see the same thing happening here. I see both of these being blown
>WAY out of proportion. I consider the House banking scandal far worse, but
>since the executive branch cannot prosecute the Legislative in the same
>manner that the Legislative can prosecute the Executive...(shrug)
Huh?  the executive branch runs *all* investigative agencies.  the
legislative branch had hold hearings and subpeona and audit a ledger.
that is it.  compare that with the powers of the acronym agencies
(ATF,FCC,SEC,....)

our country has a few dandy principles.  two important ones are:
no one is above the law.
checks and balances are prevent govt. from obstructing citizens rights.

Bush and his bandits violated them both.  truly a sad moment, for america:(

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66274 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11572 alt.rush-limbaugh:13059 alt.politics.bush:15562