From: elwin@stanmore.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush CAN pardon himself
Date: 30 Dec 92 15:22:59 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory

In article <1783@esl.ESL.COM>, drm@esl.com (Don McGregor) writes:
|> In article <bill.725661627@castor> bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M.  
|> Eldridge) writes:
|> > Similarly, it appears that Walsh never made any LEGALLY BINDING
|> > requests for information from Bush, which would mean that Bush
|> > has probably won the battle (though he lost the election, and
|> > his name is significantly tarnished, and will probably be moreso
|> > after Walsh writes his final report).
|> > 
|> Which is what should have happened in the first place.
|> 
|> The Iran-Contra scheme was stupid, and there was a public interest in  
|> seeing it exposed as a stupid policy.  Criminialization of the policy  
|> differences between the Congress and the Executive...particularly when  
|> there was a long history of winks and nudges between the two branches over  
|> the "crime" of supporting the contras...was an even worse idea.  

   People keep on muddying these waters, and I guess I'll take a stab at
clarifying them. Weinberger was indicted for lying to Congress under oath;
*not* for anything he did vis a vis Iran/Contra. Is this clear? Lying to
Congress while under oath has always been a crime. if you want to make
arguments as to why this law should apply to most of us, but should not
apply to Weinberger testifying about Iran/Contra, then please do so. But
please do not try to muddy the waters by equating lying to Congress with
policy differences.

|> The basic facts of the case have been public knowledge for years.  The  
|> electorate has had plenty of time to reflect on the wisdom and management  
|> abilities of the persons involved, and vote accordingly in two  
|> presidential elections.  

   Weinberger was indicted because he lied to Congress and to the special
prosecutor. The questions put to him concerned possible violations of the
Boland amendment by members of the Reagan administration including Bush
and Reagan. If these people never broke the law, but only executed stupid
policy, then that is one thing. But if there is reason to believe they
violated the law, in particular the Boland amendment, then don't you think
they should be treated like any other citizen? If Reagan or Bush believed
the Boland amendment is unconstitutional, they could bring a case before
the supreme court. There are *legal* ways to try any of these questions.

|> Walsh has been running amok for years now.  His behavior has, in my  
|> opinion, crossed the line into "winning at all costs" rather than seeing  
|> that justice is done.  His statements accusing Bush of misconduct on the  
|> day of the Bush pardons was injudicial and hasty.  His actions have called  
|> into serious doubt the renewal of the special prosecutor law; after  
|> witnessing the open-ended, open-checkbook prosecution of many persons,  
|> some in congress are eager to see some sort of accountability by the  
|> prosecutors.

   I don't agree with your characterization of Walsh as "running amok."
but, for the sake of argument let me grant it for a moment. Then the
question before us is: which is more harmful to democracy - a special
prosecutor with an open checkbook, or an executive branch that can and
does break the laws in secrecy and with impugnity? 
							- Lee Campbell

|> Don McGregor | Double your pleasure, double your fun.  Xerox
|> drm@esl.com  | your paycheck.
						
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush