X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 12:21:59 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5a
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >Shouldn't that be something that the special prosecutor
> >looks into?
>
> It's easy enough to check.  We know when the shipments occur.  All we
> have to do is find out when the finding happened and then see if the
> arms export act has a waiting period.  Did Walsh bother with this?
> Did Reagan/Bush keep the finding away from Walsh?  Or, did everything
> check out on this score so Walsh went on to other activity?  Why is
> Fisher assuming that things didn't check out?
Well, those are some of the questions, especially that one to that
Fisher guy :-).  But we won't know about the particulars of the Walsh
investigation until, at the earliest, if ever, he gives his final
report in May/June.  I'm not assuming anything.  As I said earlier,
it is conceivable to me that Walsh exceeded his powers.  But as I've
also said, Walsh has a couple of oversight committees and the President
to answer to if he goes overboard.  Your question was what laws did
Reagan/Bush et al violate?  And my answer was the Arms Export Control
Act and maybe the Boland Amendment.  I also think that lying to Congress
is against the law.
>
> Note that this is slam-dunk evidence if the facts work out.  It
> becomes a prosecution as soon as you find anyone involved in the
> shipment, and we found lots of those people a long time ago.
The problem is that a lot of the actual evidence, i.e. the documentation
of the shipments were withheld from Walsh.  Notes that could also have
given evidence were withheld from Walsh.  So while we may know of these
shipments, they may not be enough to convict in a court of law.

>
>
> >> >we were involved in the shipping of the arms.
> >>
> >> It isn't obvious; shipping requires on physical possession, not legal
> >> ownership.
> >So if we own arms that are in stored in Israel, we tell Israel to
> >load them onto one of our transport planes and our people (McFarlane et al.)
> >get onto the plane and fly into a terrorist nation to sell them the
> >arms, this isn't shipping of arms?
>
> So, if we own arms that are stored in Israel, what keeps them from
> shipping them without our permission?  They may let McFarlane
> come along for the ride.
A top Reagan official is on a plane loaded with arms being illegally sold to
a terrorist nation and you are saying that it's possible that this
happened without our permission???
>
> I'm not claiming that that happened.  I'm claiming that "ownership
> implies control" is incorrect.  Possession implies control - ownership
> is a legal fiction.
Fine.
>
> >> We'll have to see the text of the law.  I would be very surprised if
> >> it covered lobbying.
> >
> >OK.  But don't you think that that is what the special prosecutor was
> >going to find out?
>
> Huh?  We start by reading the law.  There are three possibilities.  It
> may not cover lobbying at all.  It may cover lobbying.  It might be
> unclear.  Prosecutors don't make this determination.  They bring
> prosecutions and the court decides.  Walsh didn't.
Right.  That is absolutely correct.  Presecutors bring charges and
prove them in court.  We don't start by reading the law, the prosecutor
starts by reading the law.  It doesn't matter what you think, it matters
whether the prosecutor believes that he can prove it.  Walsh didn't bring
it to court and obviously that means that he didn't feel that he could
prove it.  However that doesn't mean that what happened was not illegal.
(sorry about the double negative)
>
> Investigations are irrelevant to the "does the law cover lobbying"
> question.  They can only tell us what occured, not what the law says
> about what occurred.
Investigations that lead to prosecutions can certainly tell us
"does the law cover lobbying".  If there wasn't such an obstruction
of justice we may have found out.
>
> >> All they could do?  (I can think of several things they could have
> >> done, and didn't do.)  Do we have evidence of illegal activity to
> >> inhibit investigations or are we just assuming that it happened.
> >That's what the special prosecutor was doing.  He had already convicted
> >a couple (more?) of people for "obstruction of justice".
>
> While there are convictions, I frankly don't place much weight on
> guilty pleas given the way the criminal justice system works.  The
> deck is stacked.
Oh, come on andy!  I don't know whether these guys copped a plea or
not but if they did, they did so because they knew that they were
going to lose in court.
As an aside, I wonder whether that it truly a purist view that you
have, i.e. that the deck is stacked.  Or whether you just use it
when it's convenient for you.
>
> >Since Bush has just announced that he had notes and Walsh has been
> >asking him for notes for years, I think that Bush should be put on
> >trial for "obstruction of justice".
>
> Walsh doesn't get to ask for "notes".  He gets to ask for notes
> relating to certain things.  If he asks for "notes showing that you
> were present at an arms for hostages deal", notes showing that bush
> knew about arms deals that he felt were unrelated to hostage trades
> aren't covered.
Right.  And he since Bush started a diary specifically regarding
Iran/Contra, Walsh can and did ask for his notes.
>
> >> Where in the charge to the special prosecutor did it mention security
> >> systems or even gifts?  Remember - Walsh was supposedly looking for
> >> arms for hostages stuff.  We don't appoint special prosecutors to look
> >> into gift receipt.
> >
> >No, that's true.  And if North's security system wasn't related to
 Iran/Contra,
> >Walsh wouldn't have worried about it.  The security system illustrated how
> >North profited by the transactions.
>
> No, the security system illustrated that North profitted from gifts.
> The "those gifts were part of the deal" connection as never made.
Really?  I didn't know this.  If this is true, what was North profitting
from?  If there were no illegalities, it certainly isn't illegal to
receive gifts from anyone.
>
> >> >> Where is this "our behest" law written down?
> >
> >The question is what does violating the Arms Export Control Act mean?
> >That was for the special prosecutor to find out.
>
> Wrong.  Prosecutors don't "interpret" the law and investigations into
> whether or not specific acts occurred don't tell us whether or not
> those acts are covered.
I suspect this is a difference of interpretation.  Prosecutors have to
decide whether they can convict a defendent.  Therefore they have to
"interpret" the law and decide whether they can prove illegality.
>
> >> Except, we didn't actually forbid it.  It appears that the relevant
> >> law, the Export Arms Control Act, was obeyed.  Fisher thinks we should
> >> have forbidden it, but his opinion lacks standing.
> >
> >I'm sure that it does.  But the opinion that doesn't lack standing were the
> >judges and juries that Walsh was going to bring people in front of, if
> >he had been allowed to do so.
>
> Really?  Walsh doesn't know when the finding took effect?  He doesn't
> know when the shipments happened?  He doesn't know anyone involved in
> the shipments?
I don't know what Walsh knows.  I do know that there has been a concentrated
effort by those in the administration to withhold documents that Walsh
needed to prove illegalities.
> >> So?  Is that a crime?
> >Is the fact that the president believed what he was doing was illegal a
 crime?
> >But to answer the question, is that a crime?
> >That's what the special prosecutor was to find out.
>
> Nope.  That's not what special prosecutors do.  They're tasked with
> finding activities, not with determining whether or not those
> activities are illegal.
Walsh was tasked with finding illegal activities relating to Iran/Contra
and prosecuting them.  To do so, they have to determine "whether or not
those activities are illegal."
>
> -andy
> --
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU