From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Dec30.212641.12200@panix.com> <ART.93Jan1120042@world.std.com>
	<C07A59.ABB@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 16:10:08 GMT

In article <C07A59.ABB@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

   In article <ART.93Jan1120042@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
   >In article <1992Dec30.212641.12200@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
   >
   >   1) What "voluminous quotations" were those, Ted?  I cited a few short
   >   passages to explode Al's misguided claim that North asked the
   >   government for home security and was refused.  Pray, how were these
   >   factual excerpts (which I will happily resupply you with) "grossly
   >   slanted"? 
   >
   >Well, all you really did was cite some denials from government agencies.
   >The problem is that the denials were not made under oath, while North's
   >claims were.


   So that makes the officials' statements into lies?  Oh, I forgot, the
   Secretary of the Navy and the Marine Corps counsel had *all kinds of
   reasons* to lie about this, while North had none whatsoever.  Oh yeah,
   Al, we're all overwhelmed by your logic.

Not necessarily, but statements made without the threat of perjury don't
have the same weight when counterign statements made under that threat.
And, yes they did have good reason to lie.  It's called CYA.

   For those who came in late, here's the news item at issue:

   Associated Press, July 20, 1987:

     "In the Friday session, the committees released a letter from the
     secretary of the navy, James H. Webb Jr., and Peter M. Murphy, counsel
     for the Marine Corps, saying Lieutenant Colonel Oliver L. North had
     never requested protection from terrorist attacks for himself and his
     family.  The letter said the colonel would have been given such
     protection if he had asked for it."

Requests can take many forms.  An oral request to a superior that is
orally denied and therefore leaves no paper trail and is therefore
deniable as to its existence.

   One more thing, Al: it's a felony to lie to a federal governmental
   entity, whether or not you do it under oath.  (See 18 USC section
   1001, which carries a maximum 5-year penalty.)  But of course you
   already knew that, expert on federal criminal law that you are.



   >   2) Among the charges on which North was convicted was that of
   >   accepting an improper gratuity.  I'm sure we'll all be powerfully
   >   entertained by your attempts to explain why the enactment of this
   >   statute, or prosecution under it, criminalizes interbranch policy
   >   disputes. 
   >
   >Enactment of the statute in and of itself does not criminalize policy
   >disputes.  The problem is that the purpose of the statute is to prevent
   >gov't employees from accepting bribes.  To chase North for accepting
   >something to defend himself and his family from harm, the treat of which
   >resulted from his performance of his official duties is a far different
   >thing than accepting a free trip to the Bahamas or a fur coat for his
   >wife.

   Imagine my relief, knowing that North had those snow tires to fend off
   Abu Nidal.  Or did you forget that inconvenient little fact too, Al?

The snow tires were paid for out of traveler's checks that North had in
his possession at the time.  Of course you conveniently omit the fact
that North was owed several thousand dollars in expenses and deducted the
money for the tires from his expense requests.  Besides, he was never
charged with taking the money for the snow tires.  Why not?  After all,
if his story was false that would be theft wouldn't it?  BTW the actual
charge was illegally accepting a gratuity, not theft.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush