From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 10:03:22 GMT

Nathan Engle (nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu) wrote:
: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
: >nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
: >>    Perhaps so. I'm certainly not sure why innocent men need to be pardoned, 
: >>but I agree that it was ballsy on Bush's part because it doesn't necessarily 
: >>reflect the best historical light on himself. I really do think that Bush's 
: >>motivations for issuing the pardons had very little if anything to do with 
: >>fear of what would come out in trial, and almost everything to do with the 
: >>desire to spare good men the ordeal of having to defend themselves.
: 

That's what Bush says.  Words from the horse's mouth :)  Could it be that
the man might actually be telling the truth?  Or should we assume that the
man is incapable of that?

: >Innocent men need to be pardoned for the same reason that innocent men 
: >have the right to remain silent, the right to be represented by an 
: >attorney, the right to a trieal by a jury of their peers, etc., which is 
: >that, when a citizen is in an adversary relationship with the state there 
: >need to be limits on the state if the state is to remain a guarantor of 
: >liberty and not become an enemy of it.
: 
:     Hmmm. I thought that's what "due process" was for - so that the 
: innocent could have their day in court and have their innocence 
: unequivocally established for all to see. At this point it seems to me 
: that there are bound to be some lingering doubts, but if it was me then 
: I would probably be willing to accept the suspicions rather than spend 
: weeks in court. My reputation isn't all that shiny to start out with so 
: a few extra blots on the old escutcheon would be barely noticeable.
: 

What do you consider to be "due process?"  To me, it means the right to
a speady, fair, and impartial trial.  Speady:  less than 5+ years later.
Fair: innocent until proven guilty, for starters.  And how about prosecuting
crimes instead of inventing crimes to prosecute? :)  And to be really fair,
they should be investigating ALL kinds of things in government, not just
this.  Like DEMOCRAT senators visits with heads of foreign interests?  Or
What Jimmy Carter did during the hostage crisis in Iran (don't worry, we
can invent something for him to be guilty of, too :)?  House Bank?  House
Post Office?  Keating 5?

: >In this case, there were no limits on prosecutor Walsh.  He had unlimited 
: >money, unlimited discretion, no oversight. He used his powers to extort 
: >guilty pleas from minor officials who had neither the power, the 
: >connections or the money to fight back. 
: 
:     It seems to me that these guys all had to have at least some 
: "connections" with the Bush administration in order to get into their 
: predicament in the first place. Walsh wasn't picking up people at random 
: off the street.
: 

Guilt by association..  Clever.  And an old enough tactic that our founders
forbade it.  Walsh is so incompetent, it's silly.  A lunatic out of control.

: >From those who did fight, he got nothing.  The problem with Walsh was his 
: >lack of limits and lack of oversight; he had to be stopped. Bush couldn't 
: >fire him, so he did the next best thing - make him irrelevant. Even that 
: >hasn't stopped him though.
: 
:     Maybe he isn't quite as irrelevant as Bush thought.
: 

I say he should charge Bush with a crime and get on with presenting his 5
years and $50 million worth of evidence.  I can see how Bush's reputation
would only be cleared (found not guilty) - especially when I can see how
incompetent Walsh is.  At the very least, even all the "non-credable"
evidence Walsh has compiled would also come to light.

: >Clinton should now pardon Bush and call a halt to the whole farce.
: 
:     If George wants a pardon then he can still resign and have Dan do  
: it for him. Somehow I doubt that will happen.
: 

I agree with you on this.  That would indicate he really does have something
to fear.  And he doesn't.

: --
: Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
: Psychology Department               Indiana University
: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc