Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:23:04 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!

>From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

>>>         Walsh is a loon who has wasted $40 million.  Yes there are people wh
>>> are guilty of breaking the law, but Walsh has managed to let each and
> everyone
>>> get off on technicalities or overturned convictions.  His desire to discredi
>>> Bush is obvious, and reminds me of a certain Senator named McCarthy.

Ok, I only reproduced that to remind everyone of what Brett actually
said.

Jonathan then correctly replied:

>>This is incorrect.  Walsh has 11 convictions (2 were overturned because of
>>an overzealous congress).  It is conceivable now that Walsh is being
>>vindictive.  But Bush has had these notes since '86, why hasn't he turned
>>them over before now?

And Brett now says,

>        11 convictions, but none on "key" people that he has insisted were
>involved.  Of course Casey died before anything could be done about him.  Walsh
>is 0-for against major political targets like North, Weinberger, Bush, Reagan,
>etc.

So, in fact, Walsh did NOT "manage to get each and every [guilty party]
get off on technicalities or overturned convictions."

Walsh did let North wiggle out. But it's not at all obvious that it was
his fault. It was hard to know in advance that the courts would rule
that North's immunized testimony tainted all of the evidence that Walsh
subsequently used.

Nor did Walsh lose Weinberger, as Brett says he did. Weinberger had
yet to stand trial. Bush pardoned him. Now we'll never know.

Nor did Walsh lose Bush. Yet. We'll see.

He did let Reagan get away. But, frankly, I'm not sure Reagan was
guilty in the first place. Stupid, but maybe not guilty.

>        As Weinberger said, Walsh was throwing his weight around and telling
>people that if they cooperated on getting dirt on Reagan, he'd go easy on them.
This is hard to believe. Brett is now willing to believe Weinberger's
totally unsubstantiated accusations?? We know for a fact that Weinberger
is quite happy to lie about these matters.

>        Walsh is simply grandstanding, trying to get a President indicted.

Well, he may be trying to get a president indicted. I think that's
a special prosecutor's job. Or was Archie Cox simply grandstanding?

("Impeached" is the right word, I think.)

>>>         Like Weinberger, Bush's notes have been available for some time.  Th
>>> persecotor prefers not to acknowladge this and instead acts like there is a
>>> "cover up".
>>Why has Bush refused to acknowledge until recently that he had the notes?
>
>        Hard to say :).  Given Walsh's methods, perhaps he was waiting for a
>"please". :D

Oooh. Good answer. That's probably it.

Note, though, that Bush could have saved a LOT of expense by acknowledging
that he had the notes much earlier.

>        That's why I said "supposed" to be independent.  Any organization
>staffed through patronage will end up like this.

I agree. And Brett's suggestions about changing the way the Justice
Dept. is appointed make some sense to me.

Until Mitchell, though, I don't think the Attorney General was
widely regarded as a "patronage" appointment. Now it's a commonplace.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU