From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Greatest President Since Teddy Roosevelt
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:22:37 GMT

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>]is you point being that reagan and his crew could cover-up things better
>]than nixon? or is that the "i don't remember" excuse is more effective
>]than having tapes?

>My point is that Reagan and his crew did not violate the laws
>(except for a couple of guys who covered something up). My point

that is the stuff that really bothers me.  i don't like covering
up.  be honest and say the buck stop here AND i remember, so what?

>is that the business of laying minefields of laws for the administration,
>some of which are contradictory, and then sending out prosecutors with

hey, then why keep all the secrets?

>infinite budgets is wrong. Could YOUR life stand that kind of
sure, but that's irrelavent.

>scrutiny? Furthermore, the prosecution of people for political reasons
>(and let's face it, that's what Iran Contra is all about), when those

true, but that is just the wrong motivation for a proper investigation.
things would be a lot clearer if casey hadn't died.

>people probably didn't violate any laws and were trying to do their
>best for the country, is a recipe for disaster. I, for one, do not want
>our executive branch peopled only by those who are so power hungry that
>they are willing to risk prosecution, financial ruin, and public
>ridicule in order to serve. I hope you are not so naive as to believe
>that it is easy, or even possible, for an administration official to
>obey all of the laws.

if they didn't know it was wrong, why did they keep it secret?  because
they didn't want everyone trying to trade arms for hostages?

>]
>]>The ultimate absurdity of this is the indictment of Cap Weinberger on
>]>the very last day before the statute of limitations would have prevented
>]>it. Cap Weinberger was adamantly opposed to Iran Contra, made his notes
>]>available to the special prosecutor, and yet is being prosecuted for
>]>a coverup.
>]
>]but, he didn't make his notes available to congress when they investigated
>]iran-contra.  he said, "what notes i don't have notes."  but he had 12,000
>]pages of diary!!  what a liar.

>Oh, yeah, he really hid them. IN an exhibit in the library of congress.
>Obviously a clever way to cover things up!

they are there today and he has NOW given permission for the special 
prosecuter to look at them.  but he still denied their existence to 
the congressional investigation committee.  without his cover-up
there may have been more convictions.

>]so much for the spirit of law:(  would you say that Al Capone just had 
>]a little tax accounting problem?
>What WAS the spirit of the Boland Amendments? Some versions allowed
>aid to contras, others prohibited it under some circumstances. If
>congress had wanted to prohibit the activities of North and others,
>why didn't they write it down.

do you mean expliticly say his name or the NSC or something else?

>The spirit of the Boland Amendment was to write a law that was murky
>enough that it could be interpreted many different ways, and then
>to use that as a snare to catch the administration with a different
>interpretation. Furthermore, there is good reason to believe that
>those amendments were unconstitutional.

maybe they should have tried that before subverting the law?

>]>These officials were persecuted for a (misguided) attempt to do what
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>]>is best for the country. Contrast that to most scandals, where the culprits
>]>are guilty of feathering their own nest.
>]
>]so they did violate laws, but weren't able to be convicted?

>I didn't say that, did I?
probably just in the way i read it.  didn't mean to put words in 
your fingers.

>]>I think it says that Reagan appointed moral people who did their best for
>]>their country. I think it also says that if we don't end the special
>]>prosecutor law, it will become impossible to get decent people to serve
>]>in the executive branch. The criminalization of policy disputes is
>]>IMHO the greatest threat to our form of government since the civil war!

>]if we do end the special prosecutor law, the executive branch will be
>]totally above the law.  and *that* is the threat to our form
>]of government.

>There is no evidence of that at all. Nixon was run out of office BEFORE
>the special prosecutor law was written. Don't forget that congress has
true, but only because he had those tapes and there was a high
level informant.
>the power to investigate the executive branch, and to bring impeachment
at what level can they investigate?  i am ignorant on their powers.  
can they do more than suppeona?  can they bust into offices and take
records and tap phones and...
>proceedings. Also don't forget that the executive has the power to
>pardon ANY executive official for ANY offense, and the special prosecutor
>can't change that. The executive branch is held within the law by
true.
>political pressures, not special prosecutors. The special prosecutors
>serve as tools of the opposition congress to run able and dedicated
>people out of office.

political pressure can only come to bear, when a "scandal" is made 
public.  what citizens know what the CIA, FBI, NSC, or ??? are 
doing?  someone has to be able to investigate the investigators.

>]sort of, both parties like to hide their own scandels R:Iran-contra
>]D:keating 4.

>But the republicans did NOT hide Iran contra. When Reagan found out
>what was going on, he immediately ordered a full disclosure. Ollie North's
>shredding, etc, had taken place before that. Iran Contra was a stupid
Ollie isn't a republican?  what ron knew and when he knew it aren't 
even known to him (he says).  everyone involved was a republican.  it
may not have been a party platform to carry out the policy, but the
party members were a lot less determined to bring the facts to light. 
 
>operation (ie, trading arms for hostages) but it was hardly what I
>would consider a scandal. It pales in comparison with Lyndon Johnson's
>many  misdeeds and JFK's election fraud. It pales in comparison with
>Watergate, which ended the bipartisan practice of dirty tricks during
>elections.
then maybe some reform of office will come of the investigation.  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc