From: scythe@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Date: 7 Jan 1993 01:01:27 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu

In article <C0GIzL.M6x@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>dodsonsl@memstvx1.memst.edu wrote:
>: In article <C0FGtF.I7F@unix.portal.com>, mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>: > Nathan Engle (nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu) wrote:
>: > 
>: > But from what you write, you obviously either believe the men to be guilty
>: > before they've been proven guilty or you believe them to have been proven
>: > guilty (beyond a shadow of a doubt :).  If Reagan is guilty, charge him
>: > with a crime, or leave him alone.  Same is true for all the rest.  Quit trying
>: > to stick bullshit petty crimes on these guys.  If lying to congress is all
>: > they're guilty of, this whole investigation was a waste of time.
>: 
>: Some of them WERE proven guilty. They didn't just lie to Congress, they broke
>: the law that restricts aiding the contras (except for humanitarian aid). 
>: Making a deal with the terrorists wasn't illegal, although Reagan incessantly
>: claimed that no deals would be made with them, however, aiding the contras is.
>: I guess Republicans believe, as Richard Nixon said, "If the president does it,
>: it's not illegal."
>: 
>
>You on the other hand are saying that "criminals" have no rights to fair
>trial.  The special "persecutor" is above the law, right?  Boy, put this
>prosecutor on your tail and you would scream, especially if you were innocent.
>
>As for Nixon, he and his cronies defrauded taxpayers of $$$ and pocketed
>the money.  Ollie North didn't exactly keep that $30 million for himself.
>
And it's better to use it to arm our enemies?  Wait... are you saying that
they're guilty here?  You seems to be saying that they're innocent, but
that Ollie is guilty?

>
>: > 
>: > : > I guess things will be pretty boring scandal-wise now that the
>: > : >party of the 'moral right' won't be in charge anymore.
>: > : 
>: > :    Don't count on it. Remember Billy Carter?
>: 
>: What did Billy Carter do? I remember something about him urinating on an
>: airport runway. Is this what you're talking about? The scandals I referred
>: to have more to do with Iraqi bank loans and the cover-up of the investigation
>: (Iraq-gate), the background check into Clinton's passport record (Tamposi-
>: gate), etc.
>: 
>
>Oh boy.  Check into the guy's passport.  BIG CRIME.  You don't think opponents
>of Clarence Thomas didn't check into much more of Thomas's records?  OK for
>you and your friends to do, I'm sure.  Iraqi bank loans?  Bull.  Hot air.
>More smokescreen to divert the attention away from House Bank and Post Office, 
>scam, keating 5, male prostitution rings, wrongful death at chappequidick.
Wow.  Speaking of smokescreens, there's a nice one.  Just accuse the Democrats
of everything, in order to divert attention away from the real point.  Are
you sure the Democrats weren't responsible for Saddam Hussein and the Cold War,
also? =)  You're accusing them of everything else....  Yeah, I'd agree that
looking into Clinton's passport is fine.  BUT, giving practically direct orders
from the White House to SPEED UP investigation, and the timing involved,
make it a pretty serious crime.  Nice to know that since you're dismissed
the Iraqi scandal with just 3 words, it doesn't exist.  And there were more
than Democrats involved in the Keating 5 and the House Bank/Post Office
scandals, despite all the Republicans' whining about having no power
in the House.

>
>There SURE is a lot to investigate.  Why do you insist on such one-sided
>investigations?
>
>: -Scott
>: 
Why do you insist on no investigation, when a crime is so obvious?


Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11579 talk.politics.misc:66283