Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 15:23:19 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Begging Bush's Pardon

From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET

>       I am sick and tired of hearing about Iran-Contra.  For the
>past six years, a special prosecutor with unlimited resources has
>spent over $60,000,000 on Iran/Contra, and no one is sitting in jail
>for this supposed illegal activity.

Not yet.
Of course, we now know with near certainty that Oliver North
WAS guilty of the crimes of which he was accused. Walsh
couldn't prove many of the charges, and North got off on
a technicality (as Due Process rights are often called)
for the one that was proved.

> Now, concerning President Bush.  Bush did not participate in
>illegal activites, and you cannot say with any verifable proof
>that he did.

If he didn't participate in any illegal activities, no one will
EVER prove that he did. But don't close the book yet.

> Of course, as of yet, there is not illegal activity, because no
>one has been prosecuted for it, everybody has been acquitted.

This is a very strange statement.

First of all, I suppose EVERYONE knows that there are MANY
illegal activities for which no one is prosecuted.
Second, if no one has been prosecuted, how could anyone
be acquitted?
Third, there HAVE been people prosecuted for Iran/Contra
crimes, and some were convicted.

So perhaps Paul could explain what on earth he was thinking.

> I don't believe that President Bush has lied about Iran/Contra.

You don't?????
He has publically contradicted himself on the issue. Maybe
he wasn't "lying." Maybe he just forgot whether or not he
was "in the Loop."

> Bush should end this entire episode by pardoning Casper Weinberger
>(if he is set free, Iran/Contra is dead).  What does he have to lose.

Well, interesting question.

Personally, I think it would be a BIG mistake for Bush to pardon
Cap Weinberger. Here's why.

First, the country still has a very sour taste in its mouth
from the last time a president pardoned a cohort who was
under investigation (I can't believe Paul really doesn't
remember Watergate, so I suppose his ignorance in response
to T was feigned ignorance). If Bush cares as much about
how the history books will treat him as he says he does,
he'd better not pull a Ford on us now.

Second, I think Paul is quite wrong when he says that if
Weinberger is pardoned Iran/Contra will be dead. Look at
it this way. What is preventing Congress and the special
prosecutor from getting the whole story? I think it's
the fact that so many of the participants are able to
stand on their fifth amendment rights. There is virtually
no one involved, no one with any useful information, who
would be safe from prosecution if the story got out. So,
they all sit on their rights and shut up, and everyone's
safe. BUT, if Bush starts sending out pardons, the fifth
amendment shield falls away. Weinberger could be forced
to testify. And that, I believe, would be very bad for
Bush.

Of course, Cap might shut up even with the pardon, or he
MIGHT lie under oath. But don't count on it. Weinberger is
a very smart cowboy (in my opinion, the smartest Reagan/Bush
appointee). If he lies or "forgets" under oath, he could
later be jailed for contempt. Why take that chance? If he
testifies with a pardon, comes clean, he's scott free.

Ollie did it in his book, and he's not half the strategist
that Weinberger is.

Jamie