From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Carter & BCCI (was EQUITY and Barbara Jordon)
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:05:42 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Jul27.202937.22607@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> In article <1992Jul27.191912.22680@inel.gov> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
>
> >To me it is unethical to accept such a large sum of money from an organization
> >without checking on the source of those funds.  BCCI was known to have
> >problems back then.
>
> 	This seems fair enough. You should probably consider, though, that
> while $8M seems like a whole bunch of money, it's not that much on the scale
> of BCCI or the charity in question. BCCI may have appeared shaky in 1981,
> but it was 10 years before any serious questions were asked, so its not
> unreasonable that BCCI appeared to be completely on the level. It is not
> uncommon for large corperations to make sizeable donations to established
> charities, expecting nothing but good publicity and a tax writeoff in return.
> In any case, Carters relationship to the charity would not make him
> responsible for investigating the donors - that would be up to the active
> board of directors.
>

Carter took laundered drug money.  Period.  Unethical, even if it were
$.02.

> 	If your concerned about this, then you must be appalled at the
> behavior of the Reagan administration, given the large number of Reagan
> staffers that have been convicted of actual crimes. You must also be
> appaled at the number of Reagan appointees who quit to become influence
> peddelers (lobbyists), many in clear violation of the law.
>

Time to put up.  Large numbers?  sounds like a bunch to me.  Name some?
Ollie North?  Convicted of three ridiculously petty crimes and even those
convictions could not stick.  Looks to me like he was railroaded.

> >What I find especially ironic in this whole line of talk, Carter is O.K.
> >because the Justice Dept. says he did not violate any laws.  But, when the
> >Justice Dept. nor the Congress can not find anything on Bush concerning
> >Iran-Contra or the "October Surprise", the Democrats will not accept it and
> >they just have to investigate because "we don't have any proof, but we know
> >he did something!"
>
> 	I think that the big complaint about October Surprise was that
> no investagation was ever made. Various witnesses have appeared (with
> varying amounts of credability) and made accusations, most of which
> were only ivestigated superficially. It has been argued, more or less
> sucessfully, that an investigation into October Surprise would be a waste
> of time and a political circus, so the whole thing looks DOA.
>

No investigation was ever made?  There is a house committee that has been
investigating October Surmise for many months now.  They just held a
press conference on TV (C-SPAN) in the last three weeks.  They announced
that all credable evidence showed that Bush (and others "implicated")
we not involved.  THey heard the testimony of those so-called credable
witnesses - every one of them.  Those that claimed Bush had some secret
meeting with the Isrealis and Iraqis in France and Spain were proven
wrong by Secret Service records that showed these people to be in other
places at the time - and not out of site for even a few hours needed
to fly abroad to hold such meetings.  Your claim that there is no
investigation is clearly false.  And your superficial investigations
were done by U.S. News and World Report and several other magazines
who did not find any credable evidence, either.

What are you going to be saying when it comes out (it already has, BTW)
that Stansfield Turner, Carter's head of CIA was at those meetings?

> 	Iran-Contra, on the other hand, has resulted in several convictions,
> and may result in more - it seem clear that laws were broken there.
> Regardless of how one feels about the high cost of the investigation,
> several people have been convicted and jailed by juries, this isn't a
> question of proof.
>

OK, here's the good (to you) news.  Expect the special prosecutor to
indict Reagan in the next 8 days (these are the news reports).  Expect
nothing to stick.  Expect to claim that the indictment proves his
guilt, eh?

Again, I ask you to name several people...  I do not mind that you
make such claims, but I do ask for substantiation or at least
the names of those you say were convicted and serving time.  And
then tell why the $50 Million + that the special prosecutor spent
wasn't a waste of money and time...

> 	Carter and BCCI have been investigated quite throughly, and the
> probe continues, although Carter appears to be pronounced clean at this
> point. Unless dramatic new evidance appears, there is little reason to
> suspect that Carter did anything illegal, and even the ethics of the
> situation are only vaguely suspect. There is no basis to claim that
> the Carter/BCCI connection has been ignored or covered up, as there
> isn't anything left to sift through.
>

Carter is as clean as North and any other Reagan staffer you would
mention.  Ignored?  Good word for it.  Covered up?  Now you are
catching on.  I will point out that the BCCI investigation is far
from over and it is likely that much information will be relased
allatonce.


> --
> Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
>
> 					Alex Crain
> 					UMBC Academic Computing Services

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh