X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:16:27 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>> >rattling against Serbia, and, in a striking Iran-Contra development,
 pardoned
>> >six officials, including Caspar Weinberger, Alan Fiers, and Clair George.
>>
>>         Weinberger's I  agree with.  THe major charge against him was thrown
>> out, and all the persecutor--err--prosecutor had left was vindictiveness
>> against Bush.
>>         Walsh is a loon who has wasted $40 million.  Yes there are people who
>> 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 discredit
>> Bush is obvious, and reminds me of a certain Senator named McCarthy.
>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?

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

>>...
>>         Like Weinberger, Bush's notes have been available for some time.  The
>> 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

>>         Perhaps he could explain how something he has been investigating for
 N
>> years can be "covered up"?
>By classifying documents that don't need to be classified and therefore can't
>be used in a criminal trial.

        Walsh can still get ahold of them.  And classified documents can still
be used in a trial.  The judge reviews the documents in private.

>>...
>The justice department is obviously not independent.  The top people
>are appointed by the president and can investigate what they want.

        1) Make the terms cross presidential boundries
        2) Limit the terms served to one or two
        3) Apportion the appointments so that one president won't be able to
appoint all the top positions (barring deaths).  Of course two term presidents
and a string of one-party victories will hedge that somewhat.

>Let's use as an example Iraq-gate (can't someone come up with a better
>name?). A Federal judge has stated that he feels that this situation is
>ripe with cover-ups, including the justice department, but Barr
>appointed someone who was not independent and **surprise** he came back
>and said that there was no need for an independent prosecutor!  As a
>side note, I would point to William Safire's (not one that one would
>call a 'liberal'!) articles on this, where he noted that the dependent
>prosecutor that Barr appointed was not his first choice.  Barr's first
>choice felt pressured by Barr to return with the result that Barr
>wanted.  He refused and Barr appointed someone more mallable.
>
>Jonathan

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

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU