From: csmith@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:11:23 GMT

>>>>>Nixon resigned in disgrace because he made tape recordings of himself
>>>>>committing felonies.
>
>>>>OH! NOW I understand! His problem was getting CAUGHT! I see NOW!
>
>>>The point (which you don't see) is that Nixon did not face impeachment
>>>or resign because he or others "bugged" the DNC headquarters, but because
>>>he committed OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE after the fact. The "smoking gun"
>>>tape provided a prima facie case for this crime. Nixon thus exited,
>>>stage right.
>
>>>I'm reminded when a few years ago when it came out that FDR secretly
>>>recorded people at the White House. Nixon apologists exclaimed, "SEE,
>>>even FDR did it!!!" Oy vay! The problem isn't tape recordings, it's
>>>tape recordings of the President committing felonies!
>
>>And unauthorized survailence is not a felony? News to me.
>
>Then maybe you should read a newspaper.  No, taping a conversation with
>someone is not a felony.  You're thinking of laws against wiretapping,
>which forbid taping *phone calls.*  In addition, most of these laws only
>forbid third parties from taping phone calls.  As long as one of the two
>participants consents to the taping, it is usually legal.

So you're saying the Republican party consented to the bugs placed by the
Democrats?
>
>>And what was so feloneous about the "Iran-Contra" affair (as if one
>>hand some direct connection with the other. NOT).
>
>The first shipment of arms to Iran came before Reagan signed the finding
>authorizing it.  That was illegal, because Iran was officially on the
>terrorist nation list and sending weapons to them was illegal.
>
>The money from the legal sales, moreover, belonged to the US government,
>since it was government property that was being sold.  Sending this
>money to the contras was illegal.  Furthermore, the Boland amendment
>forbid all government departments or agencies from helping to fund the
>contras.  The NSC, by any rational definition, was included in that ban.
>
>And you don't think that when the same group of people sell arms to one
>country, then use the proceeds for another purpose, that the two things
>are related?

If I had $10,000 in a bank account that I was going to buy a car with, and
I won $10,000 in the lottery and deposited it in the same bank account,
and then bought the car, did I buy the car with the lottery winning?

Not really, since I was going to buy the car anyway.

Same with the profits from the sale of arms to Iran. There was an account
of funds going to the Contras already in existance. This account was used
for a lot of other things as well. Did the funds from the arms sales go
to the Contras? It can be argued both ways.

Maybe selling arms to Iran was bad policy. But was it criminal? Did nothing
good come from it?

Maybe Congress did not want funds going to the Contras, but the Executive
did. Who decides foreign policy, anyway?

Americans did not find this incident nearly as scandalous as the liberal media
did. The constant barrage of the media has shaped public opinion somewhat (just
as it has made Anita Hill a martyr when the real martyr is Judge Thomas) but
Americans still don't think it is that much of a scandal.
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                (This sig intentionally left blank)                 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)


Newsgroups: misc.legal