From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:13:09 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <6931@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
>ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:

>#   Led by Senator Dole, the media revealed this weekend evidence of a
># smoking gun linking "independant" counsel Walsh to the Clinton Campaign.
># A Clinton press release concerning the new indictment levied against
># Weinberger by Walsh on Friday, October 30, was dated October 29, 1992!
># Bill Clinton refused to comment, while his staff used the excuse that the
># date on the release had been a typographical error.  RIGHT!  And Richard
># Nixon "accidentally" erased some of the tapes.  As further proof of their
># subversion of the Constitution, here is their own e-mail release (again a
># typographical error?).

>What are the constitutional issues?

Well, I'm not sure it's the Constitution, but prosecuters are not
supposed to feed information to political parties.

>The problem for Bush is that the Weinberger memo revealed the oft-denied
>truth that Bush knew about the arms/hostages deal. Bush's deceit makes
>him vulnerable to a revelation of the truth. If the indictment and the
>memos were somehow fraudulent, then the Bush apologists might have a
>better case.

Excuse me, but if Walsh gave Clinton's campaign advance notice then
Walsh was guilty of malfeasance and the people in Clinton's campaign
who were involved may have been guilty of conspiracy... the same crime
Walsh charged Ollie North with.

>#   Here is documented proof that Walsh and his stooges were working hand 
># in hand with CG/92, giving them inside information and probably handing 
># out indictments on orders from the campaign!  So now we know that Walsh 
># was a collaborator with Clinton and the Democrats to gain control of the 
># White House.

>Walsh is a Republican, so arguments that he was pro-Clinton don't add up.

I'm afraid they do.  Walsh was a liberal Republican and his
relationship with Bush has been acrimonious to say the least.  It is
widely assumed that the Bush adminsitration was behind the
investigations that revealed that Walsh and his deputy have been
padding their expense accounts and accepting illegal gratuities from
private citizens (in particular, Walsh's cut rate deal at the Watergate).

># Is it too early to talk "impeachment"?  I think Congress
># should appoint a special counsel to investigate special counsel Walsh.

Yes indeed.  Among other things, it is just as illegal for Walsh to
accept gifts from private citizens as it was for North, and the total
value of the discounts he got from the Watergate is larger than
thevalue of the security fence he prosecuted North for accepting from
Secord.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics