From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Greatest President Since Teddy Roosevelt
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:38:44 GMT

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>Keywords: 

>In article <f60f225@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>]3.  When Ross Perot quit the race, he commended the Democratic Party for
>]    being "revitalized".  What, if anything, did he say about the Republican
>]    party?

>He said nothing.
>]
>]I resume the bickering by asking:
>]    Is it true that more high government officials were indicted for criminal
>]    behavior during Reagan's tenure than during the tenure of any other pre-
>]    sident in U.S. history?  (And what does that say about Reagan, seeing as
>]    he chose to surround himself with, and sought advice from, these people?)

>I don't know if it is true or not, but it is hardly relevant. The 
>criminalization of policy disputes started as part of the Watergate "reforms."
>If you appoint a special prosecutor to look into every minute detail of
>the behavior of an executive branch official, you are bound to find
>some violation of law - there are too many laws, and too many actions,
>for them to not conflict. Everyone else has to deal with prosecutors
>who have to make choices of who to prosecute, and who cannot spend
>$30,000,000 to look for technical violations.

lying under oath to a congressional investigating committee is NOT
a technical violation of law.  

>Also, indictments shouldn't count - any prosecutor can get an indictment
>on just about anyone. Convictions of substantive offenses should count.
>Under Reagan, you have ZERO convictions that have been upheld. There are
>a couple of guilty pleas that were essentially coerced (ie, if you had
>to spend $1,000,000 to defend yourself from a minor charge, you might
>plead guilty also).

is you point being that reagan and his crew could cover-up things better
than nixon? or is that the "i don't remember" excuse is more effective
than having tapes?

>The ultimate absurdity of this is the indictment of Cap Weinberger on
>the very last day before the statute of limitations would have prevented
>it. Cap Weinberger was adamantly opposed to Iran Contra, made his notes
>available to the special prosecutor, and yet is being prosecuted for
>a coverup.

but, he didn't make his notes available to congress when they investigated
iran-contra.  he said, "what notes i don't have notes."  but he had 12,000
pages of diary!!  what a liar.

>Finally, under the Reagan administration, no high official has been
>indicted for any offense other than those derived from violating
>the Boland Amendments, and yet the Boland Amendments:
>  -provided no penalty
>  -are quite arguably unconstitutional
>  -changed 6 times

so much for the spirit of law:(  would you say that Al Capone just had 
a little tax accounting problem?

>These officials were persecuted for a (misguided) attempt to do what
>is best for the country. Contrast that to most scandals, where the culprits
>are guilty of feathering their own nest.

so they did violate laws, but weren't able to be convicted?

>I think it says that Reagan appointed moral people who did their best for
>their country. I think it also says that if we don't end the special
>prosecutor law, it will become impossible to get decent people to serve
>in the executive branch. The criminalization of policy disputes is
>IMHO the greatest threat to our form of government since the civil war!

if we do end the special prosecutor law, the executive branch will be
totally above the law.  and *that* is the threat to our form
of government.

>]BTW, when I mention the discussion on soc.history about Reagan being the best
>]president since anyone to people around here (Sacramento, CA), they roll
>]around on the floor laughing.  This has been a consistently bi-partisan
>]response.

>Frankly, I doubt it is bi-partisan.

sort of, both parties like to hide their own scandels R:Iran-contra
D:keating 4.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc