From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush pardons....
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:21:16 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Dec31.230725.9919@panix.com>, patth@panix.com (Patt Bromberger) writes:
> In article <1992Dec31.114442.424@hsh.com> paul@hsh.com writes:
> [deleted]>
>>Let us scrap this myth once and for all.  Leaving aside the insidious 
>>inference that a Rep cannot possibly investigate a fellow Rep (may we thus
>>assume the same about Dems?), let us get this clear: Walsh is NOT running the
>>show; he's a figurehead, a mouthpiece.  His second-in-command, James
>>Brosnahan, is running the show -- and he is a devout, liberal, Democrat. 
> 
> 	Ask anyone who has ever worked with Judge Walsh
> 	if they would even presume to think that "he" is not
> 	running the show; if Judge Walsh said he "personally"
> 	reviewed Cap Weinberger's notes and is personally
> 	reviewing Bush's notes then he is probably staying
> 	up nights analyzing everything single word they've ever
> 	written - he's that thorough!

Sorry, I'm not privy to the personnel list of Walsh's staff.  But DO let us
know which member(s) told you so.

>>cheerfully have bankrupted them in his search for "justice."  Chew on this 
>>one, Norm:  if they were guilty of the major charges -- selling arms to Iran, 
>>or sending money to the Contras -- WHY WEREN'T THEY CHARGED with these 
>>crimes?  With unlimited time and unlimited power, surely Walsh & Co should 
>>have been able to convict them.  
> 
> 	I will repost for you, a message from Sandra Stewart-Cole,
> 	who succintly stated the issue(s):
> 
> There is a failure in those applauding the recent pardons to recognize the
> real 
> nature of the investigations. The actual actions of the Reagan Administration 
> in selling arms or even in secretly funding the Contras is no longer an issue 
> in any case. The legality or illegality of those actions has never been 
> suffuciently tested, and probably never will be.  The issue is now coverup. 
>                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nice try, but both of you are skipping right over the CENTRAL topic.  Let me 
run it by you again:  "If they were guilty of the major charges -- selling
arms to Iran, or sending money to the Contras -- WHY WEREN'T THEY CHARGED
with these crimes?"  The answer that you partisans dance around is -- the
"crimes" WEREN'T -- and they AREN'T -- crimes.  

> The common phraseology of the Reagan partisans in this issue is that Walsh is 
> "criminalizing policy differences" HOGWASH! What Walsh was trying to prosecute
> Weinberger et al. for is simple lying to hide actions that may or may not have
> been illegal. The act of hiding evidence from a federal prosecutor or lying to
> Congress in the position of a cabinet secretary is simply illegal, 

Again, nice try -- but unless you partisans are (all too) willing to scrap a 
couple of troublesome constitutional rights, "withholding testimony" -- the 
ACTUAL charge -- is NOT a crime.  You could look it up.  

Now hear this, loud and clear:  there may well be REAL crimes to investigate
here.  If so, they should be investigated.  But I think even YOU can agree
that this so-called "investigation" long ago ceased to have ANYthing to do
with either "Iran" or the "Contras".  Now, it looks more like a case of "get
Bush and his merry men on ANY charge." 

[........]> 

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann  (paul@hsh.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush