In article <1993Apr20.215127.29919@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@us.oracle.com (Michae writes... >In article <1993Apr19.213012.23123@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes: >>In article <1993Apr17.043704.23702@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@us.oracle.com (Michae writes... >>>In article <1993Apr17.023211.23547@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes: >>>>In article <philC5Lru6.LxA@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes... >>>>>In article <1993Apr15.195139.29457@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes: >>>>Why >>>>did Ford go to the trouble of pardoning him if he did nothing wrong?  >  >>>Duh....  Garrett, you ignorant slut, read up on Watergate. >>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>	So, are all you guys so unarticulate that you ALL must  >>must call names? Are none of you above grade-school levels in intelligence? >  >Jesus, Garret, haven't you ever watched Saturday Night Live?  Not only >are you a historical ignoramus, but you are also a cultural ignoramus.  What does Saturday Night Live have to do with anything? When they make fun of someone they do it with a little bit of creativity and talent. You, on the other hand, have a complete lack of creativity, talent, and verbal mechanics. And if you think that SNL is culture, then it just shows where your intellectual level is.  >>>What is generally >>>accepted is that Nixon attempted to cover up the break in after it >>>occurred.  It was actions in pursuit of that end that he was pardoned >>>for.  You, of course, are so ignorant of history that you think that >>>he was involved in the break in. >  >>I guess that makes you even dumber than me then because he was officially >>accused of alot more than that. Let me list it for you: >  >>1) Obstructing justice. >  >As part of the coverup  Granted. >  >>2) Abusing his presidential powers >  >To do the coverup  Only in part. Let's not forget that Nixon personally authorized the break-in of Ellsberg's psychiatrist. >  >>3) Subverting the constitutional rights of citizens >  >I challenge you to provided any evidence that Nicon was officially >accused of thi.  If nothing else, it's meaningless.  How can you >subvert someone's constitutional rights?  The verb doesn't go with the >noun.    Tell that to the House. That WAS the charge. Or are you going to challenge me on that as well? Subverting the constitutional rights of citizens has nothing to do with covering-up for Watergate. You have been proved wrong, again. But I don't expect you to believe this since your arrogance has replaced your reason. >  >>4) and willfully disobeying lawful subpoenas for White House records and >>    tapes. >  >Part of the coverup.  Granted. >  >Garrett, please note that every charge you mention, except for the one >that has no English meaning, was part of the coverup. >  Wrong again. You forgot about Ellsberg.  >>	BTW, why od you think he tried to cover it up?  >  >Loyalty to people who worked for him.  This would be funny, if it weren't so sad that you actually believe this. In his "loyalty" he allowed the people who worked for him to take the  rap, while he idly sat by and let it happen. If he REALLY was loyal to the people who worked for them, he would have pardoned them before he  resigned.   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Death to all modifiers, he declared one day, and out of       Garrett Johnson  every letter that passed through his hands went every      Garrett@Ingres.com  adverb and adjective. The next day he made war on articles.  The following day he blacked out everything in the letters  but "a", "an", and "the".  - Joseph Heller's Catch-22