Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (58677)	10/12/1999 1:33:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

E, your conclusion doesn't derive from your premises. You say 1. Reagan authorized covert aid to the Contras with the avowed aim of interdicting weapons traffic in Central America. 2. Uspecified "Reagan emissaries" told unspecified "Central American leaders" that Reagan "intended to overthrow the Sandinistas." Therefore, Reagan deceived Congress. How does the conclusion follow from the premises? Would you care to supply more facts? As for congressional oversight, my copy of the Constitution says that "the executive power shall be vested in a President," Article II, Section 1[1]. On the other hand, "All legislative Power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress," Article I, Section 1. Conducting foreign policy is within the purview of the office of the President, I believe.

To: E who wrote (58677)	10/12/1999 2:31:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

BTW, in the case of Hubard v. U.S., the United States Supreme Court overruled an earlier ruling on Section 1001, the perjury statute under which North, and Poindexter, were prosecuted, and declared that lying to Congress wasn't a violation of 1001, which exonerates North and Poindexter of that charge. As for the rest of it, it's a political issue, one that has to do with the balance of powers between the Executive and Legislative Branch, and it's uncharted territory. I don't believe the Boland Amendment was constitutional, although it was never tested in Court. It was certainly a political catastrophe, I'll grant you that. FALSE STATEMENTSThe court took the unusual step of overturning one of its own precedents, a 1955 ruling that made a federal law on false statements apply to statements made in court and to Congress. The false statement law, which dates to 1934 and is usually referred to as Section 1001, is used almost exclusively to prosecute false statements made to executive branch agencies despite the 1955 ruling, United States vs. Bramblett, which broadened its coverage. Many lower courts have carved out an exception making the law inapplicable to statements made in court. Writing for the court Monday, Stevens said the 1955 decision was based on a "basic error" in interpreting the false statement law, which refers to "any department or agency of the United States." In its common meaning, that phrase refers to executive branch agencies and not Congress or the courts, Stevens said. The decision Monday, Hubbard vs. U.S., No. 94-172, overturned a conviction for lying to a federal bankruptcy court. Justices Breyer and Ginsburg joined Stevens' full opinion. Thomas joined most of it, while Scalia and Kennedy joined in the result. Rehnquist and Justices O'Connor and Souter dissented. Because the law was used so infrequently outside the executive branch, the decision was interesting principally for the court's debate over adherence to precedent. Among the few recent Section 1001 prosecutions for false statements to Congress were those of Oliver North and John Poindexter in cases growing out of their testimony before Congress on the Iran-Contraaffair. Federal laws against perjury and obstruction of justice are available in nearly any case in which a Section 1001 prosecution can be brought.

To: E who wrote (58677)	10/12/1999 5:00:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Been researching Reagan and Iran-Contra, here is a document you should read, it's the conclusions of the Office of Independent Counsel Walsh with respect to Reagan ~ Walsh concluded that there was no evidence that Reagan knew what was going on. Not that I really care whether he knew or not, but if anyone had a reason to "get" Reagan, it was Walsh. fas.org