jelun

Look it up yourself, then. Could you report back?

Here are a few clues for you to start your search.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/07/opinion/essay-iraqgate-deadline-day.html


Essay; Iraqgate Deadline Day
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Published: December 7, 1992



WASHINGTON— Tomorrow, Dec. 8, is the day that the Attorney General of the U.S. has set for receipt of a report that will force a decision to obey the law or to continue to break the law.

The law, set to expire in one week, is the Ethics in Government Act. It upholds the ancient principle that no person shall be the judge in his own case.

That law directs the Attorney General to seek from a special panel of judges the appointment of independent counsel when requested to do so by the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate, most particularly when evidence is developed that requires further criminal investigation of high government officials.

The officials suspected in the Iraggate case of misusing appropriated funds, lying to Congress and then obstructing justice in the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro criminal case include former Secretaries of State and Agriculture, the national security adviser and White House counsel and the Attorney General himself, as well as his predecessor.

"I will not be buffaloed," Attorney General William Barr says, by the likes of editorialists and Congressional oversight committees into doing what is so clearly his duty. As evidence developed outside his corrupt Criminal Division has mounted, he has sought to play out the string of the expiring statute, thereby to avoid prosecution of himself.

Part of the delaying tactic was his appointment of a friendly lawyer as supposedly special counsel. Former Federal Judge Frederick Lacey, long familiar to the intelligence community, has helped the Attorney General run out the clock by delaying his report until tomorrow.

Mr. Barr is set to respond on the same late day. They know that it takes the panel of judges that customarily chooses independent counsel at least three weeks to complete its task. In each case, potential conflicts of interest in candidates for independent counsel, as well as their law partners, must be closely examined.

Let us assume that Mr. Barr decides that refusing to carry out the law tomorrow would be tantamount to an admission of past obstruction of justice. But by dragging a foot until a few working days before the statute expires to seek the judicial panel's action, Mr. Barr apparently hopes to push its appointment of independent counsel past Dec. 15.

His defense strategy is transparent. If the appointment is made late, the entire case could be appealed on that ground after any convictions are obtained. If the appointment is rushed, and the independent counsel turns out to have a partner with a conflict, convictions could be overturned on those grounds. If time constraints force the panel to choose the patsy prosecutor already named by Attorney General Barr, a counsel with great "discretion" is assured.

The judicial panel, I presume, is aware of this subterfuge. We can hope it has a choice already vetted. According to career prosecutors and F.B.I. agents eager to offer evidence to genuinely independent counsel, Mr. Barr and his mentor, White House Counsel Boyden Gray, are fearful of this readiness -- and the prospect of a prompt countermove may tempt them to hang tough, defying the law and defiling their offices.

That's where the matter stands on the eve of decision. It's hard to believe that the Lacey report will be such a whitewash as to provide enough cover for further covering up.

Mr. Barr may be hopeful that a post-election attitude of "let bygones be bygones" would muffle any outcry if he decided to ignore the law. He may be counting on the general discreditation of conspiracy theorists by the Senate's long-expected finding that no "October surprise" existed in 1980.

But Iraqgate is no wild charge by political losers. Nor is its prosecutor likely to suffer from mistakes like those made in Iran-contra, where criminal convictions obtained against White House aides were overturned because public hearings influenced jurors.

Iraqgate is uniquely horrendous: a scandal about the systematic abuse of power by misguided leaders of three democratic nations to secretly finance the arms buildup of a dictator.

Tomorrow the dam to hold back independent investigation will either be shored up one last time or, as I think more likely, will burst -- and the court had better be ready to promptly appoint the unbeholden prosecutor.

vernon

no i didnt miss anything he is the one to make decisions and he didnt heed his military advisers at all and crated all out hell in the middle
east and even almost losing egypt.now we went into korea and the only reason they arnt at war noe is because we have troops in s korea today.

jelun

Thanks for letting me know that we are supposed to be in charge of Egypt.

vernon

no they almost had the mos brother hood take egypt but the generals threw them out and restored peace.its obamas meddling that cost us lybia and got kadafi killed,now isis is taking over there and in afganstan

jelun

Really? Because I keep hearing and reading the complaint that PRESIDENT Obama is leading from behind.
So which is it?
Is the POTUS orchestrating what happens in these nations or are these nations making their own events? And BTW, what is happening in Egypt is NOT peace. Just because Sisi is not allowing word to get out of Egypt doesn't mean that it is peaceful.
I am not sure what you mean by "cost us" Lybia...we were colonizing Lybia? We occupied it? You are rewriting history.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-egypt-election-sisi-idUSKCN0S90DR20151015

vernon

no ever accused him of being a leader he is just a lazy pompus ass muslim.who wants to bring on the calaphate

moldyoldy

vernon

wrong kadafi was the dictator of lybia and had been even before rwr we had nothing to do with it.we got involved in lybia and took the side of the rebels and got kadafi killed,now we have isis in there & mass murder going on.to bad the msm dosent report the news.

jelun

You seem to have forgotten who Moammar Gaddafi was.
He was THE state sponsor of terrorism.
The Republican icon, RWR, tried to erase him from the face of the earth. He screwed it up and then there was Lockerbie and the incarceration and release of a fall guy.
I suppose those 270 people killed in an act of terrorism means nothing.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Lockerbie was the reason Reagan made an attempt on Gaddafi. Unfortunately, it only killed his daughter and another. However, Gaddafi stopped his foolishness against the U.S. after that.

vernon

if you check youll find rwr bombed gaddafi for lockerbie.and france wouldent let our planes fly over their country which is probably why i dont fell to sorry for them now.
but after rwr bombed him he didnt do any sponsoring .and how can you call that a screw up 7 still be able to put up with this dumass we have now.

jelun

I know that you think Reagan was a god, I didn't know that he was supposed to be prescient.
The bombing you reference was to retaliate for an attack that killed a US military man and a civilian woman in Germany, a couple hundred people were injured as well.
The Lockerbie crash was in '88.
More rewrites, keep them coming.

jelun

I call it a screw up because that is what it was, Gaddafi survived. He lived to kill 270 innocents in a jet.
Of course, President Reagan lied and said that when he ordered the bombing of Gaddafi's home he didn't really intend to kill Gaddafi.
SMH

vernon

you dont understand he bombed the ceep because of lockerbe.
how can you be so concerned about 270 lives but hate the president who went in and cleaned out the people that killed 3000 people.

jelun

How can you make a claim that I hate anyone?
Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attacks on 9/11; the Lockerbie crash which happened in 1988 had nothing to do with Reagan and his merry band of law breakers bombing Gaddafi's house in 1986.