Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why was Reagan not impeached for Iran Contra? [View all]Solly Mack
(90,758 posts)48. Some links to read
Political Oversight and the Rule of Law Walsh Report. Walsh was the special prosecutor for Iran-Contra.
About Congress - look up Dick Cheney's and Lee Hamilton's role.
Congressional action that precludes prosecution -- or, as in Iran/contra, that makes it impossible to sustain a successful prosecution -- imposes costs on society that far transcend the failure to convict a few lawbreakers. There is significant inequity when (again as in Iran/contra) the more peripheral players are convicted while the central figures in the criminal enterprise escape punishment. And perhaps more fundamentally, the failure to punish governmental lawbreakers feeds the perception that public officials are not wholly accountable for their actions. It also may lead the public to believe that no real wrongdoing took place. That is a danger in the Iran/contra affair, where Oliver North hailed the ultimate dismissal of the prosecution against him as a personal vindication. While it was, of course, nothing of the sort -- North was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of serious criminal offenses, and the court of appeals' decision setting aside his conviction cast no doubt on his factual guilt -- the risk of public confusion on the point is substantial.
Concluding Observations from Walsh
The underlying facts of Iran/contra are that, regardless of criminality, President Reagan, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, and the director of central intelligence and their necessary assistants committed themselves, however reluctantly, to two programs contrary to congressional policy and contrary to national policy. They skirted the law, some of them broke the law, and almost all of them tried to cover up the President's willful activities.
What protection do the people of the United States have against such a concerted action by such powerful officers? The Constitution provides for congressional oversight and congressional control of appropriations, but if false information is given to Congress, these checks and balances are of lessened value. Further, in the give and take of the political community, congressional oversight is often overtaken and subordinated by the need to keep Government functioning, by the need to anticipate the future, and by the ever-present requirement of maintaining consensus among the elected officials who are the Government.
The disrespect for Congress by a popular and powerful President and his appointees was obscured when Congress accepted the tendered concept of a runaway conspiracy of subordinate officers and avoided the unpleasant confrontation with a powerful President and his Cabinet. In haste to display and conclude its investigation of this unwelcome issue, Congress destroyed the most effective lines of inquiry by giving immunity to Oliver L. North and John M. Poindexter so that they could exculpate and eliminate the need for the testimony of President Reagan and Vice President Bush.
Immunity is ordinarily given by a prosecutor to a witness who will incriminate someone more important than himself. Congress gave immunity to North and Poindexter, who incriminated only themselves and who largely exculpated those responsible for the initiation, supervision and support of their activities. This delayed and infinitely complicated the effort to prosecute North and Poindexter, and it largely destroyed the likelihood that their prompt conviction and appropriate sentence would induce meaningful cooperation.
The underlying facts of Iran/contra are that, regardless of criminality, President Reagan, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, and the director of central intelligence and their necessary assistants committed themselves, however reluctantly, to two programs contrary to congressional policy and contrary to national policy. They skirted the law, some of them broke the law, and almost all of them tried to cover up the President's willful activities.
What protection do the people of the United States have against such a concerted action by such powerful officers? The Constitution provides for congressional oversight and congressional control of appropriations, but if false information is given to Congress, these checks and balances are of lessened value. Further, in the give and take of the political community, congressional oversight is often overtaken and subordinated by the need to keep Government functioning, by the need to anticipate the future, and by the ever-present requirement of maintaining consensus among the elected officials who are the Government.
The disrespect for Congress by a popular and powerful President and his appointees was obscured when Congress accepted the tendered concept of a runaway conspiracy of subordinate officers and avoided the unpleasant confrontation with a powerful President and his Cabinet. In haste to display and conclude its investigation of this unwelcome issue, Congress destroyed the most effective lines of inquiry by giving immunity to Oliver L. North and John M. Poindexter so that they could exculpate and eliminate the need for the testimony of President Reagan and Vice President Bush.
Immunity is ordinarily given by a prosecutor to a witness who will incriminate someone more important than himself. Congress gave immunity to North and Poindexter, who incriminated only themselves and who largely exculpated those responsible for the initiation, supervision and support of their activities. This delayed and infinitely complicated the effort to prosecute North and Poindexter, and it largely destroyed the likelihood that their prompt conviction and appropriate sentence would induce meaningful cooperation.
About Congress - look up Dick Cheney's and Lee Hamilton's role.
1988 From the outset of the parallel Iran-contra investigations, no one doubted that the Congressional hearings involving the principal figures would make the task of the prosecutors in the criminal case more difficult, but only recently has the scope of those complications become apparent.
Early last year, the special prosecutor, Lawrence E. Walsh, tried to dissuade the lawmakers from giving the central figures any kind of immunity from prosecution. When that tack failed, he returned to the Capitol again and again to encourage the lawmakers to delay the immunity grants to give him time to build his case. Otherwise, he said, prosecutions might be impossible.
The Congressional investigative committees waited several months. But finally they voted unanimously to give a limited form of immunity to Oliver L. North, John M. Poindexter and Albert Hakim. Under the rules, the three men could be prosecuted on the basis of evidence gained independently of their testimony before the Congressional committees, but the testimony itself could not be used against them, directly or indirectly. Fears Are Realized
The three men had invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Without immunity, they could not be compelled to testify before Congress. And, without their testimony, the lawmakers believed, the hearings would be incomplete and the story of the Iran-contra affair could not be told.
Now Mr. Walsh's fears have been realized.
Early last year, the special prosecutor, Lawrence E. Walsh, tried to dissuade the lawmakers from giving the central figures any kind of immunity from prosecution. When that tack failed, he returned to the Capitol again and again to encourage the lawmakers to delay the immunity grants to give him time to build his case. Otherwise, he said, prosecutions might be impossible.
The Congressional investigative committees waited several months. But finally they voted unanimously to give a limited form of immunity to Oliver L. North, John M. Poindexter and Albert Hakim. Under the rules, the three men could be prosecuted on the basis of evidence gained independently of their testimony before the Congressional committees, but the testimony itself could not be used against them, directly or indirectly. Fears Are Realized
The three men had invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Without immunity, they could not be compelled to testify before Congress. And, without their testimony, the lawmakers believed, the hearings would be incomplete and the story of the Iran-contra affair could not be told.
Now Mr. Walsh's fears have been realized.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
111 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It is a club, and you sure as hell are not part of it. But if you wanna feel really left
Jackie Wilson Said
Mar 2016
#1
Impeached and jailed. But he wasnt because of that club you talk about, funny
Jackie Wilson Said
Mar 2016
#8
It is a club and RW Dems like Lee Hamilton are just as much a part as Reagan. Perhaps more.
leveymg
Mar 2016
#65
Because Reagan went on television and confessed to trading arms for hostages
Tony_FLADEM
Mar 2016
#2
"My heart and my best intentions still tell me that is true. But the facts and the evidence
StevieM
Mar 2016
#28
The Democrats were afraid to go after Saint Ronnie. At times Democrats can be craven.
BillZBubb
Mar 2016
#4
They knew what his mental capacity was and also knew and feared the BFEE behind the scenes.
libtodeath
Mar 2016
#6
The media was uncomfortable with it - they knew then he was showing signs of serious
blm
Mar 2016
#7
Took this nation off its path of citizen democracy and put it on the road towards full-on fascism.
blm
Mar 2016
#92
I"ve often wondered why Mena is the one part of Clinton's past that the most rabid Repubs wouldn't
Boomerproud
Mar 2016
#47
At the time, one news correspondent opined that the U. S. populace "gave him a pass."
John1956PA
Mar 2016
#15
What I understand is they questioned him about it and he didn't know anything..this was
shraby
Mar 2016
#23
Years later George W. Bush gave Poindexter a job in the War on Terror after 9/11
StevieM
Mar 2016
#34
Right. Poindexter made sure the trail (apparently) ended with him, unlike the Watergate hearings,
Mc Mike
Mar 2016
#37
Because imbeciles believed his grandpa act that he "didn't know anything about it"
tabasco
Mar 2016
#40
His grandpa act put a friendly face on the mafia that was running the country.
tabasco
Apr 2016
#109
Because William Casey, the person that authorized the weapons for hostages...
Lochloosa
Mar 2016
#49
Reagan was suffering from dementia. Bush Sr. was in all likelihood the real President.
jalan48
Mar 2016
#54
He and a lot of his cabinet used the now famous "I can't recall" defense under questioning....
Spitfire of ATJ
Mar 2016
#61
Because they knew in advance to make sure he couldn't be. No one implicated him.
L. Coyote
Mar 2016
#62
When prosecutor Walsh (a Republican) realized how advanced Reagan's alzheimer's was he decided ...
raindaddy
Mar 2016
#64
Because then, as now, the dc dems are gutless appeasers. Every republican president since Nixon
Doctor_J
Mar 2016
#66
Open and shut case for high treason (which, not sorry Repubs, Iran-Contra very much was).
HughBeaumont
Mar 2016
#85
they couldnt, everyone would have seen how far his dementia had progressed.
Viva_La_Revolution
Mar 2016
#90