Okay, I'm Prepared To Admit It....

[loCAtek]

Hypocritical hyperbole- Reagan was never a felon.

[Miles]

We had a President who couldn't speak English for eight years. Of course, that's semi-understandable since he is from Texas.

Actually Bush was born in Conneticut.

[Joe Guy]

We had a President who couldn't speak English for eight years. Of course, that's semi-understandable since he is from Texas.

Actually Bush was born in Conneticut.

Must have been southern Connecticut where he got that southern drawl then.

[Big RR]

Hypocritical hyperbole- Reagan was never a felon.

well, I'll give you this, he was never indicted or convicted, but what would you call someone who conspired to violate the duly enacted laws of the US and provide weapons to parties in violation of the laws? Or conspiring to establish a slush fund using profits of illegal activities, like arms sales, so this could be perpetuated in the future by an executive who seeks to act with no Congressional interference? Or any of the other things (which he just "couldn't remember") which were part and parcel of Iran Contra? Reagan had two things going for him--he was far more popular than Nixon ever was, and the country was still reeling from Watergate and tired of hearing about government corruption, so he got away with it. But Iran Contra was, IMHO, one of the most serious challenges to our system of government ever perpetuated by a nationally elected official, far more serious than Clinton's perjury/BJ or Nixon's actions in violation of the law (and I have never taken any of those actions lightly--except maybe for the BJ (but not the perjury)). You can choose your own label for Reagan to replace "felon"; I agree it doesn't go far enough to connote th horrible things this man did as president.

[dgs49]

BRR, Reagan had one other thing "going for him" in the Iran Contra mess: Most Americans generally thought what was done was OK. Congress tried to cut off funds to the "Freedom Fighters," and some Jarhead in the basement of the Whitehouse figured out a way to get them some money - and it didn't cost the taxpayers a dime. Pretty cool, all things considered. And of course, the people who think Reagan knew or masterminded the whole thing ALSO say he was too senile to govern. Take your pick, you can't have both.

[Big RR]

Well DGS, laws are not enforced acording to the whims of the general public, nor should they be. And IMHO a president should not disregard the law ever; especially when a president takes it upon himself to subvert the will of Congress directly--the very foundation of our government expects all those who are empowered to gevern must respect the law and the authority of the other branches. A lot of people ddn't care that Clinton lied under oath either, but that didn't make it right (and although I don't think the offense warranted impeachment, I dodn't condemn the actions of Congress in that regard). And as for whether most Americans thought it was "OK", I've never seen compelling evidence of that; I think most people were just sick and tired of scandal.

Was Reagan to senile to govern? I don't think so, although I do think he declined in the last year or so; but his defense of "I don't remember" kind of gave that impression. So what was it, did he lie, or could he really not remember?

[Lord Jim]

You can choose your own label for Reagan to replace "felon"

Fine, in that case I'll go with "statesman".....

[Big RR]

Why tarnish such a fine word by connecting it with illegal actions? Was Nixon a stateman as well? Clinton?

[tyro]

what would you call someone who conspired to violate the duly enacted laws of the US and provide weapons to parties in violation of the laws? Or conspiring to establish a slush fund using profits of illegal activities, like arms sales, so this could be perpetuated in the future by an executive who seeks to act with no Congressional interference? Or any of the other things (which he just "couldn't remember") which were part and parcel of Iran Contra?

That has the clear markings of some sort of president of the United States Free World.

Clearly a Republican because they are the ones who think you can make shit sweeter by making more.

[loCAtek]

Yes BigRR, of course you may make hyperbole too.

[loCAtek]

Be afraid, be very afraid

[dgs49]

Just curious BRR: do you honestly think that North & Poindexter briefed the WH about what they were doing? This is not even imaginable. They were knowingly breaking the law (end justified the means sort of thing), trying to support the President. Why would they place POTUS in the line of fire, jeopardize their operation, and expose themselves to possible criminal prosecution? By the time Ronaldus Maximus was briefed it was many months after the fact, and only to the extent necessary to keep him from getting totally blindsided.

Good God.

[Scooter]

So, like Nixon, he learned after the fact that the law had been broken, and rather than have the lawbreakers prosecuted, he conspired to shield them by participating in a coverup.

Thanks Dave, very few Republican supporters are willing to admit that.

[Andrew D]

And of course, the people who think Reagan knew or masterminded the whole thing ALSO say he was too senile to govern. Take your pick, you can't have both.

Notice the duplicity -- as if "knew" and "masterminded" were the same thing. They are not.

The notion that Reagan "masterminded" the crimes that were at the core of the Iran-Contra conspiracy -- that he "plan[ned] and direct[ed that] complex scheme" (Compact Oxford English Dictionary (3e ed. (rev.) 2008) at 627) -- is absurd: Even before becoming senile (and no serious person genuinely doubts that at least by the time he was halfway through his second term, he was senile), he never possessed the intellectual wherewithal to plan and direct such a complex scheme to subvert the Constitution.

But that does not mean that he did not know about it. Vito Corleone did not know all the details of how Peter Clemenza and Salvatore Tessio did what they were doing, but he knew what they were doing.

The analogy is entirely apt. Reagan was running a criminal enterprise, just as Corleone was. He let Poindexter and North (and the many, many others complicit in the crimes) operate things as they thought best, just as Corleone let Clemenza and Tessio operate things as they thought best. But in the end, Reagan was running the show, despite his inability to grasp all the details of how the show was being run; just as Corleone was running the family, despite his inability (toward the end of his life) to grasp all the details of how the family was being run.

Reagan was up to his eyeballs in the fundamentally anti-American criminal conspiracy that was Iran-Contra. That does not mean that he was micromanaging the details. It means simply that he knew its purpose -- to circumvent the very laws which he had sworn before God and everyone to "take Care that ... [they] be faithfully executed" (U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 3).

And even if one takes the view -- a view supported not by the evidence but by the ritual genuflecting of the Reaganolaters -- that Reagan was sublimely ignorant of what his henchmen were doing when they were doing it, there is still the matter of his having been up to his eyeballs in the attempt to cover it all up.

There really isn't any serious dispute about either Reagan's involvement in the conspiracy or his involvement in the subsequent cover-up. Even Lawrence Walsh's fawning account of the events -- just imagine how the Final Report would have read if Kenneth Torquemada Starr had been the one putting it together -- acknowledged the essential facts. (See Lawrence E. Walsh, Iran-Contra: The Final Report (Times Books (1994) ("This edition ... reproduces Volume One of the Office of Independent Counsel document in its entirety. Not one word has been omitted.").) Hereafter, the Final Report is cited as IC:TFR.

Just like Vito Corleone, "Reagan was apparently unconcerned as to the details of how his policy objectives for contra support were being carried out by subordinates who were operating virtually free from oversight or accountability." (IC:TFR at p. 446.) Corleone didn't care about the details of how Clemenza and Tessio (and all the others) were carrying out his objectives; Reagan didn't care about the details of how Poindexter, North, and McFarlane (and all the others) were carrying out his objectives.

Reagan allegedly "told [McFarlane and Poindexter] to stay within the law, including the Boland Amendment restrictions on U.S. aid to the contras." (Ibid.) But he also "made it clear to [them] that he wanted to keep the contra resistance alive 'body and soul.'" (Ibid..)

Right. "I don't want you to violate any laws," Vito said, wheezing, "but I need for you to make this happen."

Some people like to claim that the Iran-Contra conspiracy (which Reagan was up to his eyeballs in, even assuming that he did not know all about its operation details) was not illegal, because the money that went to the contras did not come from the U.S. Treasury. They are wrong. And everyone who has ever looked at the relevant statutory language -- not that one would expect Reaganolaters to concern themselves with such trivia as what the law actually is -- has seen that the origin of the money is of no legal significance.

The statute at issue has this language:

... no funds available to ... any ... agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities may be obligated or expended for the purpose or which would have the effect of supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua....

(Emphasis added.)

dgs49 dishonestly describes the facts like this:

Congress tried to cut off funds to the "Freedom Fighters," and some Jarhead in the basement of the Whitehouse figured out a way to get them some money - and it didn't cost the taxpayers a dime. Pretty cool, all things considered.

The truth of the matter, however, is that the governing law did not merely prohibit the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund the contras. It prohibited supporting the contras with any funds "available" to the pertinent U.S. agencies.

And Reagan deliberately violated that law. "Reagan was aware of and even encouraged some aspects of external funding for the contras, such as solicitation of aid from third countries and contributions from private benefactors." (IR:TFR at p. 446.)

That's all it takes. When the law prohibits the use of any funds available to government agencies to be used for a particular purpose, and when a President is "aware of and even encourage" the use of such funds for that purpose, the President is up to his eyeballs in a conspiracy to subvert the Constitution.

There have been many protestations to the contrary, here and elsewhere. And they are nothing more than that: vacuous protestations whose fundamental problem is their total lack of support in the facts.

So when you encounter them, the best thing to do is keep hammering on the facts. The law prohibited the use of any funds, no matter where they came from, to support the contras. Reagan's underlings were using funds to support the contras. Reagan knew that funds were being used by his underlings to support the contras.

Wham, bam, thank you, ma'am.

The facts are what they are. The Reaganolaters wish that the facts were otherwise -- and all of their arguments depend on the facts' being otherwise -- but even after all of their huffing and puffing, the facts will still be what they are. Reagan was up to his eyeballs in a conspiracy to subvert the Constitution.

[loCAtek]

Yet, more hyperbole and speculation does not make him a felon.

[Andrew D]

What part of this:

The truth of the matter, however, is that the governing law did not merely prohibit the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund the contras. It prohibited supporting the contras with any funds "available" to the pertinent U.S. agencies.

And Reagan deliberately violated that law. "Reagan was aware of and even encouraged some aspects of external funding for the contras, such as solicitation of aid from third countries and contributions from private benefactors." (IR:TFR at p. 446.)

That's all it takes. When the law prohibits the use of any funds available to government agencies to be used for a particular purpose, and when a President is "aware of and even encourage" the use of such funds for that purpose, the President is up to his eyeballs in a conspiracy to subvert the Constitution.

is beyond your meager capacities?

[loCAtek]

Again, showing your ignorance of criminal law. No matter how strongly any individual is suspected of committing a felony; they are merely a suspect, until convicted of the charges in court. I shouldn't have to explain 'convicted felon', as that would be redundant. You could just try looking at a dictionary; there you'd find felons can't hold public office.


ETA: In a public meeting, a person falsely accusing his rival of serving a prison term for a felony amounts to slander, NYT

[Andrew D]

Do you specialize in stupidity? Or is it only a sideline?

My "ignorance of criminal law" is such that I know more about it than you could possibly learn in a hundred-billion lifetimes of (failed) attempts to study it.

You don't know a damn thing about criminal law. You don't know a damn thing about much of anything. (Except maybe welding; I make no claim to know anything about welding, so I leave your claims to be evaluated by people with the relevant expertise.)

But I do know something about what words mean, both in the rarified (look it up) circles of the law and in the ordinary circles in which most of us usually operate. (You don't; you live in a Humpty-Dumpty world where words, especially your own, mean whatever you say that they mean. And what you say today often bears no coherent relationship to what you say tomorrow.)

I know that this will be hard for you, because it requires thinking, but please at least try.

A "felon" is "a person who has committed a felony." (Compact Oxford English Dictionary at 366; accord, e.g., Webster's New International Dictionary (2d ed. unabridged) at 931 (identical).)

Are you finally starting to get it?

I realize that it's a stretch for you, but are you finally starting to get it?

Anyone who has committed a felony is a felon.

Is that too much for you?

A person who has committed a felony and has been convicted of that crime is a convicted felon.

With me so far?

A person who has committed a felony but has not been convicted of that crime is not a convicted felon.

Getting it now? Finally?

A felon is a person who has committed a felony. A convicted felon is a person who has been convicted of committing a felony. A person who has committed a felony but has not been convicted of committing a felony is a felon.

Are you still getting it?

I doubt it.

[loCAtek]

Not from you, you're having a control freak moment (week?), very disappointing.
I, on the other hand follow the letter of the law, which says one must be convicted to be called a felon. To do otherwise is libel, but I'll grant you hyperbole in your case.

[Guinevere]

So Loca, I bet you refer to OJ as a murderer. Then what's the difference - merely your partisan blindness?