http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/245537.html Quote:
Subject: Re: John Poindexter's conviction for lying to congress during IRAN/CONTRA
Answered By: juggler-ga on 17 Aug 2003 12:22 PDT
Rated:
Hello.
John Poindexter's conviction was indeed reversed on appeal.
From CSMonitor.com:
'Poindexter, like Oliver North, who reported to him, was convicted in
federal district court of lying to Congress and of obstruction.The
conviction was overturned on technical grounds by an appeals court
majority of two Reagan-appointed judges, Douglas Ginsburg and David
Sentelle, over the vigorous dissent of Carter-appointed judge Abner
Mikva.'
source: Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1129/p11s01-coop.html From the Iran-Contra report of Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh:
'The Appeal
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit in a 2-1 decision on November 15, 1991, reversed
Poindexter's convictions on the grounds that his trial was
impermissibly tainted by his immunized congressional testimony. The
Poindexter ruling was based on the appeals court decision in the North
case, which extended the protections of the use immunity statute to
prohibit use of any witness whose testimony has been refreshed or
shaped in any way by the defendant's immunized testimony. In his
dissenting opinion, Chief Judge Abner Mikva noted that the majority
ruling "tells future defendants that all they need to evade
responsibility
is a well timed case of amnesia."
...
U.S. v. Poindexter, 951 F.2d 369, 390 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
The Poindexter appeals panel also overturned the two obstruction
convictions on the grounds that the statute was ``unconstitutionally
vague'' in its proscription of ``corruptly'' endeavoring to impede a
congressional inquiry. The appeals panel ruled that a defendant's
lying to Congress does not constitute obstruction unless the defendant
corruptly influences someone else to do so. Again, Chief Judge Mikva
dissented, finding it "obvious . . . that Poindexter 'corruptly'
obstructed the congressional investigation when he lied to Congress."'
sources: "Chapter 3: United States v. John M. Poindexter,"
Excerpted from FINAL REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR IRAN/CONTRA
MATTERS (1993) by Lawrence E. Walsh, Independent Counsel, hosted by
Missouri.edu
http://foi.missouri.edu/journalismres/irancontrachpt3.html
Complete text also available from Federation of American Scientists:
http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/
------
As indicated in the preceding article, the citation for the appellate
court reversal of Poindexter's conviction is 951 F.2d 369 (D.C. Cir.
1991). If you'd like to obtain the complete text of the decision, it's
available from Lexis-Nexis for $9.
Here are instructions on how to do that:
(1) Go to:
http://web.lexis.com/xchange/forms/uas/casepull.asp
(2) In the "Enter Citation:" box, type: 951 F.2d 369
(3) Press the "search button"
(4) Register your credit card details when prompted
(5) You'll be given the opportunity to purchase the complete text of:
"United States v. Poindexter, No. 90-3125, UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, 292 U.S. App. D.C. 389;
951 F.2d 369; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 26824, February 28, 1991, Argued,
November 15, 1991, Decided
OVERVIEW: Defendant's conviction could not stand because the
Independent Counsel could not demonstrate that defendant's compelled
immunized testimony was not used against him at his trial in violation
of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution."
Source: Lexis-Nexis
http://web.lexis.com/xchange/forms/uas/casepull.asp
Last best chance for pardons today:
- It's the 18th already?!
- Sunday for that faux-Christian feel.
- We already saw a case a couple of weeks ago where the pardon was reversed in the small window before the paperwork was done. Said window has arrived.
My point with Poindexter was, he was the point-Poindex in the Iran-Contra coverup. In televised testimony he gave himself up as the responsible party - the mastermind! - for a huge complex of crimes that he could not have executed without cover from above. He had received immunity, but only in exchange for truthful testimony. He lied during the testimony and was accordingly convicted of lying during the testimony. Years later, with no need of a presidential pardon, even that minor conviction was overturned on a technicality so absurdly invalid that it screams crony judge: Immunity doesn't cover future offenses!
Poindex then enriched himself during his years in the private sector and rather incredibly picked up a reputation as a computer genius without compare, and this in his 70s. When Bush Jr. came in, Poindex was made head of the most evil possible Pentagon program, Total Information Awareness, which was given the fattest possible FUCK-YOU logo, and he was defended vigorously for years until he really went over the PR line with the "terror futures" idea.
Poindex's delayed but lavish rewards for loyalty to a criminal enterprise send a clear message to all future Poindexes. Whether all such cases can be handled in the same way in the future is irrelevant; the criminals know that state crime in the United States almost always comes with no penalty and massive reward, so the Bush regime principals can go forward with enormous confidence. No pardons are needed.
Bush Sr. in his final days in office and for lesser crimes faced a fairly lame set of ongoing criminal investigations (given the scale of the crimes). These still might have brought him down, if he hadn't issued pardons. Bush Jr. faces nothing of the sort prior to leaving office. Though far worse crimes were committed under his regime, the most dangerous thing he could do is provide an implicit acknowledgment. The national and global crises (used as the excuse not to pursue investigations) are genuine, enormous and unprecedented; the power and position and even the "consensus" reputation (incompetent but not with malice) of the Bush-centered cabal remain unchallenged; the certainty that they will stop at nothing to protect themselves is well established to all who can see.
None of which should say they're invulnerable. Buried truths will rise again, I see potentials for a fall. But they won't see any need for pardons today.
.
So many of them - so many crimes! Does not each pardon put other perpetrators at risk? Thus I now think they will go with the dare-you-to-try strategy.
When trouble comes, they'll fight every inch, flout subpoenas and issue public manifestoes, in full expectation they will prevail. They'll appeal to -- they'll challenge -- Obama directly to stand behind his forward-looking unity rhetoric.
They'll raise hell, issue covert and veiled threats, arrange for small-plane accidents, try to make government impossible if they aren't left alone. They'll claim victimhood and ride it to the max. (Perhaps they can take inspiration in Hitler's brief prison stint and subsequent comeback.)
Two things have the potential to change that: Exposure of 9/11 as a covert operation, which would redefine everything; and the economic meltdown becoming so severe and remaining obviously attributable to class warfare that the masses actually come together and howl for just the right heads.
.
My feeling today, and it was different last week and may change again tomorrow, is that the Bush regime stalwarts are secure enough in their power -- which after all is based in vast wealth and strong positions within many institutions, private, public and covert -- and arrogant enough to view too many pardons as going back on their doctrine that they can do whatever the fuck they please, tantamount to admitting crimes and confessing guilt.
.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
