On the recordMarch 2, 1994
I heard the previous speaker, and it seems to me he is following the same reasoning of an old story. He says this will not interfere with the criminal investigation that is ongoing, initiated under the Bush administration by Bush appointees, continued in that same spirit by the current appointees. He says it will not interfere because it says it will not interfere. But sometimes saying something does not accomplish it. There is a story about the old man who walked into a candy store and said, ``Make me a malted.'' And the man behind the counter said, ```Poof,' you are a malted.'' But he was not a malted. And saying this does not interfere with the investigation will not make it not interfere with the investigation. What this says here is here is how we will do an investigation, that we will say to Justice we want to investigate this. ``Can we investigate this?'' ``No. You cannot investigate that. Investigate this instead. We will make it public what we are or are not investigating.'' They say you can do it without asking some of the serious witnesses. This is a recipe for the most inconsistent, poorly conducted, hodgepodge of a semi-investigation I have ever seen. It is true that this is the procedure which brought freedom to Oliver North and John Poindexter.…
Source
govinfo.gov




