January 24, 2012, 07:53 PM | #1876 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 25, 2008
Posts: 305
|
Look for Obama to pull a "left hand" pre-emptive pardon. What I mean is a pardon to all involved based on the excuse of "possible extradition and prosecution by the Mexican government over a policy thought to be in the best interests of the US government". That won't absolve them of any court rulings in Mexico, but it will virtually render moot any extradition and totally exonerates them in the US. Then it is up to Mexico to determine if they wish to escalate this in the World Court as an act of war....which they won't. The US however can be directed to pay financial reparations.
However, a President cannot pardon himself. Last edited by DWFan; January 24, 2012 at 08:01 PM. |
January 24, 2012, 09:04 PM | #1877 |
Member
Join Date: February 10, 2011
Location: North Georgia & Fl.
Posts: 44
|
Just a few thoughts, before supper.
You can only get a pardon for a conviction. Law is a bluff. If I tell you something and you obey, I won the bluff. I gave a pardon to someone, you accepted it. It is over. Think about Ford. As stated Congress can issue immunity for testimony only to them. Your fair game to everyone else, if they want you. Federal Judges have more power than the President to inforce their rulings. Newt wants to arrest them: that will never happen. As far a RICO, I have no problem understanding how all this started and will give it later. Good night!
__________________
Assume nothing. |
January 24, 2012, 10:19 PM | #1878 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,704
|
Quote:
|
|
January 24, 2012, 11:37 PM | #1879 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
From Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon:
Quote:
There is also nothing in the Constitution that would prevent a President granting a pardon to himself, although it would certainly seem tacky. Last edited by gc70; January 24, 2012 at 11:46 PM. |
|
January 25, 2012, 09:08 AM | #1880 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
^ It would seem though that President Obama could issue one of these for Patrick Cunningham, Lanny Breuer, William Newell, Dennis Burke, Eric Holder and others.
I still would like to see it made necesary for propriety's sake. |
January 25, 2012, 09:59 AM | #1881 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
GC70, I agree that, indeed, testimony can be compelled from a witness under the statutes under use/derivative use immunity. However,i in none of the cases cited was the DoJ/IC in active opposition to the grant. In fact, if I am not mistaken, it is the Justice Department's own attorneys which draft and execute the documents. So, hypothetically, what happens if the DoJ refuses to play along? Do we have another Marbury v. Madison where an agency's ministerial vs. discretionary acts must be elucidated and the ministerial act (as understood by the court) compelled?
One other complicating factor also comes to mind. No federal actor has the authority to grant any sort of immunity, use or otherwise, for testimony given which might self-incriminate on a state crime. A grant of immunity might thus be required from the various states attorneys. I see this being litigated furiously on multiple fronts, all with the primary goal of delaying all proceedings by every means available. Does anyone here REALLY think Cunningham is anxious to roll over on Breuer and/or Holder and the only thing holding him back is fear of prosecution by his current employer (DOJ)? Didn't think so. |
January 25, 2012, 10:33 AM | #1882 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
It does not matter whether it is state-to-federal or federal-to-state, the same Fifth Amendment protection is applied in use and derivative use immunity, regardless of the source of the immunity. (Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n - 378 U.S. 52 (1964)).
At any rate, I would imagine that Obama might not want to create a full-blown constitutional crisis and loose the support of his party in Congress. History has shown that members of Congress support the power and authority of their branch of government when challenged by the executive branch. ------------------------- I want to hear Cunningham testify! Last edited by gc70; January 25, 2012 at 10:41 AM. |
January 26, 2012, 12:26 AM | #1883 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
|
Alloy post 1845. I don't know about "compelled" but I do know of two Phonix Gun shops who reported Straw purchase attempts while the buyers were in their stores.
They were directed by the ATF to sell the guns to the individuals. They asked for faxed authorizations. One MAY have recieved authority he did not give me a straight answer but he seemed to be holding out. Neither made the sale. They both indicated that they had provided the personal information of the purchasers to the ATF. With regard to Congress compelling to testify. No one has mentioned G. Gordon Liddy. As I recall Liddy refused to be sworn. He served time but not from his testimony to Congress. His stay in the Federal Penal System is legendary. He was allowed to prosecute a Prison Warden and won a conviction for corruption. Does anyone know what happened when he refused to be sworn. This could be germain to the discussion. Last edited by ltc444; January 26, 2012 at 12:37 AM. Reason: add additional comments |
January 26, 2012, 06:50 AM | #1884 |
Member
Join Date: December 23, 2007
Location: Central South Carolina
Posts: 89
|
Now I'm curious. What would happen when you are being sworn in and when they say ".....and nothing but the truth, so help you God"... and you say No?
I know they wouldn't put you on the witness stand, but what would be the next step? If you are the accused you can plead the 5th. Even as a witness you can take the 5th. But what if you simply don't promise not to lie? Rick
__________________
NRA Training Counselor NRA Advanced Pistol Instructor NRA RTBAV Regional Counselor Member IALEFI, SCLEOA |
January 26, 2012, 04:19 PM | #1885 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
Quote:
the oath has no honor. Look at Congress, they all swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. If they all did as they promised, how far apart could they be? On the other hand, it's against the law to lie to the FBI, why not the same thing for lying to Congress?
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons Last edited by pnac; January 26, 2012 at 04:24 PM. Reason: Added comment. |
|
January 26, 2012, 04:34 PM | #1886 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
It is against the law to lie to Congress.
Look at the baseball steroids scandal. Some of the players have put themselves in legal jeopardy via perjury to Congress. |
January 26, 2012, 04:42 PM | #1887 |
Member
Join Date: December 23, 2007
Location: Central South Carolina
Posts: 89
|
I mean what happens (what's the next step) if you don't swear to tell the truth? Not that "I will lie", but I won't swear not to.
Rick
__________________
NRA Training Counselor NRA Advanced Pistol Instructor NRA RTBAV Regional Counselor Member IALEFI, SCLEOA |
January 26, 2012, 04:49 PM | #1888 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
Quote:
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons Last edited by pnac; January 26, 2012 at 05:02 PM. Reason: edited for clarity |
|
January 26, 2012, 05:00 PM | #1889 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
Quote:
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
|
January 26, 2012, 07:40 PM | #1890 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Can't have a prosecution without a prosecutor...
|
January 27, 2012, 08:26 AM | #1891 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
Quote:
I guess what I'm asking, is what I'm seeing on the tube just a national election media show, or is AZ proper and Arizonians really hot under the collar about this?
__________________
Quote:
|
||
January 27, 2012, 04:04 PM | #1892 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
Issa calls for Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Morrissey - next in line to Cunningham
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...about-fast-an/
Of course he is asking / demanding DOJ make Morrissey available. What DOJ does next will be interesting. It's like a game of chess... |
January 28, 2012, 09:47 PM | #1893 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
Monty Wilkinson e-mail seems to indicate that he alerted AG on Dec 15
Didn't Eric Holder testify before congress that the first he'd ever heard of "Fast & Furious" was just a fews weeks (or months) before appearing before congress?
And didn't he testify that he'd first been made aware of it by the media ? http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...ble-for-holder |
January 28, 2012, 10:03 PM | #1894 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
January 29, 2012, 10:47 AM | #1895 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
|
|
January 29, 2012, 09:31 PM | #1896 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
If RICO laws fit then every agent and supervisor all the way up who did not stop this illegal activity needs to be prosecuted... those that complained and tried to complain should get a pass those who acted to ignore the obvious need some serious prision time including the executive ultimately responsible at the top.
__________________
Molon Labe |
January 30, 2012, 02:44 PM | #1897 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Hmmm, apparently Dennis Burke, the supervisor of Cunningham, Morrisey, and Hurley and the only person in the whole scandal to actually go off the government payroll as a result of this, was also a driving force in drafting the legislation for the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Source: http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-new...i-gun-history/
Hmmm, what do you think the odds of that coincidence are? And by the way, NPR has a link to the emails: http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2012/01/DOJdocs.pdf In it Monty Wilkinson states he is briefing the AG and tells Dennis Burke "Please provide any additional details as they become available to you." Burke received an email later that afternoon informing him that two of the guns recovered at the murder scene were related to Fast and Furious. So we know Burke knows about Fast and Furious, we know Wilkinson told him to provide any additional information, and we know Wilkinson is briefing the AG. Sounds like AG Holder is really going to enjoy his next round of testimony in front of Congress. |
January 30, 2012, 03:00 PM | #1898 | |||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|||
January 30, 2012, 03:52 PM | #1899 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
Just a minor point but Monty Wilkenson said:
Quote:
I'm sure they're going to ask Holder about this. I think Holder is so focused now on just avoiding a perjury charge that he'll say something stupid like "I can't recall", or maybe it was one of those e-mails or memos that he never happened to read. |
|
January 30, 2012, 04:30 PM | #1900 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Exactly who is it would bring a perjury charge? By what prosecutorial body and in which court?
|
Tags |
atf , fast and furious |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|