The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 19, 2012, 05:02 PM   #1826
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,306
According to AWR Hawkins (Breitbarts BigGovernment.com), Issa has issued a subpoena to Patrick J. Cunningham, Chief of the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 20, 2012, 07:25 AM   #1827
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,985
And esquire Cunningham has declined Issa's kind offer to speak to the committee: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...ns-on-furious/
csmsss is offline  
Old January 20, 2012, 09:32 AM   #1828
ltc444
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...ns-on-furious/, is reporting that Patrick Cunningham will take th 5th admendment when he appears before the committe.

The aritcles last paragraph is as follows:

"This schism is the first big break in what has been a unified front in the government’s defense of itself in the gun-running scandal. Cunningham claims he is a victim of a conflict between two branches of government and will not be compelled to be a witnesses against himself, and make a statement that could be later used by a grand jury or special prosecutor to indict him on criminal charges"

Apparantly, Cunningham is refusing to play the scapegoat for Holder and other DOJ managers.

Hopefully, an immunity deal is being negotiated and the truth will be out.
ltc444 is offline  
Old January 20, 2012, 09:34 AM   #1829
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,645
So wait a second here, DOJ blamed Cunningham for the false information in the letter to Congress he was forced to retract; but he is still a U.S. Attorney? Wow, that Eric Holder is a real softy. First, he doesn't fire Lanny Breuer for not telling him about previous gunwalking Breuer knew about and not even thinking to mention it despite several Congressional hearings on the matter. Now he says that Patrick Cunningham lying to him is the only reason he lied to Congress; but Patrick still has a job as well.

So, AG Holder's defense is essentially - all of my underlings are incompetent and/or dishonest; and all of them still work for me.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old January 20, 2012, 09:47 AM   #1830
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
. . . .So, AG Holder's defense is essentially - all of my underlings are incompetent and/or dishonest; and all of them still work for me.
Just a wee bit puzzling, isn't it?
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old January 20, 2012, 10:04 AM   #1831
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,985
Y'all are missing the forest for the trees. Issa can't offer Cunningham immunity. Only the DoJ can. And, if asked, they will claim that he is the subject of an ongoing federal investigation and will deny even use immunity. Meanwhile, their "investigation" will continue to stonewall Issa. Wash, rinse repeat through Nov. 2012.
csmsss is offline  
Old January 20, 2012, 01:07 PM   #1832
Uncle Buck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,559
http://floydreports.com/will-republi...y-with-murder/

The Inspector Generals Report may have already been concluded. Can't wait to see if it is made public and what it has to say.

I am pretty sure it will mildly rebuke a few higher ups for not knowing what their underlings have been doing.
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.
Uncle Buck is offline  
Old January 20, 2012, 01:29 PM   #1833
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Despite the fact that Cunningham was made the fall guy, and assuming that the main thrust of F&F was really just to build up evidence to call for strickter gun laws... isn't Cunningham ideologically alligned with Obama and Holder on this issue? I mean wasn't he one of the main architects of this F&F?

Last edited by C0untZer0; January 20, 2012 at 01:37 PM.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old January 20, 2012, 02:56 PM   #1834
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,306
To top it off, Cunningham will be resigning, it is rumored, effective Jan. 27th.

Read it here and here.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 20, 2012, 05:38 PM   #1835
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,738
Get the feeling we're building up to something big...could be wrong, been wrong a lot - just ask my wife.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old January 20, 2012, 05:56 PM   #1836
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,229
Quote:
Romero claims Cunningham did nothing wrong and acted in good faith, but the Department of Justice in Washington is making him the fall guy, claiming he failed to accurately provide the Oversight Committee with information on the execution of Fast and Furious.

"To avoid needless preparation by the Committee and its staff for a deposition next week, I am writing to advise you that my client is going to assert his constitutional privilege not to be compelled to be a witness against himself." Romero told Issa.
Hmmm ...

"I have done nothing wrong, therefore I decline to testify on the grounds that any answer I give may tend to incriminate me."

How does that work, Mr. Cunningham? If you did nothing wrong, then no answer you give could possibly incriminate you.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 20, 2012, 11:18 PM   #1837
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by csmss
Issa can't offer Cunningham immunity. Only the DoJ can.
A congressional committee or subcommittee can grant immunity.

Quote:
18 USC 6002 - Immunity generally

Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information in a proceeding before or ancillary to—

(1) a court or grand jury of the United States,
(2) an agency of the United States, or
(3) either House of Congress, a joint committee of the two Houses, or a committee or a subcommittee of either House,

and the person presiding over the proceeding communicates to the witness an order issued under this title, the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.
18 USC 6005 provides the mechanism for proceedings by Congress.

All DOJ gets is 10-day advance notice of the order and the potential to delay an order up to 20 days (for example, to bring charges from pending investigations before they would be forestalled by the grant of immunity).

Last edited by gc70; January 20, 2012 at 11:24 PM.
gc70 is offline  
Old January 21, 2012, 07:44 AM   #1838
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,985
gc, that law in my opinion is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. AFAIK it has never been tested in court because we've never had an executive branch so flagrantly flout congressional investigation - but this particular set of circumstances may very well put that statute front and center in SCOTUS. And, I'm pretty sure DOJ will prevail should this be litigated.
csmsss is offline  
Old January 21, 2012, 09:44 AM   #1839
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
csmsss, I think in order for your surmise to work, the President would have to invoke executive privilege - which in this case might be construed as a tacit admission of sorts. I am not sure that would happen.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 21, 2012, 09:45 AM   #1840
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by csmsss
AFAIK it has never been tested in court because we've never had an executive branch so flagrantly flout congressional investigation
Yes, Congressional immunity from prosecution has been tested in court. A good example is when key figures in Iran-Contra contested the implications of Oliver North's immunized testimony and North tested the Special Prosecutor's use of information developed before his testimony to bring North to trial.
gc70 is offline  
Old January 21, 2012, 10:09 AM   #1841
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,132
Quote:
csmsss, I think in order for your surmise to work, the President would have to invoke executive privilege - which in this case might be construed as a tacit admission of sorts. I am not sure that would happen.
If the President himself invoked the "executive privilege", the DOJ would probably prevail in the Supreme Court. And that might finally provoke the Congress enough to impeach the rascals.
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old January 21, 2012, 02:48 PM   #1842
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,484
Yep, the primary reason Col. North escaped conviction was that the Special Prosecutor could not show evidence his office developed was free from any "taint" from Col. North's immunized testimony in front of Congress.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is online now  
Old January 21, 2012, 03:50 PM   #1843
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Ted Nugent say "Fast and Furious stinks"

That about sums it up,

Given Ted's exhaustive treatment of the subject, I think we can close this thread now.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...urious-stinks/
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old January 22, 2012, 12:20 AM   #1844
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
Arizona strikes back: State investigates feds ...

AZ starts investigation into F&F. Once again the states must do what the Feds refuse to do.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...es-feds-over-/
__________________
In my hour of darkness
In my time of need
Oh Lord grant me vision
Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons
pnac is offline  
Old January 22, 2012, 07:47 PM   #1845
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
This may be a technicality, but technically - doesn't Cunningham actually have to show up and say each time to each question "I refuse to answer that question based on the grounds that it may incriminate me" or something to that effect?

I hope so - it makes good theater.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old January 22, 2012, 11:08 PM   #1846
alan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,739
PNAC in post # 1842 mentioned, providing a link, that the Arizona legislature investigating Operation Fast & Furious, the idea is rather interesting, given that the federal legislature, otherwise known as the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate do not, with a couple of exceptions, appear particularly interested.

This having been said, I tend to wonder as to how far such investigation will be allowed to go. Remember folks, the large amounts of monies that go to the states are controlled by federal agencies, and appointed by the president, bureaucrats.

Remember also the publically taken positions of the management of the BATFE, the DOJ and the guy who currently resides in The White House, otherwise known as the president.
alan is offline  
Old January 23, 2012, 06:15 PM   #1847
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Were the AZ gun stores compelled to make these straw purchase sales under the threat of FFL license revocation?
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old January 23, 2012, 06:52 PM   #1848
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,738
That's the thing that the AZ Congressional investigation is looking at as reported by ABC15.com.

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/local_...ious-committee

Quote:
...we’re concerned with primarily the gun (store) owners who were forced to enter into this Fast and Furious situation. They were forced to sell guns when they didn’t want to and threatened to have their licenses taken away from them. We’re going to start there,” he said.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old January 23, 2012, 08:04 PM   #1849
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,087
Quote:
Were the AZ gun stores compelled to make these straw purchase sales under the threat of FFL license revocation?
It's unclear at this point. Andre Howard (from Lone Wolf) claims to have kept records of his conversations with the ATF and a representative from the US Attorney's office, so we'll see if he makes those public.

Awhile ago in this thread, I mentioned that I'd been informally asked by an ATF agent to do the same thing in case of a straw purchse: let it go through and then call them. I'm on good terms with them, and I wanted to keep it that way, so I said I'd consider it and left it at that.

I'm not going to comply with that request, however, because it is breaking the law on my part. I somehow suspect that he'd "forget" our little conversation if I did comply and the heat came down.

Now, were these dealers under pressure? Perhaps. "Well Bill, it's already been a year since we last audited your records. You know, we can make these things drag on for weeks if we want. Whaddaya say we go easy on you if you help us?" A dealer could be influenced in that manner, but that's just speculation.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 23, 2012, 09:13 PM   #1850
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
If the dealers were pressured and given no choice except to comply it could mean that Fast & Felonious would fall under RICO organized crime laws.

I am not a lawyer but I do believe that is the final ingredient and if a agent of the government could be found that would prosecute it with the appropriate authority it might mean real change...

I doubt we have any agencies left moral and bold enough to do so... but thats my opinion.
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Reply

Tags
atf , fast and furious

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.41363 seconds with 8 queries