The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 24, 2012, 07:53 PM   #1876
DWFan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2008
Posts: 212
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.
DWFan is offline  
Old January 24, 2012, 09:04 PM   #1877
pcb911
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.
pcb911 is offline  
Old January 24, 2012, 10:19 PM   #1878
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Quote:
The President...shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Don't see anything in there limiting the President's power to pardon only to those who have been convicted.
Don H is offline  
Old January 24, 2012, 11:37 PM   #1879
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,483
From Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon:

Quote:
As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment ensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution.

It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States.

Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974.
The only limits on Presidential pardons seem to be: they cannot pardon impeachment; they must involve offenses against the United States, and; they cannot be for future acts.

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.
gc70 is offline  
Old January 25, 2012, 09:08 AM   #1880
C0untZer0
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.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old January 25, 2012, 09:59 AM   #1881
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
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.
csmsss is offline  
Old January 25, 2012, 10:33 AM   #1882
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,483
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.
gc70 is offline  
Old January 26, 2012, 12:26 AM   #1883
ltc444
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
ltc444 is offline  
Old January 26, 2012, 06:50 AM   #1884
scpapa
Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2007
Location: Central South Carolina
Posts: 68
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
NRA Benefactor Member
scpapa is offline  
Old January 26, 2012, 04:19 PM   #1885
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
Quote:
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?
An oath, apparently, is just a formality. It means nothing if the person swearing
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.
pnac is offline  
Old January 26, 2012, 04:34 PM   #1886
MLeake
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.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 26, 2012, 04:42 PM   #1887
scpapa
Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2007
Location: Central South Carolina
Posts: 68
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
NRA Benefactor Member
scpapa is offline  
Old January 26, 2012, 04:49 PM   #1888
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
Quote:
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.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but why aren't Bernanke, Geithner, Corzine, ad nauseam, in jail? Is Congress more concerned with some minor drug crimes than the destruction of the world economy? It says a lot about our "justice" system!
__________________
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
pnac is offline  
Old January 26, 2012, 05:00 PM   #1889
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
Quote:
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.
Contempt of Congress? Jail time for contempt? Probably, the rule is "Go ahead and lie, just don't say you are going to lie". That seems to be the way it works in the rest of the system.
__________________
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 26, 2012, 07:40 PM   #1890
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Can't have a prosecution without a prosecutor...
csmsss is offline  
Old January 27, 2012, 08:26 AM   #1891
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Quote:
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.~ltc444
Doing a comparison between your local news and what you or I might see on the national...uhhhh....media, is AZ proceeding with a serious investigation?

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:
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 27, 2012, 04:04 PM   #1892
C0untZer0
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...
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old January 28, 2012, 09:47 PM   #1893
C0untZer0
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
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old January 28, 2012, 10:03 PM   #1894
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,651
Quote:
Monty Wilkinson e-mail seems to indicate that he alerted AG on Dec 15
Interesting. Then on the 17th the Washington Post does a story burning the cooperating FFLs using confidential trace data that is illegal for the ATF to release to a newspaper under the Tiarht Amendment.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old January 29, 2012, 10:47 AM   #1895
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,298
Quote:
It would be kind of funny and sad at the same time to see the whole department eat itself.
It would not be sad at all. It is what needs to happen.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 29, 2012, 09:31 PM   #1896
BGutzman
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
BGutzman is offline  
Old January 30, 2012, 02:44 PM   #1897
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,651
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old January 30, 2012, 03:00 PM   #1898
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,186
Quote:
Does anyone here REALLY think Cunningham is anxious to roll over on Breuer
He might not have to. On February 2nd, we have records of a meeting in which Breuer was involved:

Quote:
AAG Breuer suggested allowing straw purchasers [to] cross into Mexico so SSP can arrest and PGR can prosecute and convict.
On February 8th, BATFE Acting Director Kenneth Melson also discussed the possibility:

Quote:
Melson and the Ambassador discussed the possibility of allowing weapons to pass from the US to Mexico and US law enforcement coordinating with SSP and PGR to arrest and prosecute the arms trafficker. I raised the issue that there is an inherent risk in allowing weapons to pass from the US to Mexico; the possibility of the GoM not seizing the weapons; and the weapons being used to commit a crime in Mexico.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 30, 2012, 03:52 PM   #1899
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Just a minor point but Monty Wilkenson said:

Quote:
I’ve alerted the AG, the Acting DAG, Lisa, etc.”
Not that he would alert the AG but that he already had.

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.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old January 30, 2012, 04:30 PM   #1900
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Exactly who is it would bring a perjury charge? By what prosecutorial body and in which court?
csmsss 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 05:39 PM.


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 0.38703 seconds with 8 queries