The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 1, 2012, 01:39 PM   #1926
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 561
Bob Owens on the current state of play.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/dems-release...t-and-furious/
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old February 1, 2012, 02:05 PM   #1927
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
Quote:
Quote:
They allegedly have dirt on Issa. Dirt=control

Yep, Issa is compromised. BTW: Jay Bergey has been a friend of mine for 50 years.
Dirt would imply they have something they can hold over Issa's head. If it was already published (and 12 years ago at that), then I don't see how that is going to be leverage effective enough to compromise Issa.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old February 1, 2012, 03:09 PM   #1928
alan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,745
Tom Servo:

Thanks.

Alan
alan is offline  
Old February 1, 2012, 03:29 PM   #1929
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
I know that when banks coperate in an investigation - they have their legal team meet with the feds, they outline the purpose and scope of the investigation, and they get certain protections from possible damages and things like that.

If a gun dealer was going to cooperate with BATFE, why wouldn't the dealer at least take a lawyer with him and get it documented?
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old February 1, 2012, 03:57 PM   #1930
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Because many dealers aren't as savvy as banks?
Don H is offline  
Old February 1, 2012, 06:46 PM   #1931
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,850
Gun dealer and ATF getting sued:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...t-against-atf/

So if you cooperated with the Feds, does that give you any protection?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old February 1, 2012, 07:29 PM   #1932
ltc444
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
Response to Thallup Post # 1920.

The report by the San Fransco Paper concerning the employment of junior EOD personnel is contrary to my experience. In 1972 until I ceased having and active interest in EOD operations around 1979, EOD units were understrength.

They were so undermanned that young solders would arrive in a unit one day and be deployed on missions the following day. It was not unususl for very junior men to deploy with a Senior EOD Tech on VIP missions.

Additionally, they were often deployed on Presidential Missions, like the world Series, as a coningency incase the President were to attend. Often the Secret Service would NIX an event after the advance work had been done and they determined that the President or other VIP could not be protected.

If it weren't for Rep Issa, this investigation would have been buried long ago.

My Representative serves on the Committee and I routinely write him and encourage him to continue the investigation.

Each of us should be doing the same with our Representatives.

Conversly, those members of this blog, whose Representatives signed on with the minority report should write their Representatives and protest their vote.

These letters, use snail mail e-mails get deleted, should be respectful, logical and factual. There are enough quotes in this blog to convey the facts to these Congressman. Don't threaten. Threat letters get ignored.

If your Rep ignores you get out and vote. Before you vote support an opposition canidate whose position is positive on 5a issues and get others with like mind on the issues to vote as well.

We recently had a stealth election in our county. It was not advertised. The hope was that the opposition would not show up in sufficient numbers to beat the "Machine". When I found out about the low turn out, my wife and I started calling everyone we knew and got out the vote. The proposition was barely defeated, The 20 or so voters we got to the polls may have turned the tide.

Remember your vote does count. Local elections are often decided by under 100 votes. A solid block of 5a grass root supporters can change the antigun City and County governments.

Get Active now November is to late.

Last edited by ltc444; February 1, 2012 at 07:37 PM. Reason: Admend revise and edit.
ltc444 is offline  
Old February 1, 2012, 10:30 PM   #1933
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,645
Quote:
So if you cooperated with the Feds, does that give you any protection?
Great Scott, this is what I talked about before! To recap: a couple of years back, we pulled the paperwork for a sale that turned out to have been a straw purchase. While conversing with the field agents, one asked what I did if I suspected a straw purchase.

I told him that we stopped the sale and booted the offender from the premises. He suggested that we allow the sale to go through and call them with the customer's information after they'd left. I told him that seemed like a good idea, and that I'd consider it.

I was lying. It might seem like, hey, I'm helping out, but at the end of the day, I'd be breaking the law. No matter what agreements they might have made with me, those would have been conveniently forgotten if things went sour, and I'd be left holding the bag.

I imagine Andre Howard meant to help on some level. I'd like to see what kind of leverage the ATF used, good or ill, to gain his cooperation. But at the end of the day, he did knowingly and willingly break the law.

He can claim he was cooperating with an investigation, and he might even have some documentation to that fact, but I can bet the government's attorneys are going to downplay it as much as possible. In any case, he's going to have a very hard time with this in front of a jury.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 1, 2012, 10:43 PM   #1934
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 1,801
More hypocrisy. The same people who want to sue gun dealers and weapon makers have all been suddenly struck dumb. Go figure.

My guess is that they will pay after a long court battle. If they can get into court.
__________________
Proxima est Mors, Malum Nullum adhibit Misericordiam
MTT TL is offline  
Old February 1, 2012, 11:30 PM   #1935
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,215
It could get interesting if he can prove that ATF agents threatened him if he didn't go along with the sales. That would be just what the State of Arizona needs to issue arrest warrants for federal agents and provoke a constitutional crisis. I think it might go a little differently than when Idaho tried to prosecute Lon Horiuchi for murder after the Randy Weaver fiasco and a federal judge sprung him.
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old February 1, 2012, 11:54 PM   #1936
alan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,745
zxcvbob:

Identified voice recordings of conversations (threats) would likely be absolutely fascinating in court, if those recordings were ever played within the hearing of a trial jury. Personally speaking I can imagine the objections voiced by DOJ attorneys, including something about the unauthorized, therefore illegal recording of said conversation.
alan is offline  
Old February 2, 2012, 06:32 AM   #1937
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
Identified voice recordings of conversations (threats) would likely be absolutely fascinating in court, if those recordings were ever played within the hearing of a trial jury. Personally speaking I can imagine the objections voiced by DOJ attorneys, including something about the unauthorized, therefore illegal recording of said conversation.
Federal law and the laws of 38 out of the 50 states only require the consent of one party to tape record a conversation. I'm fairly certain that Arizona isn't one of the twelve two-party consent states. Even if it were, the Feds have argued that Federal law applies to anything involving interstate commerce, thus I would argue that Lone Wolf was dealing with a Federal agent, pursuant to a Federal firearms license, involving firearms that were in interstate commerce, and thus Federal law should apply.

If he has the recordings, I don't think there's a problem getting them admitted.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 2, 2012, 09:18 AM   #1938
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
I'm guessing it wasn't an accident the suit was filed the day before Holder goes to Congress to testify again. PJMedia even has an opinion piece with Eric Holder's prepared statement to Congress and a rebuttal of it at: http://pjmedia.com/blog/fisking-eric...rious-hearing/

With the recent revelation that two DOJ prosecutors took bribes and were not prosecuted for it; I am a little worried that Fast and Furious will get overlooked in light of the latest scandal; but hopefully they keep their eyes on the prize.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old February 2, 2012, 09:42 AM   #1939
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
I've heard some of the tapes and Andre Howard doesn't do himself any favors with the way he talks on those talks. He comes across very conspiratorial on those recordings. I know he released a statement afterward explaining that his atitude on the tape was feigned - or something to that effect, but the bottom line IMO, is that those recordings do not make him look good.

I think the lawyer for Brian Terry's family will have a field day with those tapes.

I'm not saying Howard should be put out of business. It does seem however that it's very profitable to be in league with the BATFE and their gun running schemes.

Maybe a better way to run a sting operation would be for BATFE to provide the cooperating gun dealer with the guns, pay the dealer a handling fee, but take the proceeds in as evidence.

I don't know... but I can see from the viewpoint of Brian Terry's family, whether or not Andre Howard was merely cooperating with a federal investigation or not... when the dust settles, he is a guy who made significant profits off of weapons that were used to kill Brian Terry.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old February 2, 2012, 09:44 AM   #1940
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
From what I understand, it's pretty difficult to sue a prosecuting attorney / DA.

But I think it would have been cool if the Terrys had named Burke in this suit.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old February 2, 2012, 09:51 AM   #1941
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
Here is the Oversight Committee's report - though apparently the Committee has completely split along party lines on this. For a real treat, read the Democratic report linked above first, then read this one.

Some of the highlights in a quick skim so far:

1. Lanny Breuer and Kenneth Melson discussed a "new approach" to ATF prosecutions in Arizona in December 2009. Lanny Breuer said it was a "great idea" and sent an attorney from DOJ's Criminal Gang unit (Joe Cooley)
to work the case, which turned out to be Fast & Furious. Cooley worked the case through March 2010 and Breuer had multiple meetings with Arizona USAO during this time.

2. Mark Chait (Asst. Director Field Operations) received a detailed briefing of Fast and Furious on Jan. 5, 2010 - and they discussed weapons seizures in Mexico in detail because Chait had just come from a meeting with Breuer on that subject.

3. Joe Cooley gave a detailed briefing at ATF headquarters on March 5, 2010. ATF leadership was irked that they were cut out of the loop since Cooley was reporting directly to the Criminal Division. Two weeks later, Cooley was pulled of Fast & Furious and documents indicate that DOJ was very pleased with the way the Arizona USAO was handling the case at this time. (Should be interesting to hear them explain that now that they are trying to throw AZ USAO under the bus).

Big report; and lots of information; but it looks like Breuer is going to have to start throwing deputies under the bus if he wants to escape. I don't see any way they aren't going to link it to Breuer though.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old February 2, 2012, 10:19 AM   #1942
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
OK, the Oversight Committee is beating on Holder unmercifully because it has been 13 months since they sent the first letter and he told them an investigation is underway and he still can't answer the question of who authorized the gunwalking.

Holder responds by saying it will take time "to build a case" to "arrest and prosecute." So essentially, Holder just promised Congress he was going to seek criminal charges for some of his sword-swallowers. Holder is also promising to prosecute those who linked confidential wiretap information (i.e. whistleblowers).

Issa says that Holder will not prosecute any whistleblower. Holder responds that he will prosecute anyone who releases sealed wiretap information and that even the Oversight Committee may not possess that information.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old February 2, 2012, 11:24 AM   #1943
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,645
During Paul Gosar's questioning, Holder likened the penalties for straw purchasing to a "traffic ticket." On paper, it carries a ten year prison sentence. If that's not being enforced, Gosar asked, how would further restrictions be effective?

Speaking to Rep. Connelly, he's now claiming that the Assault Weapons Ban had a "positive" effect on trans-border violence. Connelly is requesting that Mukasey be summoned to testify on Wide Receiver.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 2, 2012, 11:39 AM   #1944
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
Rep. Meehan gets a bite out of Holder's hide and then points out that Fast and Furious was an OCTDEF operation, which requires approval from the Organized Crime Dept. of DOJ. He then asks Holder who approved it. Holder says "We are still trying to find that out, IG investigation" (paraphrased).

After that there is an argument that illuminates the earlier conversation regarding sealed wiretaps - the Committee wants to know whether the affidavits for the wiretap requests indicated the type of tactics being used in Fast and Furious. If they did, then numerous DOJ officials would be implicated by that. Holder says "As you know, applications do not go into tactics." and Meehan says "I don't know that, I haven't seen the applications."

Holder reiterates no tactics in application and then says that they will see if they normally allow this type of request.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old February 2, 2012, 11:45 AM   #1945
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
Great infographic from Issa:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Fortress Holder.jpg (197.4 KB, 123 views)
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old February 2, 2012, 11:54 AM   #1946
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
Davis panders to Holder. Holder says look at all the documents we provided. Issa points out these documents were only provided after he was threatened with criminal charges and subpoena. Holder says that despite that the documents were released voluntarily by DOJ in the spirit of good will and that it wasn't because of the subopena.

Rep. Gowdy tears into Holder, pointing out all the discussions within Main Justice that indicate knowledge of gunwalking in Fast & Furious. Gowdy screws up and confuses the WR emails with Fast & Furious. 5 minute break while they sort it out.

OK, Gowdy getting with it now.... he is asking about Grindler's big map of guns leaving Arizona to Meixco with a handwritten notation of "Fast and Furious" and asking how Main Justice didn't manage to make the connection with 1500 guns in Mexico and gunwalking. Holder says "no knowledge of tactics." Gowdy asks who drafted the February 4th letter and how they couldn't know about gunwalking?

Let me summarize the testimony of every Dem representative: Bush did it. DOJ and ATF are glorious. It is clear the AG knew nothing and should have known nothing. Mr. Holder, what anti-gun restrictions could we enact from your wish list in order to make sure this doesn't happen again?

Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; February 2, 2012 at 12:14 PM.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old February 2, 2012, 12:15 PM   #1947
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,645
As much as he's using it for traction in his backpedaling, Holder is telling Rep. Ross that he was unaware of Wide Receiver until he started preparing documents for these hearings. He claims to be completely unaware to any practice involving gunwalking (despite at least three prior operations) until February of 2011.

He's telling Rep. Speier that the minority report was a good summation, and that he's looking into implementing their proposals.

Rep. Farenthold: "Knowing what you know, do you think you're qualified to lead the Department of Justice?"

Holder: "If you're going to ask me to resign (...) you've asked the wrong question."
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe

Last edited by Tom Servo; February 2, 2012 at 12:33 PM.
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 2, 2012, 12:30 PM   #1948
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
O man, Issa just spanked Cummings. Issa was entering into evidence the email from Breuer supporting gunwalking. Cummings objected that Issa improperly characterized the memo as gunwalking since Breuer supported Mexican police interdicting the weapons. Issa points out that he is using the same definition of gunwalking used by the minority in their discussion of Wide Receiver, goes on to describe in great detail the difference between Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious, and then looks to Cummings who mumbles into his mike, stares at the paper in front of him for five minutes and then mumbles "Uh we disagree on the definition of gunwalking I think."

Rep. Gunta asks Holder the F&F equivalent of "has he stopped beating his wife yet?" Holder responds with a monologue on how good he is. Entertaining; but not especially productive.

Rep. Clay clearly displays his character, much to his shame.

Rep. Cummings wants to point out that all the ATF agents were reassigned and that 4 U.S. Attorneys in Phoenix have resigned or "stepped down" as a refutation of the assertion that noone has been held accountable.

Rep. Kelly grilling Holder on his pledges of transparency and how it is Holder never has any knowledge of what is going on.

Kucinich pulls out an elaborate org chart of DOJ to show why the AG may not have known. No idea what he said since he didn't speak into the mike. And apparently Tom Hanks is the star of the movie "Groundhog Day" (about the 20th reference to that movie from the minority). "We must be very careful about people's reputations." Your reputation remains unchanged Dennis. Congrats.

Rep. Labrador points out that Holder's testimony in Fast and Furious is similar to his testimony in Marc Rich and other cases. Cummings objects that this is a Fast and Furious hearing and why is all this other stuff coming up. Issa referees.

Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; February 2, 2012 at 12:59 PM.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old February 2, 2012, 01:08 PM   #1949
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,645
Quote:
Rep. Labrador points out that Holder's testimony in Fast and Furious is similar to his testimony in Marc Rich and other cases.
Labrador made a really good point in that Holder continues to show up for Congressional hearings unprepared, and that he doesn't seem to know what goes on in his department. Even assuming that Holder didn't have an active hand in this, the fact that he was oblivious to it is a hallmark of utter incompetence.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 2, 2012, 01:22 PM   #1950
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
I thought Rep. Labrador was making good points as well, which probably explains why he got interrupted.
Bartholomew Roberts 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 11:33 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 0.51185 seconds with 8 queries