Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder - Page 15

Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder

This is a discussion on Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Hopyard Ah, but you are assuming deception. Issa is assuming deception. That is the problem. That is what makes this a partisan ...

Page 15 of 24 FirstFirst ... 5111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 355
Like Tree259Likes

Thread: Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder

  1. #211
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Ah, but you are assuming deception. Issa is assuming deception. That is the problem. That is what makes
    this a partisan political matter and not a normal oversight investigation.
    Investigation is not assumption - suspicion - but not assumption. We have every right to be vigilant of abuse of government.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    ....I illustrated the mischief which could happen if each branch does not respect the Separation of Powers. Unlike Congress' arrest immunity, the court has no such protection built into our constitution. How about Congress investigating The Court?
    The EP claimed by the Pres is for the privilege of deliberative materials. DO you
    think Congress (lets say it flips to the Dems) should be able to seize SC deliberative materials to investigate how they reached a decision in Ciizens United, for example?
    "Illustrious" isn't my first thought as I read your posts. The Supreme Court publishes its decision with supporting evidence as the trusted professional public servants that they are. Justices can be impeached, as was Associate Justice, Samuel Chase, in 1805 (the only case of SC impeachment), and congressmen and senators can be removed from office by their peers. Holder's documents that the Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoenaed are a legitimate investigative resource.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Second part in bold: This is really irrelevant to the issue at hand -- it is a side note. It has no
    bearing on EP.
    My point is that a nation at war must tread carefully and, again, be vigilant of possible abuses. At such times, patriotism isn't silent consent but vigorous protest. Shakespeare said,
    "Think'st thou that duty shall have dread to speak,
    When power to flattery bows? To plainness honour's bound,
    When majesty stoops to folly. Reverse thy doom;"
    - King Lear 1.1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    What [the Alien and Sedition Act] was aimed at was published libelous
    fabrications; such as the claim that the President or Holder knew about F&F; it wasn't aimed
    at or enforced against terms of "endearment" or mild criticism that didn't rise to the level of
    libel.... Stating that Holder has knowledge of something and somehow colluded in a criminal
    manner with respect to F&F would have been punishable....
    Depends on whose ox is being gored. But you seem to equivocate in your call for respect for all government officials.
    Spirit51 and DontTreadOnI like this.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)


  2. #212
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,180
    Quote Originally Posted by BigStick View Post
    I don't think so. While we do tend to be more passionate about our gun rights, speaking for myself and probably others here, honesty and accountability in our elected and appointed officials is very important to me.

    Yes, the operation was a terrible mistake, but on the ATF level I might be willing to dismiss it as misguided. It is the cover-up that is offensive and indicative of larger, more dubious intent behind the operation.

    Just like with Clinton, what he does in his personal relationships is his own business, but the cover-up and lying to congress is unacceptable. Holder's cover-up/obstruction of the investigation is unacceptable. The discipline that was handed out, or lack thereof, is astounding. Shuffling a few people around, promoting some, and not explaining at all who is ultimately responsible for the greenlight on this mission is no way to discourage further operations of this nature that might similarly break laws, policies and international sovereignty/treaties.
    Much less get people killed. Holder says measures are in place to ensure that this kind of thing doesn't happen again. Bureau Speak. The Terry family, the agents that risk their lives, and we citizens who support them, deserve to know more.
    Spirit51 and phreddy like this.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  3. #213
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    Nothing is stopping the IG from investigating Operation Fast and Furious except perhaps, his bosses. The IG has had nearly 18 months to investigate and compile his report. The fact there is no report speaks volumes.

    The third F&F gun found at the Terry murder scene was an SKS. From a tape recovered by CBS:
    Sig, with all due respect, we discussed this much earlier in the thread and since on my browser at least it is
    difficult to go back to earlier pages to find the material, I'll reiterate.

    An Acting IG was conducting an investigation and thousands of pages of documents were turned over
    to Congress. The IG, Acting or otherwise, is under an obligation to present their findings to Congress each
    6 months. Meanwhile, Congress chose to dismiss the findings on the grounds that the investigation was not
    done by a regularly appointed IG, but at the same time they blocked the nomination of an IG in The Senate.

    The controversy on the present demands by some in The House is not about them getting access to the things
    they are entitled to; it is about them demanding things they are not entitled to. There is a huge difference.
    Congress of course well knows where those boundaries are, and pushes them from time to time (all Congresses and against all administrations). It is a natural circling of a wolf and prey. No President worth the name can give in to inappropriate
    demands of this nature without compromising the Separation of Powers, and they usually do not--- as for
    example GWB in the Miers firing of prosecutors incident; and we can find many more instances throughout history
    going back to Jefferson.

    Note that my response is based on the principle of Separation of Powers and not getting into the
    partisan gutter.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  4. #214
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    Investigation is not assumption - suspicion - but not assumption. We have every right to be vigilant of abuse of government.
    And no right to destroy ourselves with the imaginings of crime.

    "Illustrious" isn't my first thought as I read your posts.
    That is not the word I used. Please re-read.
    The Supreme Court publishes its decision with supporting evidence as the trusted professional public servants that they are.
    Lately rather debatable actually, but what if Congress or a President insisted on
    receiving notes of their deliberations in addition to their published rulings? I'm sure they would resist, and
    rule in their favor, as they should. This is what The Executive is doing. It can be no other way if you want
    to keep the basic tripartite fabric of our system.


    Justices can be impeached, as was Associate Justice, Samuel Chase, in 1805 (the only case of SC impeachment), and congressmen and senators can be removed from office by their peers.
    That is really a different issue.
    It has nothing to do with demanding the notes or recordings of the deliberations of say a panel of the 5th
    Circuit Court of Appeals. It is one thing to look into the individual conduct of a justice, and quite another
    to meddle in their business; their deliberations.

    Holder's documents that the Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoenaed are a legitimate investigative resource.
    Portions were legitimate and these they received. Other portions are illegitimate, as for example
    requests for Grand Jury testimony and transcripts of wiretaps, and still others go to EP and the right of The
    Executive to keep deliberations private--- something which benefits smooth functioning of government and is
    totally necessary.
    Last edited by Hopyard; June 24th, 2012 at 07:37 PM. Reason: edited, html issues
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  5. #215
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    That question just ignores our history and our jurisprudence. We had that discussion a few pages back and off
    the board.
    You have eluded to it but have shown nothing to support the contention and the closest I can find as I stated (and provided a credible link to) is a case where in 1803 the SoS was withholding letters of appointment as Justices of the Peace f those who were properly appointed by then President Adams. See SCOTUS ruling again on Marbury v Madison - 5 U.S. 137 (1803) to refresh your memory. Marbury v. Madison - 5 U.S. 137 (1803) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard
    C_Span replayed the House Committee meeting on Wed. prior to the committee vote. The
    committee had among other things asked for all manner of things prohibited to it by various
    statutes passed by Congress. The subpoena was so broad it included prohibited items such as
    Grand Jury testimony; Wiretaps; and more. WHile they backed off a bit between Friday and last Wed., they didn't back off enough. Very reasonable compromises and proposals were presented by the Congressman from Vermont; and dismissed.

    Moreover, frankly, if this didn't involve guns and the arrest of some dealers, I doubt any of the participants here would care a fig about what went on.

    If we interpreted constitution the way some of you folks are doing, The President would be a
    political eunuch. We'd have one branch, or as present, maybe half a branch running the show.

    There is no way executive deliberations can be shared with Congress without damaging the
    Separation of Powers for all future presidents.
    By your own statements, I am beginning to suspect that you believe our Founding Fathers intended for us all to be ruled by a single autonomous individual with unrestrained powers, Rather than there being three differing Branches of Government that maintain checks against each other. No one system having total control of the National Government. I'd go into the duties of the Three Separate Branches, but this is not a Thread on Government operations.

    In the mean time, with respect to his interactions with any Agency or Department under his supervisory control (His Cabinet) which includes the AG, any and all supervisory discussions or deliberations between them and himself (to include any papers) may be assigned a Classified Information Status under National Security but that does not make them unavailable to Congress or if need be the Courts.

    If you believe otherwise, prove your position by posting a credible source citation. Something so far I have not seen you do.
    Spirit51 likes this.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  6. #216
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,103
    Been having some computer issues so I have not been able to play along as much as I would like, so I am a little late with some stuff here....
    Hopyard,
    Regarding perjury and the AG vs the Roger Clemens case, if those e mails and such that are being withheld under EP showed that there was a plan, prior to the AG's testimony that they were not going to hide behind any privilege, to stall for as long as possible and then to have the president invoke EP that would be clear evidence of perjury would it not?

    If those documents showed that there was a concious decision to violate ITAR and/or the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2278) should executive privilege be able to shield the guilty?

    So should the courts accept without question the assertion of the executive branch that there is nothing relevant in the documents they are refusing to turn over? Or should they maybe appoint someone to review the documents in question to see if there actually is evidence of criminal activity?

    We are all familiar with this right?
    TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    PART I - CRIMES
    CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS

    -HEAD-
    Sec. 922. Unlawful acts

    -STATUTE-
    (a) It shall be unlawful -
    (1) for any person -
    (A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or
    licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing,
    manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such
    business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in
    interstate or foreign commerce; or
    (B) except a licensed importer or licensed manufacturer, to
    engage in the business of importing or manufacturing
    ammunition, or in the course of such business, to ship,
    transport, or receive any ammunition in interstate or foreign
    commerce;
    And it would seem that there was some "foreign commerce" involved without question. So that was definitely a crime against the United States.
    So.....
    18 USC § 2 - Principals

    (a)Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

    (b)Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
    So it looks very much to me like whoever it was at whatever level it was that knew and approved of this operation, especially if they knew the Mexican government could not be relied upon to follow the bad guys on the other side (as was demonstrated in wide receiver) should be facing some prison time.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  7. #217
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Here is some additional information that helps to stoke the fire under the pot being prepared for someone.
    The oversight committee has been able to confirm the following.
    Please look at the Memo again and then at the chart of who knew what when and it should present a big question in the minds of anyone who has not already closed their minds to the factual evidence that has been presented.
    http://oversight.house.gov/wp-conten...ment-FINAL.pdf
    http://issues.oversight.house.gov/fa...enTheyKnew.pdf

    Since all evidence uncovered in the Oversight Committees review have determined that in January 2010 someone very high up approved the transfer of Agents from multiple agencies and approved funding to go along with it to assist in Operation Fast & Furious. One of those agents was ATF Agent Dodson who became one of the whistleblowers.
    What I really find very interesting is that Deputy Assistant AG Jason Weinstein became aware of the operation in December of 2009 yet AG Holder would not have been made aware of a funding request going to the DOJ to fund an operation that his Agency was partnered in, when not just the supervisory but fiduciary responsibility of everything happening within his Agency that he leads falls completely on his lap, desk, head, whatever.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  8. #218
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,044
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Been having some computer issues so I have not been able to play along as much as I would like, so I am a little late with some stuff here....
    Hopyard,
    Regarding perjury and the AG vs the Roger Clemens case, if those e mails and such that are being withheld under EP showed that there was a plan, prior to the AG's testimony that they were not going to hide behind any privilege, to stall for as long as possible and then to have the president invoke EP that would be clear evidence of perjury would it not?

    If those documents showed that there was a concious decision to violate ITAR and/or the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2278) should executive privilege be able to shield the guilty?

    So should the courts accept without question the assertion of the executive branch that there is nothing relevant in the documents they are refusing to turn over? Or should they maybe appoint someone to review the documents in question to see if there actually is evidence of criminal activity?
    You only need to look to the Nixon ruling to get your answer. The courts said there was no EP in a
    criminal case. There is no criminal case here. The courts don't investigate anything; they adjudicate. The case has to be presented to them.
    In this instance the issue is EP with respect to Congressional demands and I only mentioned the courts because
    by the same reasoning some here are using, the other branches could demand deliberative material from
    the courts to "determine if their rulings were not criminally based on improper considerations discussed in
    secret." You'd have a similar constitutional issue in this situation.



    We are all familiar with this right?

    And it would seem that there was some "foreign commerce" involved without question. So that was definitely a crime against the United States.
    So.....

    So it looks very much to me like whoever it was at whatever level it was that knew and approved of this operation, especially if they knew the Mexican government could not be relied upon to follow the bad guys on the other side (as was demonstrated in wide receiver) should be facing some prison time.
    This is editorial commentary --- sorry, got to go scoot to the gym and beat up a twenty something.
    More later.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  9. #219
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    You only need to look to the Nixon ruling to get your answer. The courts said there was no EP in a
    criminal case. There is no criminal case here. The courts don't investigate anything; they adjudicate. The case has to be presented to them.
    In this instance the issue is EP with respect to Congressional demands and I only mentioned the courts because
    by the same reasoning some here are using, the other branches could demand deliberative material from
    the courts to "determine if their rulings were not criminally based on improper considerations discussed in
    secret." You'd have a similar constitutional issue in this situation.





    This is editorial commentary --- sorry, got to go scoot to the gym and beat up a twenty something.
    More later.
    So if a Texas Ranger were to charge one of the salesmen at Carters Country for one of the strawman sales that he was instructed to make by BATFE either side could subpoena the same items Issa wants and the administration would have to surrender them. That seems easy enough.
    As far as the editorial commentary do you dispute that people who were making the straw purchases were involved in foreign commerce? If so on what basis is it not commerce?
    Do you dispute that their doing so is in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922? If so please cite the section that supercedes this section.
    Do you dispute the validity of 18 U.S.C. 2? If so on what basis?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  10. #220
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Here is something to consider! I did a search at Justia Law for "Presidential use of Executive Privilege" and this is a result: Congressional Access to Executive Branch Information :: Article II. Executive Department :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

    We can read some background on when Executive Privilege has been used and in nearly every case it mentions, Protection of Subordinates in Court related hearings Law-Suits or the prosecution of suspected criminal activity is the foundation of its use.

    Presidents have more than once had occasion to stand in a protective relation to their subordinates, assuming their defense in litigation brought against them546 or pressing litigation in their behalf,547 refusing a congressional call for papers which might be used, in their absence from the seat of government, to their disadvantage,548 challenging the constitutional validity of legislation deemed detrimental to their interests.549 Presidents throughout our history have attempted to spread their own official immunity to their subordinates by resisting actions of the courts or of congressional committees to require subordinates to divulge communications from or to the President that Presidents choose to regard as confidential.
    As a couple of Presidents had attempted to claim EP for themselves prior to Nixon, a book author wrote this in his book:
    the doctrine lacks any constitutional or other legal basis, see R. BERGER, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE: A CONSTITUTIONAL MYTH (1974).
    And we all know how well Nixon's attempt at using EP benefited him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard
    The courts said there was no EP in a criminal case.
    Yet the only locatable use of EP by the President has been during court or criminal cases where it does not exist.

    Again, I will ask that if there is any credible source information out there to substantiate the POTUS actually having EP powers granted either by our Constitution or by Congress, that it be provided.
    Last edited by LkWd_Don; June 25th, 2012 at 02:50 PM. Reason: forgot to include a second thought
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  11. #221
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,044
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    So if a Texas Ranger were to charge one of the salesmen at Carters Country for one of the strawman sales that he was instructed to make by BATFE either side could subpoena the same items Issa wants and the administration would have to surrender them. That seems easy enough.
    It seems easy enough except I'm unsure if the Nixon ruling applied equally to state and federal courts.
    My hunch is that the Federal Judiciary would keep that authority to themselves; otherwise we would have
    every state AG issuing subpoenas against the prez.

    As far as the editorial commentary do you dispute that people who were making the straw purchases were involved in foreign commerce? If so on what basis is it not commerce?
    I'm uncertain, but the staw purchases weren't being made by Agents, now were they? But.... see below...

    Do you dispute that their doing so is in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922? If so please cite the section that supercedes this section.
    Do you dispute the validity of 18 U.S.C. 2? If so on what basis?
    So? Where is the offense against the United States? Do you really see it in 18 USC 922?

    Anyway, that is digression. It has nothing to do with Separation of Powers. The IG has all the power needed
    and the US ATTNY has the prosecutor's discretion to go forward with charges against Agents if they feel
    they are warranted. Congress does not have a right to the
    Executive Deliberations" behind those decisions, nor does it have a right to the Grand Jury transcripts
    and wiretaps it demanded, though dropped,
    from the allegations of contempt passed by committee.

    Let's assume a worst case. Agents bought guns and unlawfully transferred them into Mexico. There
    is ZERO obligation on the part of the US Attny to prosecute that; they get to pick and choose their cases
    and the principles of prosecutor's discretion are well established. Let's say the deliberations over
    whether or not a prosecution should go forward went as high as Holder and he concurred, perhaps even
    after discussing the matter with the prez., and a decision was made that it was not in the interests of
    justice to pursue a prosecution, that does not mean Congress is entitled to a transcript of the deliberation
    merely because they don't like the decision reached by the prosecutor; not does it mean that anything
    was covered up.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  12. #222
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,044
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    Here is something to consider! I did a search at Justia Law for "Presidential use of Executive Privilege" and this is a result: Congressional Access to Executive Branch Information :: Article II. Executive Department :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

    We can read some background on when Executive Privilege has been used and in nearly every case it mentions, Protection of Subordinates in Court related hearings Law-Suits or the prosecution of suspected criminal activity is the foundation of its use.



    As a couple of Presidents had attempted to claim EP for themselves prior to Nixon, a book author wrote this in his book:
    And we all know how well Nixon's attempt at using EP benefited him.



    Yet the only locatable use of EP by the President has been during court or criminal cases where it does not exist.

    Again, I will ask that if there is any credible source information out there to substantiate the POTUS actually having EP powers granted either by our Constitution or by Congress, that it be provided.
    To save myself the time doing your research for you, I'm going to answer this from a different direction.
    Do 200+ years of history and countless incidents in which the claim has been made and honored --grumbling
    by Congress notwithstanding-- not send a little message to you?
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #223
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,103
    Yes Hopyard, I do see violation of 18 U.S.C. 922. We have acknowledged straw purchases of weapons by people who were not licensed and transfered those weapons to people in Mexico. It does not matter that they were not agents. It could not have been done without the aid (18 U.S.C. 2 a) of federal authorities.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  14. #224
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,044
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    Here is some additional information that helps to stoke the fire under the pot being prepared for someone.
    The oversight committee has been able to confirm the following.
    Please look at the Memo again and then at the chart of who knew what when and it should present a big question in the minds of anyone who has not already closed their minds to the factual evidence that has been presented.
    http://oversight.house.gov/wp-conten...ment-FINAL.pdf
    http://issues.oversight.house.gov/fa...enTheyKnew.pdf

    Since all evidence uncovered in the Oversight Committees review have determined that in January 2010 someone very high up approved the transfer of Agents from multiple agencies and approved funding to go along with it to assist in Operation Fast & Furious. One of those agents was ATF Agent Dodson who became one of the whistleblowers.
    What I really find very interesting is that Deputy Assistant AG Jason Weinstein became aware of the operation in December of 2009 yet AG Holder would not have been made aware of a funding request going to the DOJ to fund an operation that his Agency was partnered in, when not just the supervisory but fiduciary responsibility of everything happening within his Agency that he leads falls completely on his lap, desk, head, whatever.
    Whatever inference you are trying to make here, the part in bold doesn't seem to make any sense as
    what an IG was doing in 2009 may well have been kept (and should have been kept till the conclusion of
    the investigation) from Holder.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #225
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,044
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Yes Hopyard, I do see violation of 18 U.S.C. 922. We have acknowledged straw purchases of weapons by people who were not licensed and transfered those weapons to people in Mexico. It does not matter that they were not agents. It could not have been done without the aid (18 U.S.C. 2 a) of federal authorities.
    OK, let's grant you your premise. That does not automatically mean the two things folks are infering:
    1) that there must be a prosecution; 2) that higher authority authorized something they had no authority to
    authorize.

    There are all manner of laws that start with the language in that code --any person who shall--- or whatever it says,
    but elsewhere in other code there are to be found law enforcement exceptions. Yes, cops carry guns in
    hospitals.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

amending u-4 for a complaint where rep is not mentioned
,
complaint seek law license of eric holder unabridged complaint
,

congressperson for concealed carry

,
content
,
eric holder to be pardon by executor order
,

fast and furious david voth testifing house issa plead the fifth

,
issa page 418
,
rep issa
,
rep. issa skeletons in closet
,
skeletons in rep issa's closet
,
why this is going nowhere with eric holder
,
wiretaps and grand jury transcripts and holder
Click on a term to search for related topics.