ATF Project Gunrunner
- Thread starter Al Norris
- Start date
Fox News has reported(TV) that at the Dept of Justice, chief prosecutor Patrick Cunningham has resigned as a result of the FF investigations.
However I'm unsure of his role past/present/future....was he whistleblowing, investigating DoJ, or in charge of part of the operation itself?
However I'm unsure of his role past/present/future....was he whistleblowing, investigating DoJ, or in charge of part of the operation itself?
Below is a copy of my Letter to the Editor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette re a Washington Post by-lined article appearing in 15 January Post-Gazette. The article was headlined Obama's gun dealer reporting regulastions are upheld, wjch I think is germane to this discussion. Should any of the moderators heree fel that the comment would be beetter locatef relsewhere, possibly under a different heading, that's your call, relocate it.
----- Original Message -----
From: alan
To: Post Gazette
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 5:46 PM
Subject: thoughts onObama's gun dealer reporting regulations are upheld, 15 Jan P-G, main section, by-lined The Washington Post
Editor:
Re the ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer in the referenced case, a suit brought against Obama ordered gun purchase reporting, note the following.
1. The Congress has repeatedly, and wisely refused to legislate any sort of centralized gun registration scheme. The routine dreamed up by the Obama Administration, its' DOJ and the ATF amount to a large step toward the creation of such a centralized gun registry, clearly a case of grievous abuse of executive power.
2. As for problems attributable to the the illegal transit of firearms from the U.S. to Mexico, the "Gun Walking" aided and abetted by DOJ and ATF is clearly a case of bureaucratic stupidity, combined with bureaucratic criminality, criminality that contributed to the death of at least one U.S. Law Enforcement Agent, a Border Patrol Officer killed in a shoot-out with what one assumes were Mexican Narco Bandits, though they might simply have been armed Mexican criminals.
3. "ATF acted rationally" said Judge Collyer. For the ATF, "rational action" would be something of a break from long established tradition, but one supposes that the judge, like everyone else is entitled to her own opinion. On this subject however, one if given to recall an observation attributed to the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, of the U.S. Senate. Moynihan once noted that "while people are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts". Judge Collyer needs to think on this.
4. With respect to the foregoing, while there is no doubt whatever that something was going on in, or through the mind of Judge Collyer when she came up with her ruling, one can only wonder as to exactly that might have been, the facts of the matter being what they so obviously are.
----- Original Message -----
From: alan
To: Post Gazette
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 5:46 PM
Subject: thoughts onObama's gun dealer reporting regulations are upheld, 15 Jan P-G, main section, by-lined The Washington Post
Editor:
Re the ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer in the referenced case, a suit brought against Obama ordered gun purchase reporting, note the following.
1. The Congress has repeatedly, and wisely refused to legislate any sort of centralized gun registration scheme. The routine dreamed up by the Obama Administration, its' DOJ and the ATF amount to a large step toward the creation of such a centralized gun registry, clearly a case of grievous abuse of executive power.
2. As for problems attributable to the the illegal transit of firearms from the U.S. to Mexico, the "Gun Walking" aided and abetted by DOJ and ATF is clearly a case of bureaucratic stupidity, combined with bureaucratic criminality, criminality that contributed to the death of at least one U.S. Law Enforcement Agent, a Border Patrol Officer killed in a shoot-out with what one assumes were Mexican Narco Bandits, though they might simply have been armed Mexican criminals.
3. "ATF acted rationally" said Judge Collyer. For the ATF, "rational action" would be something of a break from long established tradition, but one supposes that the judge, like everyone else is entitled to her own opinion. On this subject however, one if given to recall an observation attributed to the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, of the U.S. Senate. Moynihan once noted that "while people are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts". Judge Collyer needs to think on this.
4. With respect to the foregoing, while there is no doubt whatever that something was going on in, or through the mind of Judge Collyer when she came up with her ruling, one can only wonder as to exactly that might have been, the facts of the matter being what they so obviously are.
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.
And esquire Cunningham has declined Issa's kind offer to speak to the committee: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ad-fifth-and-not-answer-questions-on-furious/
Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ad-fifth-and-not-answer-questions-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.
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.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
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.
So, AG Holder's defense is essentially - all of my underlings are incompetent and/or dishonest; and all of them still work for me.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Just a wee bit puzzling, isn't it?Bartholomew Roberts said:
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.
Uncle Buck
New member
http://floydreports.com/will-republicans-let-eric-holder-get-away-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.
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.
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:
armoredman
New member
Get the feeling we're building up to something big...could be wrong, been wrong a lot - just ask my wife.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
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.
csmss said:
A congressional committee or subcommittee can grant immunity.
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:
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 said:
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.