ATF Project Gunrunner

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Were the AZ gun stores compelled to make these straw purchase sales under the threat of FFL license revocation?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
BG, I was having the same thoughts about RICO. Everyone on every level is guilty of being involved in a illegal act if it is murder of a federal agent, illegal sales of firearms or a scheme to deprive U.S. Citizens of their rights in the future. The sad thing is that the DOJ uses RICO to get anyone that "they" want to put in federal prison. In this case, they would have to charge themselves. That won't happen.

RICO is a big broom that can sweep a very wide path. I knew a person that went to federal prison because he attended a meeting of people that had a discussion of writing a letter that was never written nor mailed. Their contention was that the intent was there under RICO. The irony was that he turned, and when the others were found not gulity. He had to be released.

Something else is a RICO will get you a Club Fed membership. A gun crime will get you a hard federal prison. They might plead to RICO so they can keep their tan.
 
Concerning BGutzman in post 1848 and pcb911 in post 1849 references/comments on ATF/DOJ antics re conversations with FFL's, it could well be that the antics of BATFE (ATF), and DOJ in and with regard to Fast & Furious constitute actions chargeable under RICO. That having been said, who might it be that would bring prosecution, assuming that there was anyone willing to take the thing before a Federal Grand Jury, seeking indictments.

I think, if I try, I can actually visualize, in the auditory sense of the term, the remarks that a U.S. Attorney might make before this federal grand jury, accompanied by winks and nods of course.
 
Could a certain loudmouthed sheriff bring it before a Grand Jury? A sheriff is a much bigger dog in the LEO hierarchy than most people think. If not a sheriff, how about a state's Attorney General?
 
Getting back to the issue of special use immunity granted by Congress - this is NOT an issue of executive privilege to be asserted by the executive branch. It is a simple question of the violation of the separation of powers insofar as Congress usurping the executive branch's prosecutorial authority. Prosecutorial authority is imbued to the executive branch. It is not imbued to the Congress, either explicitly by Constitutional provision or statute.

It was argued above that, in fact, this issue had been litigated and ruled upon by SCOTUS in the case of Ollie North, but this does not conform to my recollection at all. There was no animus between the congressional committee investigating Iran-Contra and the office of the Special Counsel - they worked closely together on the grant of immunity for Ollie North and specifically tailored it to attempt to theoretically wall off his testimony before Congress from the Counsel's investigation. This, of course, did not fly, and North's convictions were overturned on appeal because it was essentially impossible for DOJ to demonstrate that North's testimony before Congress didn't taint the investigation of him. THAT was the issue litigated in that case, not whether Congress had the legal authority to grant immunity to a witness against the wishes of the DOJ.

The issuance of immunity from prosecution is an action of prosecutorial, NOT legislative discretion, and I believe that SCOTUS will slap down any attempt by a congressional committee to grant immunity from prosecution to a witness if DOJ opposes it.
 
On Congressional grants of immunity, I found this post interesting.

I address the problem of how Congress can provide effective oversight of the executive branch in the article. My analysis is that Congress has an inherent power to conduct investigations, which has been recognized since the Founding era. That power includes the ability to compel testimony from witnesses -- even without granting immunity for potentially incriminating testimony.

If a witness is required to give testimony that ends up being incriminating, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination should still be applicable at a later trial. The result would be substantially the same -- the judge in the case would apply the privilege to exclude evidence that came from the congressional compulsion. The only practical difference is that Congress can't promise in advance that the evidence will be excluded. The application of the Constitution to the situation is up to the judge.
Click to expand...
 
So many twists, where to start....??

Oh well...maybe with Cunningham's resignation...someone will eventually take a closer look into the Kingery case, the CI, and the 2000 grenade components...both internationally smuggled, and otherwise.

Maybe some simple AZ policework can accomplish what the DC types on both sides of the questioning have been unable to piece together, with some eventual straightforward answers to all the non complex questions.

Not faulting Issa, but there seems to be a few DOJ safeguards against him taking the investigation to a certian level of clarity.
 
I read above several references to prosecuting one or other F&F players under RICO statutes. And while I will allow that it may well be that several actors may very well have committed ongoing criminal acts comprehended by RICO, I remind y'all that RICO statutes exist at the federal level and prosecution under them falls under the exclusive purview of the DoJ, with all that entails.
 
It seems to me that in the past, when there is an change in what party occupies the White House there generally has been a tendency to let bygones be bygones, and not prosecute appointees or directors in fed agencies for "past" transgressions.

I don't know if there will be a republican in the White House, but I think that , besides the actual field agents working these operations, criminal charges should be pursued against teveryone involved - but especially the people who thought up the idea in the first place...
 
There's one fly in that ointment C0unt. Obama will likely issue pardons to all involved in F&F before he leaves office. There isn't likely to be anyone around who could actually be indicted.
 
Wait, the President can't issue pro-active pardons can he?

Charges would have to be brought first and if they are brought within the statute of limitations, but after the former president leaves office - I can't see how the president who is in office at the time the crimes are committed can pardon them.

An adminstration that brings charges in the first place, obviously is not going pardon the people it brings cases against.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top