Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Fast and Furious Report by DOJ Inspector General now available

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Sebastian the Ibis, Sep 20, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    If you were paying attention to the discussion, you would understand that this is not true. I have stated that if the released documents contain culpatory information, I would change my mind. My position of executive privilege holds true for other presidents as well. If we were talking about Tillman's death, you would be here accusing me of not changing my mind even if Bush was caught eating live babies.

    If I were on the jury, that is how it would work. I am not a lawyer, but the jury is supposed to make their decision based on the evidence admitted by the court not on external unvetted sources or their personal prejudices.

    I expect people to make the best decision based on the available evidence, rather than clinging to prejudices of some imaginary thing that they "know" to be true. You know, like a rational person.

    My apologies for not double quoting so that you would understand the context of your quoted statement.

    It was in response to this: "This was precisely the reason for the importance of having it released before the elections."

    The quote from k_dawg illustrates the point that you were trying to refute.

    Oh, and confirming that for some people it is all about politics and not about the truth. That much is apparent from unwillingness to visualize your opinion changing based on new evidence. It would not be responsible to take the words of forum members on here and extrapolate them to the general population, as you did with the statement regarding unanimous opinion.

    It would have been irresponsible for Holder to point out all of the administration's opposition as being racist due to some racist elements being present.

    And thank you for raising my hopes.

    You have confused yourself on the logic here, which is understandable. If the question is "do you always pick your nose when you kiss your girl friend?", they saying Yes means that you always pick your nose when you kiss your girlfriend. Saying No means that you do not always pick your nose when you kiss your girlfriend. This could mean anywhere from one less than everytime to no times. A better question would have been "when did you stop picking your nose when kissing your girlfriend?"

    What you might have been thinking about is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?", which is loaded because either yes or no forces the responder to admit to having a wife and beating her.

    A sensible person can say "no", because the accusatory presupposition isn't there. Deanimator, on the other hand, can't say "no" because it contradicts his stated opinion regarding executive privilege based guilt. Just because Deanimator has taken a position in which the sensible answer would be contradictory doesn't mean the question is loaded.

    See response to DammitBoy for the refutation.

    I have directly said it two ways in this thread: with the legal opinion of an OSU law professor regarding deliberative executive privilege, and with a brief reminder of the history of Birther conspiracy theorists.

    You might as well be asking me in the summer of 2008 about why they are chosing to hide the long form birth certificate to make it a non-issue and put it behind them.

    If you're referring to the Feb 4, 2011 letter, that wasn't claiming that he put an end to the gun walking of the Bush era. That stopped before the last Bush AG left office. After writing the letter, the documents from the Congressional proceedings show that Holder emailed subordinates to check that gunwalking was not being performed. The proceedings also showed that the email responses were to the affirmative.

    On the other hand, that would just be a trick because Holder would know that they would catch on to the gunwalking so he planned on having his subordinates lie to him to exonerate him from guilt. To consider otherwise, as the Great Vizzini would say, "Inconceivable!" (Also, "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!")
     
  2. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    How do you expect people to make a "best decision," when the "available evidence" is incomplete? Could you, as a jury member in my previous post, make a "best decision" if the information you needed to accomplish this was intentionally suppressed? And if you objected to this, would it be fair for me to say that you were "clinging to prejudices of some imaginary thing?" Is it wrong for a "rational person" to object when it seems clear that someone is trying to manage what their decision will be?

    The very basis of a rational opinion is access to all (not just selected) facts.
     
  3. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,282
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    I've paid attention to the discussion, thanks for assuming I have not. I've also read plenty of other posts by you in other threads.

    Your position will always be one supporting the current administration, regardless of facts or facts withheld.
     
  4. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,738
    Location:
    CAAZ
    Agreed.

    Which is why, IMO and probably others, think the Neverwinter isnt being rational in accepting the limited released data as enough to decide that Holder and Obama are completely innocent.

    I dont know if they are guilty or not. But as discussed earlier, EP has historically been used, on several occassions, to cover up high lever government wrongdoings.... by both parties.

    I dont care whos in office, those documents are being hidden for a reason and the reason is usually incriminating.

    Is that proof enough for me to be convinced they're guilty? No.
    Has hhistory proven that there is reason to be suspicious of EP? YES!
     
  5. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    The legal system was specifically designed for people to do exactly that. If evidence is found not to be admissible in court on 4th amendment or 5th amendment grounds, you are not to make judgments based on those intentionally suppressed articles. It is rational for a person to make decisions that way because there are very good reasons for having those limitations on what qualifies for evidence.

    The assumption was based in your statement which is in direct opposition to what has been demonstrated in this thread. By all means, if you have seen posts which directly contradict the statements regarding willingness to acknowledge evidence and assuming blame beyond what the evidence supports in the above executive privilege cases, please post them. Until then, all you have is an unsupported opinion, which presumably was intended as an ad hominem.

    If you look at the post that prompted your use of the rolleyes, you'd see that you've just constructed a strawman in claiming that I believed in complete innocence. I suggest that you read the response to Old Fuff carefully to understand how my position lines up with how a jury is supposed to behave regarding evidence which is procedurally withheld(e.g. executive privilege). Just because evidence is being withheld doesn't mean that it's reasonable to make assumptions of guilt beyond what was admitted. Especially when the number of cases for which the assumptions would hold true are in the significant minority.
     
  6. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ah....

    The president didn't say anything about the 4th or 5th amendments. He simply said in affect, "NO!!!!! You can't see these papers. What is it with you people that can't understand the word NO!"

    "Now that we've got that out of the way I expect everyone to trust me, and believe that neither I nor the attorney general knew anything..." :uhoh:

    His true fanboys and girls probably will. Others may have doubts, and solid reasons for having them. "What is it you don't understand about the word NO! isn't going to sell, and treating us like children isn't either.
     
  7. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    That's a mischaracterization of the legal argument, and you can educate yourself with the previously posted article from an OSU law professor. If you're going to hold that opinion after understanding the article, you might as well make the same petulant response to any of 4th or 5th amendments claims. Claims which aren't pertinent in this instance , while the executive privilege claim is.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/opinion/shane-holder-contempt/index.html

    Sent using Tapatalk 2
     
  8. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,282
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Your willingness to ignore the implications of the facts being withheld by this administration are all I need to see through you.

    Winner winner, chicken dinner...
     
  9. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    This is the same approach that Old Fuff has taken toward the 4th and 5th amendments; that anything procedurally held can be considered to be culpatory to the full prejudices of the beholder. Our legal system holds that perspective as incorrect, and I agree.

    We saw similar behavior earlier in the thread, using a McCarthy-esque alienating technique to mischaracterize all who did not agree with prejudices regarding guilt as supporting the AWB. Rather than defend fallacious arguments, it was easier to attack the person. In this case, the unwillingness to disregard our nation's framework of evidence and guilt is being mischaracterized as refusal to acknowledge evidence.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2012
  10. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    The rest of us who believe in our nation's system of innocent until proven guilty is eager to hear your justification for taking a position contrary to such.

    After all, if the defense successfully quashes a molestation testimony against the defendant, that limitation on the data's release to the jury would make it obvious to any juror that he was guilty of the murder. Having information withheld is clearly an admission of guilt, otherwise they would let it through and make it a non-issue by putting it behind them.
     
  11. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,282
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Doesn't evidence need to be presented to the court to determine if it gets "quashed" or not?
     
  12. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    Not for the 5th amendment, for example.

    If they refuse a search on 4th Amendment grounds, it's also "quashed". Better not refuse searches, just to be safe.

    Sent using Tapatalk 2
     
  13. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,738
    Location:
    CAAZ
    I didnt take that position.

    I simply stated you seem Ok with with accepting the limited data as enough to make your decision of innocence.

    Hey... you're the one that making a final decision while knowing you dont have all the facts.



    Then it also stands to reason that it isnt reasonable to make the assumption of innocence either. But thats how you come across.


    Youll never have good depth perception if you have one eye shut.
     
  14. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    You do take that position because of what you say in the second half of your post. Just in case you weren't aware, the idea behind innocent until proven guilty is that the default conclusion is one of innocence, and it is the contrary evidence which convinces us to deviate from that basic state.

    If the limitation of your data is that it does not provide sufficient evidence to make the conclusion of guilt, then you can't weasel word your way toward guilty anyways. The idea is to prove guilt from evidence, not make conjecture.

    I guess it does stand "to reason that it isnt reasonable to make the assumption of innocence" based on a lack of evidence to prove a guilty conclusion, if you don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty".
     
  15. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ah....

    Wasn't Obama the candidate in the election previous to the most recent one, who bemoaned the lack of transparency in government and promised that under his stewardship he would see that was changed???

    Yet as soon as he and a high official in his administration came under suspicion he quickly reverted to a tactic designed to protect him and others from the bright light of investigation. Clearly he is one who says, “Believe in what I tell you, and ignore what I am accused of doing.”

    Is there some reason we should do so?
     
  16. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,854
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Well, isn't that what you're supposed to do in any messianic religion?
     
  17. Rail Driver

    Rail Driver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,525
    Location:
    Quincy, FL
    I think in this case, we can take Mr. Obama's history of outright deceit as evidence pointing towards a guilty decision - He lied about literally everything he ran on in 2008. He has been caught in many other lies between then and now. The only thing I can think of offhand that he has told the truth about is that he intends to push gun control in his second term (which was proven less than 12 hours after he was "re-elected").
     
  18. we are not amused

    we are not amused Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    931
    Location:
    Smallvile, Kansas
    I think it is rather obvious to any rational person that neither Obama or Holder believe in the right of the People to be armed.

    The real question is how far are they willing to go in efforts to deny those rights.

    President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and Attorney General Holder all made statements that the uncontrolled flow of guns into Mexico from Gun Shops, Gun Shows and private individuals were primarily responsible for all the drug violence going on there. They called for the so-called Gun Show Loop-hole to be closed, and that semi-auto weapons must be banned or regulated, and gun registration in various forms.

    All that, while the Arizona Federal Prosecutor, and high ranking members of the BATFE, including the acting head of the BATFE are busily engaged in deliberately sending weapons, including Barret 50 cal. rifles to the drug cartels in Mexico. Which by the way is a serious violation of Federal Law.

    Where are the indictments? Why has no one in the Government been prosecuted?

    That is the crux of the argument that there must have been higher up support for the BATFE program than acting-director Melson.

    International Law and treaties were broken, and no one in the hierarchy of the BATFE thought that maybe some one in the State Department needed to be informed? For that matter, there are those E-mails suggesting that "Operation Fast and Furious" be used to support the call for more gun control legislation. If I were Attorney General Holder, or President Obama, or even Secretary of State Clinton, and I found out that an illegal government operation was being used to justify my support of greater gun control laws, I would want to get to the bottom of it as fast as I could, and fire all of the people involved! On the other hand, I am honest, and not a Leftist Politician, who want to deprive people of the 2nd Amendment Rights, so maybe their attempt to cover up what happened is the normal way they operate.

    From the E-mails, it is obvious that agents in the BATFE were aware of the fact that flooding Mexico with illegal weapons by agents of the U. S. Government could be used by that same Government to foment further laws restricting the 2nd Amendment Rights, and that this would be looked upon in favor by their bosses, Holder and Obama.

    IF there is any evidence of complicity by the White House or the Attorney General, they SHOULD be impeached!

    And there are some tantalizing scraps of evidence. The wire tap request, which went through Holder's office, and the daily briefings He should have seen, and the briefing of a National Security Adviser to the President, who was deliberately made unavailable to Congressional hearings.

    Smoking gun? Perhaps not, but tantalizing evidence to say the least. Would it not be proper to know just what the President knew, and when did he know it? He seems to be have been very unconcerned about the facts of the matter, unless of course, he knew far more than he claims.

    I would like to remind people, that in Watergate, no one died.
     
  19. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,282
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Great post sir!
     
  20. popper

    popper Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    975
    When will you learn - KBO throws people under the bus, lets them off the hook, etc. The only truthful statement he has made was when he began to campaign the first time, saying he would run the gov differently. Now you know what he meant. The only solution is for the house to shut down the finances but the GOP will not do that no matter what. They will continue to let KBO spend and raise tax rates. NONE of them care!!!
     
  21. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,738
    Location:
    CAAZ
    No, I dont take that position. Only you trying to create positions and facts think I do.


    In case YOU wernt aware....

    If a person does something wrong, they're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent.

    However, our system presumes not guilty, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.

    A jury gives verdicts of 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. 'Not guilty' does not mean 'innocent'.

    In different types of trials there are different thresholds needs to get a guilty verdicts.

    Think about OJ. He was found 'not guilty' in the criminal case and found 'guilty' in the civil case.

    As such, Holder very well could get a 'not guilty' verdict in a criminal trial and get a 'guilty' verdict in a civil trial.


    A jury is limited on their options of verdicts to render; guilty or not guilty.

    We're not a jury. Oh wait, I get it, you're the jury for all of us. :rolleyes:

    But since I havent given you permission to decide for me :neener: Im free to think for myself and take ALL the data into consideration.

    Including things like when Obama said his administation was going to be an open and transparent adiministration...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXWTdTnhebs
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU0m6Rxm9vU

    And things like EP and its timing.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/ju...lege-over-fast-and-furious-documents-20120620

     
  22. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    Likewise, unwillingness to publicize details of military discussion and planning is yet another case of how he has failed to work toward an open and transparent administration.

    This post is more projecting that supports the supposition that the currently unanswered question has a response of "no".
    This is a good question that complements alsaqr's comment earlier about why there were no calls for reform from the Congressional committee after the truth of the IG reports came out. The IG report went into detail about how it was facilitated by those in the DoJ such as Weinstein, overseeing the BATFE.

    You're letting them deceive you if you think that only one side is participating in political games. The partisan walkouts on contempt hearings in the past decade demonstrate that.

    An internal investigation was started, and documents were withheld from the Congressional committee while being submitted to the ongoing investigation. So you could say that he was less concerned with putting on a show for the legislative branch than the facts of the matter.

    Sure, he knows far more than he claims, just like Bush knows far more than he claims about Pat Tillman's death or the response to Katrina. Right. Got it.
     
  23. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    By all means, object to understanding the consequent of your position regarding guilt.

    That's exactly what I was trying to get at, and what you continue to avoid. The system is based on the concept that the determination of guilt is an alternative to the base assumption, with the burden of proof on the accuser.

    The position you've taken points to the procedural withholding of evidence as justification for deviating from the base assumption toward the assumption of guilt. You are caught between two similarly bankrupt positions: that the withholding of information such as refusal of a search counts as evidence of guilt, or that it is reasonable to deviate toward the determination of guilt in the absence of supporting evidence.

    Again, this continued persistence of the existence of a third option within a Boolean choice plays further into the fallacy of your position. It avoids the intellectual honesty of accepting the guilty verdict in the lack of evidence, which is what you are defending with your statement of being "free to think for myself and take ALL the data into consideration".
     
  24. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,738
    Location:
    CAAZ
    And exactly how am I avoiding it if I was the one that spelled it out for you?

    Nice try twisting things up. :barf:


    Once again, I dont take that position. Unlike you, I'm not assuming guilt or innocence. I simply look at the data and what it may or may not support.

    You on the other hand, are taking the lack of data and assuming innocence.

    You are playing 'jury' when you have no reason or justification to do so.

    While doing so, you're limitiing your 'thought experiment' as you so proudly tout about yourself.



    And where do you magically get the power to declare this a Boolean choice? Did that come from your 'thought experiments?

    Why are limiting your self?

    News flash for you Neverwinter, this isnt a binary world.


    Why are you diverting the conversation?

    The issue is when they knew what they knew.


    There is some evidence that shows that Holder had some knowledge of gun running programs involving illegal tactics while they were tacking place.

    To not recognize that is just playing ostrich while claiming to have an eagle eye for the sake of arguing.



    Oddly, or not so oddly, you quoted just about everything in my post but the most important part.

    So I'll remind you of what I said:

     
  25. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    You're avoiding it because you state the words, but don't understand what they mean and why they contradict what you continue to say in the rest of the post.

    Reread what you just said regarding our justice system to understand your strawman about my argument and how that strawman doesn't mesh with what I have said regarding guilt. The guilt or innocence of an act is independent of our determination of the evidence. My position is that you don't have evidence to support your deviation.
    Scroll back up in the discussion and you'll see that Old Fuff was the one to start this line of jury discussion. You are mistaken, because I'm voluntarily participating is his thought experiment. A courtesy not offered to me.

    If a person doesn't do something wrong, are they partially guilty? Partially innocent? Can you describe this alternate option between doing something wrong and not doing something wrong?

    It's not diverting the conversation by demonstrating the invalidity of a line of reasoning regarding guilt in other cases of the same procedure.

    Then by all means, work from that angle rather than making the fallacious argument regarding the executive privilege documents.

    Does this mean you're willing to give up the argument that the withholding of executive privilege documents is an indicator of guilt?

    I quoted everything that I had an issue with. As you would learn from the portion of my post above, there is no conflict between the concepts of modern justice and that statement regarding guilt and innocence.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page