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. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,739
    Location:
    CAAZ
    No. Its not. Guilt is guilt and innocent is innocent. However, a jury verdict of not guilty is neither guilty or innocent.
    (edit: I may be misunderstanding your sentence)



    And if you scoll up a few pages you'll see that I said I dont know if either guilty or not. Did you forget that or just want to argue?

    If you also remember, I also took your challange and said show me the documents and if they show no indication of involvment/knowledge, I'll agree to say neither had any.

    Remember ANY of that? I think you even thanked me.



    I didnt say that. I'll I said is something similar to/paraphrasing 'it makes you wonder'.

    Im, as well as others, are free to wonder all we want in either direction. You on the other hand, seem to be convinced of one particular determination with out knowing all of the facts.

    Seriously?

    That just seems like you're wanting something to try to nitpick and argue about.

    If you dont already know wrong from right, I, and dare I say maybe no one, will be able to explain it to you.

    But for giggles I'll quote myself again.


    Now if you're talking about a court of law.... Well, Ive explained what jury verdicts mean a few posts up. Either you comprehend it or you dont.

    You seem to be trying to justify your position by using the criteria a jury has to conform to but youre failing to realize that you, I , we, are not a jury and are free to wonder all we want.

    Again, if you scroll up, you'll see that I said I dont know to what extent, if any, either ones involvement.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2012
  2. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    Yes, a jury verdict in the absence of clairvoyance is merely an approximation of what occurred based on the evidence presented.

    Sorry, I have been using you as the stand in for those who are unable to otherwise defend their rationale of the executive privilege as an indicator of guilt.

    What you did say was:
    Which I seem to have misinterpreted when combined with Dammitboy's post as "you can't stay on the choice of not guilty when limited data is available". As you have said, that wasn't your position. Dammitboy has made statements otherwise. It is inappropriate for me to hold you to his opinions.

    I suppose the tactic of "wondering" by the Fox News Channel crowd has attached a negative connotation when used in matters such as this. In their usage, "wondering" is merely a postulation of an unsupported opinion.

    My determination is merely that an invocation of executive privilege doesn't confer guilt, not the strawman of the clairvoyant assumption of guilt or innocence that some have demonstrated in this thread.

    You said that we don't live in a binary world, then continued on to an instance where there is a binary decision. The choice between guilty and not guilty is not an artificially binary decision. Given a framework of the burden of proof being on the accuser, either they have sufficient evidence to support their accusation or they do not. You see the same kind of decision making in scientific experimentation and in statistical hypothesis testing.

    If you have a problem with arguing from the perspective of a jury, take it up with Old Fuff. It was his analogy.

    My posts highlighted the fallacy of using the protection of information as proof of guilt.

    Again, sorry for using you as the stand in for others in this thread who have given up trying to support their argument.
     
  3. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    The point of the analogy is that a jury cannot reach an informed opinion if they're decision is reached based on selected evidence. They do of course, all of the time, and sometimes it turns out they were wrong.

    Here we have an office holder who is asking for the public to trust him, while at the same time suppressing evidence. It seems unlikely he would do this if the documents in question would support his claim of innocence. It would be far more likely under the circumstances that the material would from his perspective not be favorable.

    Me think the pot is calling the kettle black. :D I don't see anyone coming forward in agreement with your positions on the issue. :uhoh:
     
  4. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,282
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    How can you come to any decision when you know evidence is being withheld to protect the accused and the accused is the one denying the court access to that information.

    How can the President claim E.P. - if his claim is the white house was not involved and had no knowledge? What evidence would he be withholding by E.P. if his claim is there is no evidence to withhold?

    Neverwinter can assume innocence (based on incomplete data) all he wants but we know what happens when one assumes such, don't we?
     
  5. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    Then perhaps you shouldn't have asked what a person should do in a situation where the justice system endorses and even codifies different behavior than what you were proposing. If we are to believe what you have just said, then there is practically no jury which has reached an informed opinion because the evidence presented to them is selected. A defense attorney wouldn't be able to withhold the police statements involving accusations of molestation over a decade from a murder trial. If the statement of that Orlando woman is excluded from the selected evidence, the jurors might make an uninformed decision and erroneously find someone not guilty.

    As a hypothetical, if you were to purchase a large black silicone marital aid, that might be material which is not favorable but not at all relevant to a murder trial.

    Please read that again to comprehend what was being said. That was not an argumentum ad populum, as you have misunderstood.
     
  6. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    How can anyone come to a decision when the accused refuses to waive all 4th amendment and 5th amendment rights? Shouldn't they be declared guilty because the evidence that they aren't providing clearly indicates that they're hiding their guilt?

    The link has been provided repeatedly but it looks like very few people were willing to look at the opinion of a legal scholar. So I'll just quote the relevant parts here and hope that they'll at least read that far.
    You have a modern judicial system which respects the rights of the accused and doesn't allow people to assume guilt based on a lack of evidence or conjecture toward guilt from their personal prejudices. By all means, please elaborate as to how our modern judicial system is flawed by having the 4th and 5th Amendment protections. Perhaps you can continue down that path and elaborate as to how our modern policing system is flawed by allowing civilians to own and carry guns due to the 2nd Amendment.
     
  7. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,282
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Our judicial system has nothing to do with our government withholding the facts from the people.

    Deflection, thy name is neverwinter...
     
  8. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,739
    Location:
    CAAZ
    This is another example where you completely lose me as far as you having any logic worth considering.

    1st) Its such a giant leap of tagent that it just wreaks of a diversionary/deflection tactic to throw disscussion into a different direction.

    2nd) It sure could be relevent depending on what circumstances the murder occured.

    3rd) But this EP isnt being used to hide info about unrelated topics. Its beining used to hide info directly connected to this specific topic.


    (Your use of such an outlandish analogy is another example of you trying to deflect/divert.)



    Again, another diversion attempt. EP and gunrunning really dont much to do with juryies or jury processes.

    However, all of the prison sentences that have been over turned in recent years should be an indication to you that our jury system is far from perfect. But thats a whole other topic of discussion





    TomAto vs Tomato.... EP vs DP. Dont try to divert from the topic by spliting hairs. Its symantecs only.

    Its really of no difference and more than likely its a strategic move.

    Potentially the 'final policy decision' is 'the DOJ is going to track guns going into Mexico'.

    Where-as the 'internal deliberations' may have included something like 'I want to prove guns are bad and getting into Mexico, Go make that happen!!' .


    This is what I openly said about 3 pages ago I think might have happend.

    Things like that happen far too often. A superior gives an order to 'make it happen' and the subrdinate creates a way to fullfil the superiors order.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2012
  9. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    As a taxpayer, voter, veteran, US citizen, lawyer and gun owner, the invocation of this privilege is a dirty move to conceal damning evidence - and frankly it has no parellel to a civilian criminal accusation. It is clear that it is detrimental to the administration, otherwise they would not only release it, but they'd announce it loudly to the world much like any other accomplishments.

    I can think of very limited circumstances where a lawyer would advise his client (the government), who then appeared to commit a crime, and that advice to the client is not able to be known by the very people who PAY and are the BOSS of the lawyer and the client. Stated otherwise: WE taxpayers pay the lawyer and the client. WE taxpayers therefore are able to know the advice OUR laywer gave to OUR client.

    Folks here are confused thinking about a civilian situation. If a civilian came to my legal office prior to commiting a crime, my advice to him is privileged. If he committed a crime then my advice is still privileged (unless he tries to throw me under the bus, in which case I can defend myself by defeating the privilege).

    HOWEVER, we have TWO public officials - a lawyer and the client. A crime appears to have been committed. HOW do we know whether the advice was sound? Whether it was to commit the crime or not? HOW do we know whether our employee committed the crime against the advice of OUR lawyer? These are VERY important questions and ones WE have an absolute right to. PEOPLE HAVE DIED!!!!

    There are only a few realistic reasons to conduct such a bone-headed operation.
    1. Feable attempt to track guns - clearly unworkable because it didn't come close to working. And I've been dialed in to countless mission operation concepts. Any evaluation of this would quickly show the risk is NOT worth any reward.

    More sinister reasons:
    2. Create civil war by arming Mexican drugs lords with a light Brigade's worth of military style weapons.
    3. Watch as the body count in Mexico (and even America) rises to create an anti-gun argument and another AWB.

    Anyone have any other thoughts? There really are few other reasons...


    So much for a transparent administration.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2012
  10. k_dawg

    k_dawg Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Messages:
    816
    People forget that the basis of our criminal court system is not factual truth.
    Hence, the existance of the 4th and 5th amendments.

    In this case, the issue concerns the hypocracy of this administration.
     
  11. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    1st: You keep using that word in examples where a counterexample is provided which demonstrates the inadequacies of the logic involved. It is not my fault if you can't follow the logic as to how an unrelated purchase you made might be something which you would want to be protected by the 4th Amendment while not hiding evidence relevant to the case.

    2nd: If that murder was performed with a gun, it is unlikely that the marital aid would be relevant.

    3rd: It might be relevant from the perspective of a prosecutor, if the victim were black. They could work the angle of the color of the purchase, depending on the malleability of the jurors.

    The question asked was about how a jury would act if they were only provided selected portions of information. The proper actions where then described to them, and then all of a sudden the argument is a "distraction" now that it directly contradicts the intended point. If jury decision making is a distraction, why didn't you address that after the one in which Old Fuff brought it up rather than at the point where I use it?

    The system is deliberately intended to minimize the influence of prejudices by having the jurors selected rule directly based on the available evidence. If you have jurors who are willing to disobey those instructions(given how Old Fuff indicates that obeying would prevent an informed decision), then there are absolutely going to be failures in the system caused by human error.

    Of course, I may be wrong about what Old Fuff would do on a jury. He should tell you himself as to whether he would follow jury instructions rather than contribute to incorrect verdicts.

    Multiple posters asked about why their presumption about the president being directly involved would not be true and how the invocation of executive privilege demonstrates how that must be the case.

    There's citation explaining otherwise, and seems to be yet another instance where a counterexample is written off as a "diversion" merely because having to

    And when Holder sends emails after the CBS story, attempting to confirm that gunwalking isn't occurring, his subordinates' response denying it were all merely an illusion meant to disguise the fact that Holder received policy from Obama about making sure guns are going into Mexico.

    And within those executive privilege documents is the planning of when emails would fall under Opposite Day, where he could check that the gun walking plan is actually working out.

    It's clever of him, hiding the iocaine powder like that.
     
  12. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    4. Instate officials who are capable and willing to act on their own accord to facilitate gun walking, in order to promote abridging of executive privilege for when their party's administration is out in 2016.

    You need to think more steps ahead. These are the people who had the forethought to have planned out deceiving each other once their plan had been found out.
     
  13. Sky

    Sky Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    2,927
    Location:
    Texas
    Most normal people would think so IMO.

    Also I was told E.P. could only be used in an investigation if the W.H. was directly involved; if true then there is the answer 'legally' right there... All this is much further up the food chain than my pay grade yet it does leave a certain air I would much rather not be forced to breathe.
     
  14. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,739
    Location:
    CAAZ
    I can follow logic. The issue is that your counter examples are so vaguely relatable to this specific situation that thye dont make sense to use as counter examples. An unrelated marital aide/murder is not really a sensible counter example to EP that is hiding related documents.

    See the difference?


    Right... Marital aid = not relevant.


    If the murder was with gun, marital aid still = not relevent. (PS, Im not going down the 'race' road so drop it. Its a bad ex.)

    1st, I was having a conversation with you; not Oldfluff. I quoted you; not Oldfluff.

    You're the one that is countering to me in regards to what other people say as if I said it.

    Do you remember saying the following two quotes to me?
    .


    .

    Its not that binary.

    You're right on the 1st part but only partially right on the 2nd part. Another flaw could be if there is relevent info to a case but it isnt allowed because of a technicality of say a date on a form had 2013 instead of 2012. In that ex., the jurors are not allowed to make their decision on the full evidence. Now we can debate whether or not the evidence not allowed because of a technicality to death but lets not and try to keep on topic.( In this ex., the laws are binary and 2013 probably wouldnt be allowed but it should because life isnt binary.)



    You're right... he should tell me... IF I asked him. But I didnt ask him because its not relevent to me in this topic.



    So reply to them! I didnt ask that so you sticking that reply topic in a response to me just doesnt make sense an alludes to me saying/asking something that I didnt.

    Please refer back to you realizing that YOU'RE using me as a stand in for other people.


    The difference between EP and DP isnt relevent because they both accomplishing the same thing which is hiding RELATIVE documents. EP or DP is used to hide RELATIVE documents. Thats the purpose of EP/DP.

    Its not to hide marital aides not relevent in a murder case. Its not used to hide documents regarding world trade strategies/policies when documents relating to gunrunning are requested.


    SO when you use such odd ball counter examples, it only undermines any valid points you may have,


    I didnt say Obama. You assumed it and replied in such a way that alluded that I did say that.

    But I didnt say it.

    You see how you do that?

    So one of 2 things is happening.

    1) Youre either totally unaware of your own assumptions when you reply.
    Or
    2) You are trying to allude that I said something that I didnt for the purpose of undermining me a falsely bolstering your position.
     
  15. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,282
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Neverwinter is only deflecting for the sake of deflecting from the only real fact we do have.

    FACT: We the People have a right to know what our government did in this case. A right to all the facts and it is the duty of our elected officials to present us with ALL the facts.

    It's not a civil case, so stop bs'ing about civil court cases.
     
  16. Davek1977

    Davek1977 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,504
    Actually, this is ALL about a civil case at this point. The Justice Dept declined to prosecute Holder, meaning the only alternative was to sue in civil court for the release of the documents in question. We can quit BS'ing about CRIMINAL charges, because, whether or not warranted, we are beyond that point in the process and it won't be revisited.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2012
  17. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    8,034
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    For context: I was referring to Holder's 7 Jun 2012 House and 12 Jun 2012 Senate testimony.
    2006 Mar - Operation Wide Receiver began involving gun walking.
    2006 Jun - William Newell took over OWR as ATF SAC Phoenix and became a fan of gunwalking.
    2007 Jul - Hernandez Case started involving controlled delivery with notification of Mexican police.
    2007 Oct 6 - William Hoover at ATF HQ orders end to gunwalking and controlled delivery by ATF Phoenix.
    2007 Oct 6 - cited as end of Operation Wide Receiver (gunwalking) and Hernandez (controlled delivery)
    2007 Nov 9 - Mukasey appointed US AG
    2007 Nov 16 - Mukasey meets Mexican AG Medina Mora; before meeting Mukasey briefed on Hernandez Case.

    Mukasey was never in a position to stop OWR and never allowed gunwalking. Holder's own Office of Legislative Affairs informed Congress Mar 2012 that a search of the records showed no briefings at the DOJ AG level on either Operation Wide Receiver or Operation Fast and Furious while they were on-going.

    As far as Holder claiming credit for ending gunwalking under OF&F, the Holder DOJ official position to Congress from the 4 Feb 2011 letter to the 2 Dec 2011 letter was that there was no gunwalking under OF&F.

    2006 Jun - William Newell took over OWR as ATF SAC Phoenix and became a fan of gunwalking (did not like controlled delivery with contract with FFL and notification of Mexican police.) The Phoenix Assitant US Attorneys found the OWR cases so screwed up they did not think they were prosecutable. When the Obama administration decided to prosecute the OWR cases and announced a "Cartel based strategy", Newell took that as vindication of the tactic of gunwalking and rescinding the 6 Oct 2007 stop, as the 31 Oct 2009 Chambers Case morphed into Operation Fast and Furious during Nov 2009 under Phoenix ATF Newell, Voth and MacAllister. (ATF Phoenix case agent Hope MacAllister--cited for blame in the OIG Review--and her lawyer claim the approval of gunwalking in OF&F went much higher than Phoenix ATF SAC Newell. Maybe there is something behind the curtain.)

    The Democrat talking points are (a) that gunwalking started under the Bushies in Operation Wide Receiver but was ended under Obama by Holder and (b) that Operation Fast and Furious never involved gunwalking but prosecution of straw purchasers, unlicensed dealers and cross-border traffickers was stymied by lax Arizona state laws promoted by the GOP and NRA.

    Holder claimed Mukasey allowed 300 guns to walk under Wide Receiver. Lie.

    Phoenix US Attorney Dennis Burke acknowledged by email the day after Brian Terry died that the two guns at the death scene were OF&F guns from Phoenix, but months later told the Terry family the guns came from a Texas operation. Lie.

    Lax Arizona state law on straw purchase, unlicensed dealing and cross-border trafficking prevented ATF and USAO from enforcing federal law on straw purchase, unlicensed dealing and cross-border trafficking. Big lie.
     
  18. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    You don't want to go down the race road, and that's understandable since it points out an aspect of your position that you can't defend.

    Personally, I wouldn't think it's relevant, but a jury and a crafty prosecution could think otherwise.

    Those quotes refer to the position of not being willing to accept potential evidence from the EP documents as affecting your decision.

    It was your claim that bringing up the subject of juries was a distraction. I didn't think it was a distraction when I responded to Old Fuff. He didn't think so when he introduced it unless he was deliberately trying to distract the debate himself. People have come to criticize the mention of the process when it is used to undermine your position, but let it fly by when it's to your benefit.

    Perhaps it was premature to offer that congratulations for rising above.

    And if you apply your example to the current discussion of Old Fuff's position, you can see how easily jurors who might be aware that there was hidden relevant information which vindicated the defendant could incorrectly rule guilty by ignoring their instructions and making presumptions about evidence that they did not observe.

    Your response was to my reply to them. If you thought his jury mention was irrelevant, you should have taken it to him. I don't know if you're aware of it, but you're falling victim to your double standard. If you didn't want me to call you out on that double standard, you should have objected to Old Fuff's introduction of the topic rather than criticize my post for something that you only had a problem with when it undermined your position.

    You criticized my post explaining the nature of deliberative privilege and how it is a specific form of executive privilege that doesn't support the accusation of Obama being directly involved.

    You said "EP vs DP. Dont try to divert from the topic by spliting hairs. Its symantecs(sic) only. Its really of no difference and more than likely its a strategic move." If you didn't actually mean that, feel free to retract your statement.

    It seems that you're unaware of the implications of what you wrote regarding DP when you came to the defense of other people's posts without understanding what they're arguing and what I'm refuting.
     
  19. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,589
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Getting personal so we're done here.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page