RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


kalikshama -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (7/3/2012 8:21:10 AM)

quote:

Just because she claims she's telling the truth, evidence points out that she's not..


What evidence? Ron has debunked your examiner "evidence" and I do not consider Breibart a credible source. Re: the CBS link, the Fortune article says the straw purchasers weren't arrested due to lack of sign off from federal prosecutors, and in frustration, the ATF went to the state for warrants.

Phoenix-based ATF agents became so frustrated by prosecutors' intransigence that, in a highly unusual move, they began bringing big cases to the state attorney general's office instead.




thompsonx -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (7/3/2012 11:24:21 AM)

quote:

Now who are we to believe, some reporter, who interviewed the guy who was in charge of letting the guns walk, or the testimony under oath of two ATF agents who blew the whistle on the operation?


Please cite the federal law which prohibits fire arms trafficking.




MileHighM -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (7/3/2012 1:44:58 PM)

To the left:

Of course the cons are crying about this, it is simple partisanship. But, really you're going to defend this Nixon like behavior because of your own partisanship? I think they should disclose it all. If they are not guilt y they will be vindicated by the documents. Right now it looks suspect.




mnottertail -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (7/3/2012 1:47:41 PM)

Well we are still waiting for a disclosing of the investigation to date.  Note that no actual transcripts have been provided, and certainly cannot make a valid judgement based on the known lies of the convict Issa, cuz really, thats all there is.




MileHighM -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (7/3/2012 1:59:56 PM)

Transparency will be the only thing that puts this to rest. Obama should disclose it, it will take him out of the loop, forget the executive privilege. It might mean holder falls on a sword but that's the patomic two step. And obama can pardon him after the fact anyways.




mnottertail -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (7/3/2012 2:03:27 PM)

You are right, transparency will put this to rest, get the teabaggers and the neo-cons down there in congress to hold full and public hearings, disclose all sources and testimony, and call all witnesses that the minority wants, and correct the known errors and facts as outlined in Cummings letter.

All of which they voted down on the day they held the contempt vote. 

Obama can't do that. Only the gun convict Issa can.




kalikshama -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (7/3/2012 2:11:35 PM)

And suspected arsonist.

http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201006010007

...Suspected Arson

1982: Issa Suspected, But Never Charged, In Arson Incident At Manufacturing Plant. According to the Los Angeles Times: "A suspected arson fire ripped through [Issa's Ohio] manufacturing plant in 1982. No one was ever charged in the fire, but authorities were troubled by a dramatic escalation in the facility's fire insurance just weeks earlier. Even before the blaze was put out, investigators began peppering Issa and his partner with 'crazy questions' regarding their whereabouts before the fire, Issa recalled." [Los Angeles Times, 5/23/98, via Nexis, emphasis added]

Prior To Fire, Issa "Boosted" Fire Insurance And Removed A Computer From The Premises. According to the Los Angeles Times: "Weeks before the fire, Issa and [business partner] Hunsinger boosted their fire insurance from $ 100,000 to $ 462,000 on property stored for other companies...At the same time, a separate company that contracted with Quantum to outfit bug zappers increased its insurance to $ 400,000, and, according to an insurance report, one investigator was 'concerned about the coincidence.' Fire investigators also noted that a computer was taken off the site eight days before the fire, 'allegedly to be reprogrammed' by Issa's lawyer, and that business blueprints were put away in a safe--which was 'not previously done before.'" [Los Angeles Times, 5/23/98, via Nexis]

"Suspicious Burn Patterns" And "Out Of Normal Practice" Behavior Alerted Investigators. The Washington Post reported: "Investigators reported 'suspicious burn patterns' and said the fire may have been set. A company bookkeeper, Karen Brasdovich, also told them that computers and records had been removed from the site days before the fire for no clear reason. 'It was totally out of normal practice,' she said in a telephone interview last week." [Washington Post via FTLComm.com, 7/8/03]

AC Custom Fire: Flammable Liquid Had "Been Poured On The Only Area Not Covered By Fire Sprinklers." The Los Angeles Times reported that "seven months after Issa took control," a fire broke out at the "Quantum manufacturing plant." "Case files from Maple Heights, the Ohio fire marshal and insurers pointed repeatedly to the likelihood of arson in the blaze, which officials estimated caused $ 800,000 in damage. Although an accident could not be ruled out, the uneven and unnatural burn patterns made the blaze 'suspicious in nature,' the state concluded two months later. Flammable liquid appeared to have been poured on the only area not covered by fire sprinklers, investigators found." [Los Angeles Times, 5/23/98, via Nexis, emphasis added]




subrob1967 -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (7/3/2012 2:16:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

Just because she claims she's telling the truth, evidence points out that she's not..


What evidence? Ron has debunked your examiner "evidence" and I do not consider Breibart a credible source. Re: the CBS link, the Fortune article says the straw purchasers weren't arrested due to lack of sign off from federal prosecutors, and in frustration, the ATF went to the state for warrants.

Phoenix-based ATF agents became so frustrated by prosecutors' intransigence that, in a highly unusual move, they began bringing big cases to the state attorney general's office instead.

And I don't consider Fortune, owned by Time, and written by an ultra liberal activist reporter to be a credible source either, and Ron didn't debunk shit, all he did was post a letter Cummings wrote, which Issa disputes.

Again I ask, where are the documents she saw? If they were such top secret ATF documents, 1, how did she get access to them, and 2, why weren't they turned over to Congress when they were subpenaed? Why haven't any of these 67 agents she talked to come forward, even anonymously to back her up?




mnottertail -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (7/3/2012 2:18:20 PM)

so, you got nothing, we got nothing and only issa and cummings are insiders.

I think that the teabaggers, neocons and rushfelchers should have voted yes on the transparency, the public hearing bill, they did it for the gun convict issas islamic witchhunt.




thompsonx -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (7/3/2012 7:07:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM

To the left:

Of course the cons are crying about this, it is simple partisanship. But, really you're going to defend this Nixon like behavior because of your own partisanship? I think they should disclose it all. If they are not guilt y they will be vindicated by the documents. Right now it looks suspect.



Any chance you might try to respond to what I post instead of what you imagine I might be thinkng?




thompsonx -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (7/3/2012 7:13:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

Just because she claims she's telling the truth, evidence points out that she's not..


What evidence? Ron has debunked your examiner "evidence" and I do not consider Breibart a credible source. Re: the CBS link, the Fortune article says the straw purchasers weren't arrested due to lack of sign off from federal prosecutors, and in frustration, the ATF went to the state for warrants.

Phoenix-based ATF agents became so frustrated by prosecutors' intransigence that, in a highly unusual move, they began bringing big cases to the state attorney general's office instead.

And I don't consider Fortune, owned by Time, and written by an ultra liberal activist reporter to be a credible source either, and Ron didn't debunk shit, all he did was post a letter Cummings wrote, which Issa disputes.

Again I ask, where are the documents she saw? If they were such top secret ATF documents, 1, how did she get access to them, and 2, why weren't they turned over to Congress when they were subpenaed? Why haven't any of these 67 agents she talked to come forward, even anonymously to back her up?



If you had actually read the article you would have noticed that it mentioned that there are no federal law against firearms trafficking




subrob1967 -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (7/4/2012 12:31:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
If you had actually read the article you would have noticed that it mentioned that there are no federal law against firearms trafficking


Straw purchases are illegal

Then there is this...
quote:

Transporting firearms from the U.S. to Mexico poses more legal obstacles to the would-be trafficker. Shipping, transporting or receiving a firearm with intent to commit a felony with it, or knowing that someone else will use it to commit a felony, is punishable by ten years in prison.[10] The trafficker would also break the law if he tried to ship firearms by common carrier without declaring the contents of the package,[11] or by mailing a handgun.[12] There are also specific prohibitions on shipping or transporting stolen firearms,[13] or firearms with obliterated serial numbers.[14]

If a trafficker manages to export firearms from the U.S. without a license from the State Department, he violates the Arms Export Control Act, which prohibits unlicensed exports of “defense articles.”[15] Illegally exported “arms or munitions of war” are subject to seizure and forfeiture.[16]

Even if the trafficker does not remove the firearm from the U.S., he can still be punished for transferring it to someone else in the U.S., if the transferor knows the firearm will be used to commit a violent or drug trafficking crime.[17] And even if a group of traffickers are ultimately unsuccessful, they can still be punished under the general federal conspiracy statute, as long as one of the conspirators commits some act to carry out the plan.[18]

Nearly all of the violations described above are federal felonies that carry potential prison terms of five years or more, and fines of $250,000 and up.[19]

Mexico, of course, also has strict and complex gun laws of its own, which allow for up to three years’ imprisonment for importation of arms “that can only be used to attack” or that are not “for public servants.”[20] Mexico prohibits civilian possession of firearms or ammunition in calibers commonly used by the military (such as 9mm or larger handguns, and .223 and .30 caliber rifles).[21] Unauthorized possession of these and other “arm exclusively reserved for the use of the Army, Navy or Air Force” is punishable by up to fifteen years’ imprisonment.[22] Gun sales within Mexico are a government monopoly, conducted at a single store operated by the army in Mexico City.[23]


Now, what were your babbling about?




kalikshama -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (7/4/2012 7:01:40 AM)

quote:

Straw purchases are illegal


The purchasers signed a form saying that they were not straw purchasers, and until a prosecutor signs a warrant, ATF's hands were tied. You really should listen to the NPR interview. Ashbrook hammers Eban on this point.




Nikkegirl322 -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (7/4/2012 8:17:37 AM)

a




MileHighM -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (7/4/2012 8:19:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM

To the left:

Of course the cons are crying about this, it is simple partisanship. But, really you're going to defend this Nixon like behavior because of your own partisanship? I think they should disclose it all. If they are not guilt y they will be vindicated by the documents. Right now it looks suspect.



Any chance you might try to respond to what I post instead of what you imagine I might be thinkng?



It was a general post, for whatever reason it said it was in response to you




thompsonx -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (7/4/2012 9:35:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
If you had actually read the article you would have noticed that it mentioned that there are no federal law against firearms trafficking


Straw purchases are illegal

Then there is this...
quote:

Transporting firearms from the U.S. to Mexico poses more legal obstacles to the would-be trafficker. Shipping, transporting or receiving a firearm with intent to commit a felony with it, or knowing that someone else will use it to commit a felony, is punishable by ten years in prison.[10] The trafficker would also break the law if he tried to ship firearms by common carrier without declaring the contents of the package,[11] or by mailing a handgun.[12] There are also specific prohibitions on shipping or transporting stolen firearms,[13] or firearms with obliterated serial numbers.[14]

If a trafficker manages to export firearms from the U.S. without a license from the State Department, he violates the Arms Export Control Act, which prohibits unlicensed exports of “defense articles.”[15] Illegally exported “arms or munitions of war” are subject to seizure and forfeiture.[16]

Even if the trafficker does not remove the firearm from the U.S., he can still be punished for transferring it to someone else in the U.S., if the transferor knows the firearm will be used to commit a violent or drug trafficking crime.[17] And even if a group of traffickers are ultimately unsuccessful, they can still be punished under the general federal conspiracy statute, as long as one of the conspirators commits some act to carry out the plan.[18]

Nearly all of the violations described above are federal felonies that carry potential prison terms of five years or more, and fines of $250,000 and up.[19]

Mexico, of course, also has strict and complex gun laws of its own, which allow for up to three years’ imprisonment for importation of arms “that can only be used to attack” or that are not “for public servants.”[20] Mexico prohibits civilian possession of firearms or ammunition in calibers commonly used by the military (such as 9mm or larger handguns, and .223 and .30 caliber rifles).[21] Unauthorized possession of these and other “arm exclusively reserved for the use of the Army, Navy or Air Force” is punishable by up to fifteen years’ imprisonment.[22] Gun sales within Mexico are a government monopoly, conducted at a single store operated by the army in Mexico City.[23]

Now, what were your babbling about?




Any chance you could link us to a source that will tell us which federal law makes arms trafficking illegal?
Perhaps you might start by actually reading the fortune article, then you may ask for a pry bar to get your feet out of your mouth.




subrob1967 -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (7/4/2012 1:31:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Any chance you could link us to a source that will tell us which federal law makes arms trafficking illegal?
Perhaps you might start by actually reading the fortune article, then you may ask for a pry bar to get your feet out of your mouth.



I did read the article, and it's anti gun bias. Eban is a lying sack of progressive shit.
Cornell Law

18 U.S.C. § 922






mnottertail -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (7/4/2012 1:41:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967
Straw purchases are illegal 

Transporting firearms from the U.S. to Mexico poses more legal obstacles to the would-be trafficker. Shipping, transporting or receiving a firearm with intent to commit a felony with it, or knowing that someone else will use it to commit a felony, is punishable by ten years in prison.

 
Good luck proving that shit without gunwalking.
And how would anyone know it was a straw purchase unless the strawman and sippie cup guy were right there in front of you telling you that?
 
Go back to investigating doughnut shops.
 




thompsonx -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (7/4/2012 3:57:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Any chance you could link us to a source that will tell us which federal law makes arms trafficking illegal?
Perhaps you might start by actually reading the fortune article, then you may ask for a pry bar to get your feet out of your mouth.



I did read the article, and it's anti gun bias. Eban is a lying sack of progressive shit.
Cornell Law

18 U.S.C. § 922





We are talking here about the original purchaser...what exactly in 922 do you feel is the prosecutable statute?




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875