First convictions from Fast and Furious gun probe

[burf]

Looks as though they got couple of the "kingpins" in F&F.

Jacob Wayne Chambers and Jacob Anthony Montelongo each pleaded guilty in federal court Monday to a conspiracy charge. Montelongo also pleaded guilty to dealing guns without a license.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/24/first-convictions-from-fast-and-furious-gun-probe/#ixzz1kUPGUg28

According to the article, they face 5 years and $250,000 fine. According to the site "Don't lie for the other guy", a straw purchase can get you 10 years. I thought that was per occurance.

[Hoyt]

1. There will be more, much to the chagrin of the "gun culture" who hates ATF and restrictions.

Love the "Fox" use citation.

You guys need to read something besides right wing propaganda.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. You need...

...a new SOP. Impugning the source doesn't contradict the data.

[Hoyt]

3. You need a new source of "news."

Read the first line -- it's the same biased BS. Truth is, convictions are coming down.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. Read my lips.

Truth is truth regardless of the source.

[Hoyt]

13. Tainted truth. Fox calls it "botched," yet they just convicted gun traffickers/criminals.

If you like Fox's spin on things, that is your business.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. Your need...

...to "color" the truth is noted.

[burf]

10. That brings up a good point.

How might Cunningham's refusal to testify on the Fast and Furious affect these trials and possible sentences? If the bad guys are "lawyered up" by their employers, they have got some pretty good ones. With the news of the fiasco of gunrunning and Cunningham's refusal, and the personnel merry-go-round, it could become more of a clusterfuck than already reported.

What is the credibility of the Chief of the criminal division in the US Attorney's Office who when called to testify, invokes his rights under the 5th Amendment? What is he trying to hide? It will not go good for the DOJ, ATF, or DOJ.

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. I think it already has. A five year pop, considering what they were originally charged with?

It's more than obvious that the Feds don't want Cunningham anywhere near these cases, and the defendant's attorneys are well aware of
that fact.

[Hoyt]

14. Yep, and the gun loving anti-ATFers are obstructing justice, IMO.

[burf]

16. How so?

Seems like some in the DOJ and its affiliates are trying to create a Tammany Hall 2012.

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. I take it you'd have no objections to the immunization of Patrick Cunningham...

...and the asking of some very pointed questions? After all, if ATF and DoJ have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about, amirite?

[Hoyt]

20. Not much, except of course from those who think folks like Randy Weaver are a saint and who

would attempt to bring the Obama admin down because the ATF tried to stop some big time gun trafficking to Mexico.

[burf]

21. Just who in the fuck in this conversation has ever said anything good about Randy Weaver?

How did anything the ATF did in the F&F bring anyone but some low level hoodlums who they are now prosecuting to cover their asses do anything to the supposed "kingpins"?

Nice fucking try.

[gejohnston]

22. would you defend the DEA

shot unarmed Mrs. Weaver if Mr. Weaver was racist pot grower?

[burf]

23. Maybe he's a buddy of Lonnie the baby shooter. n/t

[Hoyt]

24. Don't know what that has to do with a racist, illegal gun trafficker who refused to give up.

Fact is, you guys can't stand anyone that might impede your pipeline to more guns and lethal accessories.

I applaud the ATF, FBI and local government that has the guts to stand up to gun trafficking -- especially when it's some racist pig like Weaver (whether dealing drugs or not).

[ellisonz]

25. +1000

"I applaud the ATF, FBI and local government that has the guts to stand up to gun trafficking"

[beevul]

26. Yes, you certainly do.

"I applaud the ATF, FBI and local government that has the guts to stand up to gun trafficking..."

In fact, you applaud so loudly, that one might think you were unable to hear people telling you that it was ATF who in fact trafficked guns, and hundreds of deaths were attributable to it, including BPA Terry...


Might...


But hey, at least you seem to have gotten it through your head that the "botched sting" meme wasn't sticking...

I guess that could be construed as progress, however small.

"Fact is, you guys can't stand anyone that might impede your pipeline to more guns and lethal accessories."


I suppose everyone would be much happier with ATF if they let guns walk to the rest of us too.

[burf]

27. If it was such a wonderful program,

what did they quit for?

[gejohnston]

28. My point is simply:

If all other facts were the same, you would not be defending the DEA and you would be defending Weaver.

What exactly was he convicted of exactly? Oh yeah, the NFA violation was entrapment if it happened. If DEA were running an equally illegal and stupid operation like FF, Issa wouldn't care and we all would be in agreement on dragging the agency over the coals.

Not that the ATF played that much of a role other than setting him up for entrapment, but I noticed you are not defending the FBI and USMS with the same vigor.

Spence successfully defended Randy Weaver on murder, assault, conspiracy, and gun charges in the Ruby Ridge, Idaho, federal standoff case, by successfully impugning the conduct of the FBI and its crime lab. Notably, Spence never called a single witness for the defense. Instead, he simply relied on contradictions and holes in the prosecution's story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Spence
FWIW, I think Ed Cantrell was the white OJ Simpson (I knew the cop he killed, so maybe I'm biased in that regard.)

How about this memo by FBI Deputy Assistant Director Danny Coulson

OPR 004477
Something to Consider
1. Charge against Weaver is Bull Shit.
2. No one saw Weaver do any shooting.
3. Vicki has no charges against her.
4. Weaver's defense. He ran down the hill to see what dog was
barking at. Some guys in camys shot his dog.
Started shooting at him. Killed his son. Harris did the
shooting [of Degan]. He [Weaver] is in pretty strong legal position."

Is he a racist have have bizarre theories on stuff? Yeah. Would I have beer with him? No. Did he deserve that injustice? No.
Of course there are faux liberals that claim that he does not simply because he is not "our kind of people."

[Hoyt]

29. He is/was a terrorist. Hardly a poster boy for guns.

[beevul]

30. Oh, now hes a terrorist?

Do you have a problem just calling him what he was?

A white separatist who was railroaded, entrapped, and whos life was basically ruined by overzealous feds.

But "terrorist"? Please. I know its the de jour word to apply to anyone you dislike...but get real.


Nobody here claims hes a poster boy for guns.


His CASE, however, IS a prime example of government overreach, misconduct, and malfeasance.

I appears that it never occurs to people like you, hoyt, that if what happened to weaver can be done to the worst of us, it can be done to the best of us, and everyone in between.

Bounce that off your ideological blinders a few times, and give it some real thought.

[Hoyt]

31. I think man agreeing to supply illegal sawed off shotguns at Aryan Nation meeting is a terrorist.

You don't?

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. Racist? Undoubtedly. Terrorist? Maybe. The fact remains, his civil rights were massively violated.

...something you seem reluctant to acknowledge. Tell us something, Hoyt:

If some government agency decides at some point that you were a 'terrorist', would it be okay for you and yours to recieve the same treatment
the Weavers got?

[beevul]

33. Contrary to attempting to define the word to fit everything under the sun...

Contrary to attempting to define the word to fit everything under the sun - something which republicans have been very quick and apparently more than happy to do...

"I think man agreeing to supply illegal sawed off shotguns at Aryan Nation meeting is a terrorist."

I think a man CONVICTED of what you describe, would be a criminal.

I think someone actually has to be engaged in terrorism, to actually be a terrorist.

Don't you?

Maybe you should consult the dictionary for the actually definitions of terrorist and terrorism, and see how at odds they are with the way you're trying to apply them here.

[ellisonz]

35. They don't believe in domestic terrorism...

...to them Timothy McVeigh was simply a "product of the agricultural fertilizer culture...Timmy McVeigh never shot a person in his life."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=11079

To them rampant gun law violations, extremist ideology, and hate groups don't form a nexus of domestic terrorism - they're just good old boys.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. So what? There's no 'niceness' clause in the Constitution. Even slime like Weaver have rights.

It bears repeating, as it's just as true for Weaver as it was for Razzano:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x471243

friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Oct-21-11 05:20 PM
Original message

So what? There's no 'niceness' clause in the Constitution. Even fools like the teabggers have rights

You might want to search the life of one Ernesto Arturo Miranda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Arturo_Miranda

Ya know, this is not the first time I've had to remind you lot of the universality of rights:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=181522#182329

friendly_iconoclast (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-02-08 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #129
144. Guess what? Civil rights aren't just for "our sort of people"
Edited on Sat Aug-02-08 02:04 AM by friendly_iconoclast
There is a very long history in American jurisprudence of people defending the civil rights of
people they wouldn't have over for dinner. Or who wouldn't have *them* over for dinner.

From John Adams (accused British soldiers in the Boston Massacre), to
the ACLU (Illinois Nazis vs. the city of Skokie), to Sabin Willett (prisoners at Guantanamo).

I wouldn't defend Razzano as a person. I would, however, defend his rights no matter how odious his ideologies.

See: Goose and gander, sauce for.

[ellisonz]

37. The funny thing about citing John Adams...

...is that he signed the Alien and Sedition Acts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_acts

December 6, 2002

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism

Oliver Queenan: All cell phone signals are under surveillance, due to the courtesy of our Federal friends over there. Ellerby: Patriot Act, Patriot Act! I love it, I love it, I love it!

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. And they *should* be held against him. I generally admire Adams, but do not blindly worship him.

I never was one for cults of personality, as they are another form of the genetic fallacy.

You might look again at Section 802(ii) of the Patriot Act- there's very little doubt in my mind that if Republicans held the White House, most Occupy
members that had been arrested would be under indictment for violating it...

[ellisonz]

44. I don't blindly worship him either...

...but I understand and agree with his signing them.

You might look again at Section 802(ii) of the Patriot Act- there's very little doubt in my mind that if Republicans held the White House, most Occupy
members that had been arrested would be under indictment for violating it...

Nonsense...

[burf]

38. I missed the trial on terrorism

gotta link?

[cbrer]

34. I can't speak

For "you guys".

I can only say that defeating true evil, upholding high principles, and promoting the general welfare of all, are admirable activities.

When the organizations formed for those activities, mirror those outrageous crimes, they become the enemy. What other choice would you suggest besides a well armed and trained population?

Being "Racist pigs" does NOT excuse murder. Under ANY conditions.

Or is it permissible to serve warrants by blasting a family?

Impeding my pipeline? Your society was built by armed citizens and their military. To deny this fact of your past, and the birth and growth of this nation, is to reduce your statements to pathetic, shrill, outcries. What sort of masochistic moron wouldn't even defend himself? Hypothetically speaking of course. Not name calling.

Applaud away, don't let blinders get in the way.

[Callisto32]

45. I think you need your prescription changed.

[pipoman]

39. Oh, but refusal by a federal agent to testify in a criminal case

even though that is his exact job description, to save face and ass isn't obstructing justice? It is, actually, agregious obstruction which should result in prosecution on it's own.

[burf]

40. Good point.

Something does not pass the smell test.

[pipoman]

41. The truth is,

having been involved in many state and federal criminal cases, federal agents routinely ignore subpoenas to testify in criminal cases. Sometimes through communication with the sitting judge which is sealed from the defense (usually in federal cases only), and in state cases they simply don't show up, without explanation, and are shielded from contempt by their position. The reason, as it was explained to me by a well known defense lawyer, is that almost nobody can stand up to personal credibility challenges by accomplished defense team. Testifying opens up this line of questioning during depositions, then allows for argument for admittance into the criminal case. Federal judges are usually fairly predictable as to how they will respond to arguments for admittance of credibility evidence, state judges, not so much. Once a credibility issue is exposed on a particular agent it could mean that the agent's testimony in future cases could easily be impugned.

[burf]

42. Maybe that's why Issa went to Davos yesterday! n/t

[Callisto32]

46. Thing is...

If there is a credibility issue, it should be aired, and future testimony SHOULD be suspect.

It is up to the jury to decide whom they will believe and not believe. To suggest that the "face" of federal agents is somehow more important than the truth of the matter is...pretty gross.


EDIT: I am not saying you agree/disagree with any position, I just don't want you to think this is intended as a personal attack.

[Spoonman]

5. Mr Benchley, is that you? n/t

[aikoaiko]

8. LoL

[burf]

6. I was gonna wait for MSNBC to come out

with their story, but the forecast for hell freezing over appears to be aways off.

Go ahead in linking your favored source for correcting the story as reported.

[Hoyt]

15. Yea, those Democratic leaning MSNBC reporters are awful because they are anti-gun proliferation.

[burf]

19. You mean these?

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2011/11/msnbc-anchors-attack-second-amendment

[aikoaiko]

7. Of course, they could have arrested them at the gun shop.

And then turned them on their conspirators without allowing the guns to leave the states.

Let's see what happens.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. Oh, you mean...

...while they still had the guns and could have stopped them from being used in the commission of crimes?

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. There were a hundred or more deaths per conviction.

That's beyond "clusterfuck" and well into "starting a land war in Asia" range...