• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Attorney in Arizona pleads 5th in Furious testimony

OK Karl
Lets say your right and Holder has not lied and he just doesn't remember the memos from 10 months ago.
Holder is nevertheless incompetent for his failure to oversee such a sensitive operation as selling guns to violent drug cartels.

Care to show us why he should not be considered incompetent?
 
Last edited:
Karl

In the cover letter, Arpaio attorney Joseph J. Popolizio made it clear that the sheriff was willing to cooperate with Holder and the DOJ, but only if the DOJ revealed to the MCSO and the public its proof.

“Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio and the MCSO are certainly interested in constructive dialogue, but constructive dialogue can only occur if the DOJ provides the facts and information on which it bases its findings,” Popolizio wrote.Sheriff Joe to Eric Holder:

Headed to court? MCSO and DOJ at odds | KJZZ.org

Now please provide links to anything you state, since that seems to be your debate style.
I provided my link in my post #22, which definitively contradicts your conclusion in your post #18.

Based upon the links now available in this thread, it appears that Arpaio is more interested in disputing the DOJ claims than cooperating. While Arpaio's attorneys claim he is willing to cooperate, asking the the name of an MCSO deputy that has criticized the MCSO seems to be a rather odd request if cooperation is the goal (see Exhibit 2, Item 106, linked at your KJZZ link).

If Arpaio desires to litigate in order to obtain a public airing of all the details, I'm sure the DOJ will be happy to accommodate him. Ain't democracy grand? ;)
 
Last edited:
Based upon the links now available in this thread, it appears that Arpaio is more interested in disputing the DOJ claims than cooperating. While Arpaio's attorneys claim he is willing to cooperate, asking the the name of an MCSO deputy that has criticized the MCSO seems to be a rather odd request if cooperation is the goal (see Exhibit 2, Item 106, linked at your KJZZ link).

If Arpaio desires to litigate in order to obtain a public airing of all the details, I'm sure the DOJ will be happy to accommodate him. Ain't democracy grand?


Except the DOJ would have to provide transparency immediately in the discovery phase before any proceedings can take place. Before they can declare anyone guilty, they need to reveal evidence collected and DOJ is refusing to do so. Arpaio has the right to face his accuser. Democracy is grand but a republic is even better. Republics have law, democracies have mob rule.
 
OK Karl
Lets say your right and Holder has not lied and he just doesn't remember the memos from 10 months ago.
Holder is nevertheless incompetent for his failure to oversee such a sensitive operation as selling guns to violent drug cartels.

Care to show us why he should not be considered incompetent?
No, since it is merely your opinion... one that I don't think a informed, rational person would adopt. I therefore have little or no interest in it.

I would ask, however, if you're aware that the 'gun running' sting has been in operation since about 2005?

The ATF gunwalking scandal came to national attention in the United States in 2011 after the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran a series of “gunwalking” sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011[5][2] under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the U.S.[6]

ATF gunwalking scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The ATF began Project Gunrunner as a pilot project in Laredo, Texas, in 2005 and expanded it as a national initiative in 2006. Project Gunrunner is also part of the Department of Justice’s broader Southwest Border Initiative, which seeks to reduce cross-border drug and firearms trafficking and the high level of violence associated with these activities on both sides of the border.[4]

ATF has determined that the Mexican cartels have become the leading gun trafficking organizations operating in the southwest U.S. and is working in collaboration with other agencies and the Government of Mexico to expand the eTrace firearm tracing software system.[5] eTrace provides web based access to ATF’s Firearms Tracing System to allow law enforcement both domestically and internationally the ability to trace firearms encountered in connection with a criminal investigation to the first recorded purchaser[6][7][8] - who may have innocently sold the gun years ago. eTrace allows law enforcement to access their trace results directly (name and address of first purchaser) and offers the ability to generate statistical reports to analyze their trace data to estimate firearms trafficking trends or patterns.

ATF announced a goal to deploy eTrace software to all thirty-one states within the Republic of Mexico. As part of eTrace expansion, ATF continues to provide training to Mexican and Central American countries to ensure that the technology is utilized to a greater extent.[5] Colombia and Mexico were provided with their own in-country tracing centers with full access to ATF firearm registration records.

Project Gunrunner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What do you think the odds are of getting that info from Fox News?
 
Except the DOJ would have to provide transparency immediately in the discovery phase before any proceedings can take place. Before they can declare anyone guilty, they need to reveal evidence collected and DOJ is refusing to do so. Arpaio has the right to face his accuser. Democracy is grand but a republic is even better. Republics have law, democracies have mob rule.
Guilt or innocence is not a factor at this stage. They want him to change his policies/procedures. If he refuses, then he will be sued and guilt/innocence will come into play -- and his right to view all the evidence will be granted.

He can face his accuser when and if he is charged with a crime.
 
well karl we will agree to disagree. Much of what you posted is your opinion also.
 
Not surprising in taking the 5th. I am not happy with the decision, but it fits a pattern.

The DOJ after an investigation says MCSO (Sheriff Arpaio) racial profiled and discriminated against Latinos. MCSO asked to see the evidence, DOJ says nope, you just have to believe our report and by asking MCSO is stonewalling. If MCSO doesnt bend to DOJ will, then DOJ will take MCSO to court. Seems providing the evidence would assist MCSO in developing better training and guidance for LE Officers if needed.

So take the 5th, Don't provide evidence. Just got to love the way Holder is running DOJ.

I'd like to see Holder in Leavenworth.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060133973 said:
The chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona refusing to testify before Congress about Operation Fast and Furious?

The irony is thick...

Sympathy for the Devil anyone? It appears Patrick J. Cunningham has washed his hands, sealed his fate.

Federal Official In Arizona To Plead The Fifth And Not Answer Questions On 'furious' | Fox News
[emphasis added by bubba]

since you have evaluated that cunningham's fate is sealed ... please share with us what his fate is destined to become
 
Correction: I do not let 'news', or my ideology, do my thinking for me. Try it some time....


Your "fact" is not proof of a lie, so in fact your post proved my point. Thank you for posting it :)
Very slick,Karl,I guess all progressives think alike.and sorry but your ideology....does influence your thinkkking,wheater u want to admit it or not.sorry.
 
Very slick,Karl,I guess all progressives think alike.and sorry but your ideology....does influence your thinkkking,wheater u want to admit it or not.sorry.
Perhaps. However, I try to be aware of it and keep it from steering me towards any ill-founded or illogical conclusions.
 
Perhaps. However, I try to be aware of it and keep it from steering me towards any ill-founded or illogical conclusions.
Fair enough. But without....nevermind, just try harder...
 
[emphasis added by bubba]

since you have evaluated that cunningham's fate is sealed ... please share with us what his fate is destined to become

The inferred guilt of some wrongdoing. Thought you could have figured that out. Guess not...
 
Last edited:
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060145537 said:
The inferred guilt of some wrongdoing. Thought you could have figured that out. Guess not...
so, one's asserting their right to refuse to testify against their own interests is the equivalent of being guilty ... before any trial. hell, before any indictment
yea, go with that. an emotional conclusion devoid of any logic or reason
 
easy answer to this
give him immunity from prosecution based on the information he provides
motivate him to tell all

then sit back and have DOJ explain exactly what it was that he communicated, which information was passed to the committee and then was found to be non-factual
then go after the DOJ liar. either cunningham or another high up DOJ official

Yes they can give him (them) immunity from prosecution, are they also prepared to offer him (them) payment for having destroyed their career's?

I somehow think not.

What sincerely worries me (& I suspect many others) is that Obama & his minions can do and get away with anything they want to without any kind of respect for the Congress.
 
Yes they can give him (them) immunity from prosecution, are they also prepared to offer him (them) payment for having destroyed their career's?

I somehow think not.

What sincerely worries me (& I suspect many others) is that Obama & his minions can do and get away with anything they want to without any kind of respect for the Congress.

that makes no sense

we have two sides of a single story in the DOJ
they cannot both be correct
let's determine who is lying
then deal with them
 
so, one's asserting their right to refuse to testify against their own interests is the equivalent of being guilty ... before any trial. hell, before any indictment
yea, go with that. an emotional conclusion devoid of any logic or reason

You can't comprehend why people would infer guilt when a US Attorney takes the 5th? :rofl:lamo
 
Last edited:
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060152261 said:
You can't comprehend why people would infer guilt when a US Attorney takes the 5th? :rofl:lamo
absolutely
especially given the circumstances of this matter
 
Unless ofcourse it was Bush's AG....Right?


j-mac

no. doesn't matter. if he's a bad public servant, then get rid of him. and if he committed a crime, then prosecute him
 
no. doesn't matter.

Oh, but it does...consider liberal attack of the Bush administration. And to keep apples to apples here, Ashcroft. Liberals savaged every decision, every thought this guy had....Ashcroft's Brand of Justice | The Nation

Can't have it both ways Bubba.

if he's a bad public servant, then get rid of him. and if he committed a crime, then prosecute him

I absolutely agree with you here...However, when a story like this comes out, and continues to yield headline, after headline, even though buried by a sycophantic press on page 4C in small font, none the less, is a no win. If Obama continues support for this man at AG, he is furthering incompetence in the post at best, and a criminal out of control Justice at worst.

Meanwhile, I guess we can all sit back, and wait for the next AG to be appointed by a republican President, then all of the sudden we can wait for Katrina Van den Huvel to tell us how bad they are, and presume to tell what ever republican Presidency what they should do. But, by God, don't you dare presume to do the same with Obama.


j-mac
 
Ah. You claim Holder is lying, but you cannot or will not identify nor explain any of these lies. Thanks for clearing that up.

Can you at least point me towards those previous explanations you claim exist? Or, like Holder's alleged lies, can you not or will you not identify or explain any of those either?

It's been explained to you ad nauseam, and you respond with the same old broken record act like a parrot. This trait suggests a victim of brain washing with short term memory failures.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060156306 said:
It's been explained to you ad nauseam, and you respond with the same old broken record act like a parrot. This trait suggests a victim of brain washing with short term memory failures.
It's been claimed ad nauseam, in lieu of an explanation (or even a link or post number to an explanation). This trait suggests a practitioner of lying.
 
Back
Top Bottom