US Attorney in Arizona pleads 5th in Furious testimony

Cunningham is represented by Tobin Romero of Williams and Connolly who is a specialist in white collar crime. In the letter, he suggests witnesses from the Department of Justice in Washington, who have spoken in support of Attorney General Eric Holder, are wrong or lying.
“Department of Justice officials have reported to the Committee that my client relayed inaccurate information to the Department upon which it relied in preparing its initial response to Congress. If, as you claim, Department officials have blamed my client, they have blamed him unfairly,” the letter to Issa says.
Romero claims Cunningham did nothing wrong and acted in good faith, but the Department of Justice in Washington is making him the fall guy, claiming he failed to accurately provide the Oversight Committee with information on the execution of Fast and Furious.
"To avoid needless preparation by the Committee and its staff for a deposition next week, I am writing to advise you that my client is going to assert his constitutional privilege not to be compelled to be a witness against himself." Romero told Issa.


Read more: Federal Official In Arizona To Plead The Fifth And Not Answer Questions On 'furious' | Fox News

Click to expand...

justabubba said:

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

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

But Holder should stay?

j-mac

Click to expand...

justabubba said:

not if he is the higher up official who misrepresented the facts to the committee
if that was found to be him he should be fired, and possibly prosecuted for perjury before the congressional committee
but i would prefer to act on facts

Click to expand...

Sensenbrenner: There have been inconsistent submissions to Congress. You yourself testified that you’d only heard about [Fast and Furious] a few weeks earlier, and then in November you said it probably was a few months. [And] as late as October 7th, in response to allegations that you lied on May 3rd, you wrote to Congress that your statements on Fast and Furious have been “truthful and consistent.” [Yet] one of your underlings, on Feb. 4th, Assistant A.G. Ronald Weich, responded to Senator Grassley denying that the ATF had walked guns and that letter ended up being withdrawn.

Clearly, Sensenbrenner was incensed as he thought of the lies surrounding Fast and Furious. So much so, in fact, that as he spoke he took pains to try to be measured in his speech:

Lying to Congress is a federal felony. I don’t want to say that you have committed a felony Mr. Attorney General, but obviously there have been statements so misleading that a letter had to be withdrawn. I think that some heads should roll.

At this point, an exchange took place that literally defies reality:

Holder: “Nobody in the justice department has lied.”

Sensenbrenner: “Then why was the letter withdrawn?”

Holder: “The letter was withdrawn because there was information in there that was inaccurate.”

As Holder continued to fumble in trying to frame his explanation for how the Feb. 4th letter contained “inaccurate” statements that weren’t lies, Sensenbrenner interrupted and asked, “What is difference between lying and misleading Congress in this context?”

Holder: “Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind. And whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that can be considered perjury or a lie.”

Holder might as well have said, “it depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” (I’m pretty sure that’s what Sensenbrenner and Issa heard him say.)

Holder Hearings Part Four: What Is Fast and Furious? Depends Upon What the Meaning of

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Ah, but facts are so malleable....Remember this....



I'd say Holder looks pretty guilty here...

j-mac

Click to expand...

justabubba said:

how do we know that cunningham did not actually lie, as HQ of DOJ is now asserting

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

[...] I'd say Holder looks pretty guilty here...

Click to expand...

Karl said:

I'd say that quoting Andrew Breitbart's site is a pretty risking thing to do with one's credibility... as evidenced by the argument therein that submitting a letter with inaccurate information is a lie. Even hyper partisans should be able to use a dictionary . . . .

Click to expand...

Karl said:

I'd say that quoting Andrew Breitbart's site is a pretty risking thing to do with one's credibility... as evidenced by the argument therein that submitting a letter with inaccurate information is a lie. Even hyper partisans should be able to use a dictionary . . . .

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Was the transcript wrong? Is there some site that the transcript that I posted is different?

Please, do post....


j-mac

Click to expand...

OpportunityCost said:

Federal Official In Arizona To Plead The Fifth And Not Answer Questions On 'furious' | Fox News
DoJ figure taking the 5th in Fast & Furious probe « Hot Air
Federal prosecutor to take 5th Amendment in Fast and Furious probe - POLITICO.com


The fifth isnt always damaging to innocence but Issa and the committee have some alternatives like offering immunity and compelling him to testify. As yet CNN, Yahoo, and MSN havent touched the story. Id expect they will by the end of the day. I caught it on Hot Air and Drudge. Wasnt 100% sure where to post it though. WHat avenues do you think the committee will take to get Cunningham's testimony?

Click to expand...

Karl said:

I'd say that quoting Andrew Breitbart's site is a pretty risk[y] thing to do with one's credibility... as evidenced by the argument therein that submitting a letter with inaccurate information is a lie. Even hyper partisans should be able to use a dictionary . . . .

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Was the transcript wrong? Is there some site that the transcript that I posted is different?

Please, do post....

Click to expand...

Karl said:

Explain what lie is proven by the transcript.

Click to expand...

Μολὼν λαβέ;1060131658 said:

Karl said:

Explain what lie is proven by the transcript.

Click to expand...

Holder's lies have been explained to you before. You just don't get it...

Click to expand...

mike2810 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Arpaio’s team has asked DOJ to present all of its evidence in the name of transparency, though most of the evidence was the very same material and interviews that MCSO provided.

[Assistant Attorney General Thomas] Perez wrote that Arpaio’s team had tried to set “unworkable preconditions” on their cooperation, “including a prodigious discovery request containing 106 different demands for information such as the identity of victims of MCSO’s retaliatory actions and the identity of MCSO officials who made comments critical of the agency.”

[...] Still, DOJ is willing to meet with MCSO to discuss the letter of findings and talk about potential solutions [...]

DOJ: Arpaio’s Actions Suggest He’s Trying To Delay Discrimination Case | TPMMuckraker

Click to expand...

mike2810 said:

Karl, give me a fxxking break. I will provide a link, but it is clear you do not follow news.

Click to expand...

mike2810 said:

Also noticed you did not have a comeback for the link I did provide on the "topic" being discussed that Holder was briefed 10 months before his presentation before Congress. Care to prove that fact wrong?

Click to expand...