View Full Version : Regime invokes the gangsta defense.

01-20-2012, 02:31 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona is refusing to testify before Congress regarding Operation Fast and Furious, the federal gun-running scandal that sent U.S. weapons to Mexico.
Patrick J. Cunningham informed the House Oversight Committee late Thursday through his attorney that he will use the Fifth Amendment protection.
Cunningham was ordered Wednesday to appear before Chairman Darrell Issa and the House Oversight Committee regarding his role in the operation that sent more than 2,000 guns to the Sinaloa Cartel. Guns from the failed operation were found at the murder scene of Border Agent Brian Terry.

January 25, 2011: A cache of seized weapons used in the ATF gun-running operation 'Fast and Furious' is displayed at a news conference in Phoenix.

The letter from Cunningham’s Washington DC attorney stunned congressional staff. Last week, Cunningham, the second highest ranking U.S. Attorney in Arizona, was scheduled to appear before Issa‘s committee voluntarily. Then, he declined and Issa issued a subpoena.

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.

This schism is the first big break in what has been a unified front in the government’s defense of itself in the gun-running scandal. Cunningham claims he is a victim of a conflict between two branches of government and will not be compelled to be a witnesses against himself, and make a statement that could be later used by a grand jury or special prosecutor to indict him on criminal charges.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/.../#ixzz1k24R636b (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/20/federal-official-in-arizona-to-plead-fifth-and-not-answer-questions-on-furious/#ixzz1k24R636b) </div></div>

01-20-2012, 02:58 PM
No, it didn't.

This guy hired a personal lawyer, and his actions now redound to the suspicion of the regime, not to their benefit.

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.

Which serves 'the regime,' how? It puts fuel on the fire, quite to the contrary of your point.

01-21-2012, 02:08 AM
Its pretty pathetic. Once again blaming Obama for something he had nothing to do with.


01-21-2012, 04:09 AM
It's a shame that neither of you will read the data presented to you.

01-21-2012, 12:22 PM
I for one read the whole thing. Want to tell me more, I'll read that as well.

Back in the '90s, there was an infamous double murder.

One of the lead police lieutenants was asked on the stand, 'did you carry vials of the defendant's blood on your person for several days, in order to deposit it around the crime scene, to falsely frame this man for murder?' (a close paraphrase).

The lieutenant didn't deny the allegation, but instead pled the 5th.

Back in the '80s there was a famous scandal. One of the key actors in the scandal was a lieutenant colonel. When he was brought before the Congress, he pled the 5th.

According to you, this would be the <u>state's prosecution team in the OJ case</u> 'going gangsta,' or 'invoking the gangsta defense,' or the Reagan administration doing that in the Iran/Contra matter with Ollie North's assertion of his 5th amendment rights.

When it was really just that one perjurer or felon (both men subsequently convicted of (a) felony charge(s)), and nothing to do with the actual prosecution team, or the presidential administration from which these men came.

The ACTUAL way an administration gets closer to what you're thinking of is to stonewall any outside review by invoking executive privilege, states secrets, or national security. Not to have an underling create a firestorm of doubt about the administration or state team from which they come.

As we may recall, both men helped doom the respective prosecutions-- OJ found not guilty, and North's 3 felony convictions overturned on appeal based on the grant of immunity he sought and got by invoking the 5th amendment.

01-21-2012, 04:01 PM
OJ woz of course not guilty. Simpson did it. But i didnt know about the blood bizness -- i will havta google.

01-22-2012, 02:05 PM
To be fair to Fuhrman, the question was slightly more generic than my citation from memory said. This was the third and last question for which he took the 5th:

And most strikingly, "Did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?"

Three times, Fuhrman leaned over, whispered to his attorney and then sat stiffly straight to answer: "I wish to assert my 5th Amendment privilege." from the LA Times (http://articles.latimes.com/1995-09-07/news/mn-43214_1_detective-mark-fuhrman)

01-22-2012, 02:41 PM
Off the top of my head i would hav thort that he woz referring to the left (i think left) glove planted next to OJ's house.

01-22-2012, 03:16 PM
That would have been the most obvious reference, I agree.

But remember that he and Van Atta had both improperly carried around vials of Simpson's blood samples, which of course used an anti-coagulant/preservative, EDTA. The prosecution, aware that the blood evidence might be thought planted, asserted that no EDTA would be found in the blood samples found at the scene, until it was, when they decided it made no difference, since EDTA residues could result from commonplace household items like laundry detergents.

01-22-2012, 05:27 PM
It's a shame you didn't read your own link.

01-23-2012, 05:41 PM

This reply has the appearance of a point, rhetorically, but is actually without meaning. I am so surprised!