Say Anything Blog

Proof,

My apologies.  I didn’t see your post on this story when I put up my own.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I didn’t see your post on this story when I put up my own.

Great minds! Not a problem… My blood was boiling so much after reading that twit Hillary’s comments that I nearly missed r108’s post on “Mission Accomplished”!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Webb is wrong, and the Demoncrats are wrong, on two counts—at least—in this situation.

First, Webb, supposedly a former hard-charging Marine Occifer and author of one of the best damn books ever about Marines in combat (Fields of Fire) should have used this opportunity to exercise recent ruling by the DC Court of Appeals, holding that the DC Gun Ban was un-Constitutional and that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) was an individual and fundamental right.

By testing application of the law which has been struck down (and if that is the case, why was he even charged in the first place?) it would be driving a spike through the heart of the DC Gun Ban.

He should have challenged the application of this un-Constitutional law.

Second, the Democrats, by not applying the law evenly across the board (themselves as well as to mere peon citizens) have shown that they consider themselves an elite, that laws only apply to little people—not to them.

This is by no means not the first time the Left have been caught being hypocritical when it comes to security for me but not for thee

A couple years back, Teddy Kennedy’s entourage made a similar SNAFU only this time the weapons were fully automatic.  Last I heard, Teddy, in addition to having caused the death of more people than the vast majority of gun-owners, hadn’t done a days’ time in any slammer for the offence.

Hillary’s entourage had a problem with guns-left- behind and Diane Feinstein famously packs her own heat, having mysteriously gotten qualified for the rare-as-hensteeth unlimited gun license in the People’s Republic of CA.

The Left are hypocrites from start to finish and cannot be trusted with any sort of power—from running a classroom to running the country, they are a cancer and a foreign disease.

...for great justice

MZ,

Excellent comment!  Bravo!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Second, the Democrats, by not applying the law evenly across the board (themselves as well as to mere peon citizens) have shown that they consider themselves an elite, that laws only apply to little people—not to them.

How are the democrats applying the law?  This US attorney, just like all the others, is a Republican. 

Here’s a thought, why don’t you actually look up and review the law beforing attacking the US attorney.

review the law beforing attacking the US attorney.

This the atty said could not

“...be proved beyond a reasonable doubt”

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

You cannot know what the elements of this crime are without looking at the actual statute.  Yet you have called this man either incompetent or corrupt.  That is wrong.

This US attorney, just like all the others, is a Republican.

Good point.  And for his unwillingness to prosecute what is clearly a slam dunk case, US Attorney Taylor ought to be fired along with the other eight, as discussed here.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/make_that_nine_us_attorneys_please

why don’t you actually look up and review the law beforing attacking the US attorney.

Interesting!  Have you actually done this yourself, Hawk, and perhaps discovered some arcane reason for not prosecuting this case?  Or are you merely flexing your rhetorical biceps for the audience’s benefit?

Taylor indicates in his statement that some “essential element” of the case is missing.  Sounds like gratuitous bull shit to me, but if you have a more reasoned take on this by all means enlighten us.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Interesting!  Have you actually done this yourself, Hawk, and perhaps discovered some arcane reason for not prosecuting this case?  Or are you merely flexing your rhetorical biceps for the audience’s benefit?

I’m not the one smearing somebody because he says he cannot make the case.  That is you.  You want a political prosecution whether he has a case or not.

You cannot know what the elements of this crime are without looking at the actual statute.

Let me use smaller words for you Hawk!… what he said was he would not press charges for things that on the face of them he very evidently did!

He was carrying a gun. And since the gun wasn’t his, he didn’t have a license to carry it.

Taylor said he could not prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. The statement of reasons he gave is inconsistent with the evidence of the crime.
In other words, his explanation was bullshit. Perhaps too close to arguments of your own for you to tell the difference!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

How are the democrats applying the law?  This US attorney, just like all the others, is a Republican.

You should listen to what your Speaker Pelosi says; Dems are in charge now, according to her.  No more avoiding responsibility for an obvious breach of enforcement favoring a Dem.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

What is the mens rea of this crime, intentional, knowingly, recklessness, negligence?  This is an element of the crime.  None of you have any idea because nobody did any research before accusing this man of being incompetent or corrupt.

This man is an apointee of Bush, he is a Republican and not a Democratic synchophant. 

You should listen to what your Speaker Pelosi says; Dems are in charge now, according to her.  No more avoiding responsibility for an obvious breach of enforcement favoring a Dem.

Congress has nothing to do with this.  This man has no duty to plead guilty just to make you guys happy, especially when the prosecutor says he has no case.  Innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty.

I might almost believe you meant that, Hawk, if you applied the same standard to Republicans, say, Alberto Gonzales or Scooter Libby.
The mens rea is the illegal possession of a firearm. The only question was whether or not he would be prosecuted for it.  You try to muddy the waters with some legalese, but that is the main issue, which everyone else on this thread gets, except you.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

I might almost believe you meant that, Hawk, if you applied the same standard to Republicans, say, Alberto Gonzales or Scooter Libby.
The mens rea is the illegal possession of a firearm. The only question was whether or not he would be prosecuted for it.  You try to muddy the waters with some legalese, but that is the main issue, which everyone else on this thread gets, except you.

Mens rea is the state of mind, which is an element of most crimes.  Maybe not for this crime, I don’t know, but neither do you, and maybe you should find out before smearing a guy. 

By the way, Scooter Libby was proven guilty.

You screamed for months about the political prosecution of Scooter Libby, but you are willing to throw this guy to the wolves when the prosecutor says he cannot prove the case.

You also don’t know all the facts of the case, you only know what the MSM has provided you.  How come you trust them now?

Mens rea is the state of mind, which is an element of most crimes.

So, if VT shooter had been pulled over with the gun in a “gun-free” zone before he pulled the trigger, you would advocate letting him go, because you couldn’t prove his state of mind?
Charles Dickens had a character say, “The law is an ass”.
Hawk, you have a true legal mind!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

So, if VT shooter had been pulled over with the gun in a “gun-free” zone before he pulled the trigger, you would advocate letting him go, because you couldn’t prove his state of mind?
Charles Dickens had a character say, “The law is an ass”.
Hawk, you have a true legal mind!

That is a ridiculous hypothetical, but yes, I advocate following the law.  I don’t know what the intent element of this crime is, but I am not willing to call somebody corrupt without knowing.

By the way, Scooter Libby was proven guilty.

The lefties had him convicted before the trial, and you know it. 
In the case of Webb’s assistant, he was caught with the gun in his possession.  His state of mind was irrelevant to the physical facts of the case.  BTW, no one is complaining that he wasn’t convicted; we are protesting that he isn’t even being tried.  Get the difference?

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

So your position is that even though the prosecutor doesn’t think he can prove his case, he should still waste time and money to score political points?

Prosecutors have total discretion to bring cases.  I’m sure this prosecutor is busy and doesn’t want to waste time on a case he doesn’t think he can win.  To do otherwise would be unethical.

I am not willing to call somebody corrupt without knowing.

I never said he was corrupt. You’re the one using the “c” word! Try reading the entire post, more slowly this time, and see if you can pick up a little comprehension.
As far as your “state of mind” argument, try speeding down the highway and when you’re pulled over, simply say “My state of mind was such that I did not realize I was speeding.” You can note that on your check, too, when you pay the fine!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

...sounds either like incompetence or the fix was in!

Your right, instead of saying that the fix was in I used corrupt.  They are totally different concepts.  How was I supposed to interpret that comment?

As far as your “state of mind” argument, try speeding down the highway and when you’re pulled over, simply say “My state of mind was such that I did not realize I was speeding.” You can note that on your check, too, when you pay the fine!

Speeding laws are regulatory laws that do not have a state of mind element.  I don’t know if the statute in question does, but I think maybe you should look it up before accusing the prosecutor of having the “fix in”.

Prosecutors have total discretion to bring cases.

Which is why presidents, and their respective Attorneys General, have “total discretion” to fire those same prosecutors.

As for the question of mens rae, I seriously doubt that is much more than a convenient smokescreen.  This is not, after all,a question of deciding between 1st degree manslaughter and 2nd degree murder.  I doubt that a a handgun possession statute would require such a consideration, but we’ll see.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Hawk: You ever hear of Chappaquidick? A certain Senator, driving without a license, left the scene of an accident where there was a fatality. He was never prosecuted (to my knowledge) of any crime.
No one ever accused the prosecutors in that jurisdiction of being corrupt. That special consideration is granted to persons of power does not necessarily imply corruption. You brought that from the fever swamps of your own mind…

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Hawk: It should be obvious that the crime of illegal handgun possession isn’t dependent on “state of mind”, either, so I agree that you are using it as a smokescreen here.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Which is why presidents, and their respective Attorneys General, have “total discretion” to fire those same prosecutors.

And Congress has the descretion to look into the possible firing of US prosecutors for political reasons.  There does not have to be a crime.

As for the question of mens rae, I seriously doubt that is much more than a convenient smokescreen.  This is not, after all,a question of deciding between 1st degree manslaughter and 2nd degree murder.  I doubt that a a handgun possession statute would require such a consideration, but we’ll see.

I have no idea why the prosecutor says he can’t prove the elements of this crime.  I don’t even know what the elements are without looking at the statute and knowing the facts.  But you in your omniscience seem to know that this guy is bowing to political pressure.  Maybe he is not bowing to political pressure from the democrats, but standing up to political pressure from the Republicans.

Hawk: Imagine for a moment, that you are gainfully employed. Say, as a shopkeeper. (Let’s face it! I’ve read your posts, you’re no rocket scientist!)
And Bill Gates pulls up to your shop in a stretch limo about the same time that a wino shows up pushing his shopping cart. They both want your attention and to purchase your goods.
Are you “corrupt” if you pay more attention to Gates than the wino?

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

I have no idea why the prosecutor says he can’t prove the elements of this crime.

Truest thing you’ve ever said!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

And Congress has the descretion to look into the possible firing of US prosecutors for political reasons.  There does not have to be a crime.

Typical leftie pretzel logic.  An aide to a powerful, up and coming Dem Senator, who is caught bringing a handgun into a “gun-free zone” isn’t prosecuted, but the Republican Attorney General is persecuted for firing his own employees, by the Dems, and you see no contradiction there?  When deciding not to prosecute the Dem, the district attorney has “total discretion”, but the Republican Attorney General can be persecuted endlessly without the necessity of a crime?  Isn’t this just a bit disingenuous?

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Ummmmmm! Pretzels!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

But you in your omniscience seem to know that this guy is bowing to political pressure.

Speaking of my omniscience, the commas should have been placed after the word “you” and after the word “omniscience” as well.

Second, if you’ll read carefully (yeah, I know it’s a weekend, but we’ve all come to expect a certain intellectual diligence from those who hold a Juris Doctorate and make a point of their legal expertise in such matters), you’ll see that I have not accused Mr. Taylor of “bowing to political pressure.” On the contrary, I think the man is incompetent and probably just not up to the job.  Taylor was the one who so botched the plea agreement in the tax evasion case against Walter Anderson that the judge ruled there is no possibility of collecting nearly $100 million in restitution.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

After some consideration, it occurs to me that there are really two charges here.  Attempting to carry the gun and clips into the Capitol Building is one charge, of course.  But there is also the question of being in possession of a concealed weapon without a permit which would be a separate criminal charge.

The fact that US Attorney Taylor declined to press either of the two seemingly obvious charges, makes the question of political favoritism, as in the case of Representative Patrick Kennedy, and former Representative Cynthia McKinney, all the more curious.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Thanks Bat,

Actually, our Leftist troll is studiously avoiding one of my major points: the DC Gun Ban has been struck down as un-Constitutional.

Thus, how can you be charged with a nullity?  Why are they trying to continue to enforce that which has been stricken?

Further, assuming that is the case, Webb should have taken this opportunity, as an elected leader and legislator, to use DC’s Appellate ruling to test it in court and thereby kill it (a second time) even if that seems surplusage.

The fact that the law is, or should be, a nullity trumps any discussion of mens rea at this point. My guess is that our troll learned this neato legal term of art from Law and Odor and is using it as a crtuch.

Further, some situations, particularly if there has been a common practice or series of events, that speak for themselves (res ipsa loquitur, mutherfucker) and no longer require a smoking memo or recovered WhiteHouse eMail.

The anti-Second Amendment side’s total lack of character, ethics, and integrity is well known. Its leaders include:
(1) Rosie O’Donnell, 9/11 conspiracy theory advocate who says “you are not allowed to own a gun” while employing an armed bodyguard.
(2) Ted Kennedy, who allegedly killed a woman (Mary Jo Kopechne) while driving drunk, and whose bodyguard did not get into trouble for carrying a machine gun into a Senate office building.
(3) Cynthia McKinney, who assaulted a police officer after trying to bypass a security checkpoint.
(4) Governor Jon Corzine, whose reckless high-speed driving and abuse of emergency flashers in a non-emergency situation jeopardized other motorists on the Garden State Parkway before a 91-mph crash put Corzine in the hospital. (A State Trooper was actually driving but, as he was obviously following Corzine’s instructions to speed, use emergency flashers in a non-emergency situation, and effectively run other drivers off the road, he is ultimately responsible.)
(5) Carl Rowan, who shot a trespasser with a “warning shot” from an illegally-owned handgun in Washington DC. It is illegal in most jurisdictions to fire a deadly weapon at someone who is committing, at most, a nonviolent misdemeanor. Rowan, who said that anyone who possessed a handgun should go to jail, apparently used his influence to avoid any consequences for not only owning a gun illegally, but assaulting another person with it.
(6) The Million Mom March raised funds and solicited volunteer time fraudulently (by lying to prospective donors about the magnitude of firearm misuse among children), exposed its members to identity theft by soliciting their Social Security Numbers, birth dates, and driver’s license numbers over the Internet through an insecure connection, and used 501(c)(3) tax-exempt money to support Al Gore’s political campaign.
(7) Convicted violent gun felons Amy Fisher (the “Long Island Lolita” who shot Mary Jo Buttafuoco) and Eric Kaplan (D-FL, rated F by the NRA) convicted of attempted murder of the wife of his NRA-”A” rated opponent).
(8) Convicted white-collar felons Mario Biaggi (D-NY) and Dan Rosetnkowski (D-IL) (pardoned by his friend Bill Clinton)
(9) Self-proclaimed war criminal John Kerry, who describes how he violated the Hague and Geneva Conventions in Vietnam
(10) America-hater, Israel-hater, and convicted inside trader George Soros

The Left circle wagons around their Marxist cadre whenever they suffer from gu-related SNAFU’s:

In October 1999, a female agent guarding Mrs. Clinton at Chicago’s Fairmont Hotel had her handbag stolen while she sat at the hotel bar. The handbag just happened to have to have a handgun in it. Sources told U.S. News that the female agent had recently been promoted despite another, earlier, incident in which she had lost her gun.

The favoritism rendered to Demoncrats in Congress have become abundantly clear to anyone who cares to examine public events.

They want guns for themselves—they just want to overturn the Constitutional Right of every other American to keep them as well.  Meas rea for tyranny?

For instance - Gun Controller Extraordinaire, Diane Feinstein?

She demonstrated enormous hypocrisy when it was revealed that she possessed the ONLY concealed firearm permit in the city of San Francisco.

And, Feminazi-inspired Domestic Violence laws, which strip the accused of their Second Amendment rights without prior hearing or due process, are only applied to peons, evidently (see There is a batterer in the United States Senate) .

Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat.

...for great justice

MZ,

What the hell are you talking about?

Res Ipsa Loquitar is a civil law term.

Jim Webb is not a party to this case so he cannot take it to the Supreme Court.  He doesn’t have standing. 

Are you really so paranoid to believe that this administration favors democrats? 

That was one impressively stupid rant.

Res Ipsa Loquitur means “the thing speaks for itself” and is a general principle of law. When a man is actually caught carrying a gun(not his own) in a “gun-free zone”, the thing speaks for itself.  Unless you can prove that he either didn’t have the gun, or had some special authorization to be carrying that particular gun in that particular place, the thing speaks for itself: illegally bringing a gun into a place where guns are forbidden.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Res Ipsa Loquitur means “the thing speaks for itself” and is a general principle of law.

Try using it is a criminal trial and see how far you get. 

It is generally a concept that is used to prove negligence.  The bolts on the tires fell off the day after the tire change.  The mechanic must of forgotten to tighten them.  The fact that the tires fell off speaks to the mechanic’s negligence.

The fact that the assistant was caught with a gun(not his own) in a place where guns are prohibited, speaks to the violation of the prohibition against carrying a gun in that place.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Besides, whatever happened to the “appearance of impropriety” reasoning that has been used against any number of Republicans?  This certainly has “the appearance of impropriety”.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

The fact that the assistant was caught with a gun(not his own) in a place where guns are prohibited, speaks to the violation of the prohibition against carrying a gun in that place.

That is not res ipsa loquitar.  That is the actus reas.  The action that is an element of the crime.  Apparently not the only element of the crime.  And prosecutors have to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Besides, whatever happened to the “appearance of impropriety” reasoning that has been used against any number of Republicans?  This certainly has “the appearance of impropriety”.

Huh?  This is a criminal case, not an ethics violation.  The prosecutor isn’t charged with catching ethics violations.  Thompson has no responsiblity to plead guilty because of an “appearance of impropriety.” That statement is ludicrous. 

Your guys persecution complex is unbelievable.

Hawk: You persist in making two mistakes: it’s “loquitur”, not “loquitar”.  Such a legal expert as you claim to be must know how to spell legal terms, no?
You also keep confusing the real violation, which is not bringing this matter to trial with a conviction, which you have now morphed into “pleading guilty”.  No one other than you has said this.
The “appearance of impropriety” is the coverup and lack of investigation of the facts in this matter.  Maybe it would have led to a trial and conviction, and maybe not, but the fact that it wasn’t even subject to public investigation and disclosure of the relevant facts is what appears to be an impropriety.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Because I don’t spell it properly means you clearly wrong definition must be correct.  Nice logic dumbass.

Res Ipsa Loquitur is not even used in criminal proceedings. 

It was investigated by the US attorney and he came to the conclusion that he didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute.  What more investigation is warranted? 

All you want is to try to embarrass Senator Webb for political reasons.

Someone with real legal knowledge would know how to spell “loquitur” correctly.  That was my point, not what you made up.
I want to expose Webb’s unethical behavior, if it exists.  What I want is a public disclosure of all the US attorney’s findings, including why he determined that a man caught with a gun in a gun-free zone isn’t subject to prosecution for that infraction.
I put the relevant part in boldface so you could understand it.
If Webb is playing dirty, I want to know it, and if he isn’t, he has nothing to lose by full public disclosure.  What I don’t like is a political coverup.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

You love political coverups if they help Republicans. 

You’ve defended them on this very board. 

You call them Democratic fishing expeditions. 

This would be the king of all fishing expeditions, because it was investigated.  That investigation just didn’t come out the way you wanted.

Who do you want to investigate it, if not a republican US attorney?  Should we have a special prosecutor?

Should we have a special prosecutor?

Absolutely.  If we had one for the Plame non-crime, we should have one for this real crime.

The rest of your statements are lies, in regard to anything I said.  You just make things up out of your partisan hatred.
You say it was investigated, but until the details are made public, we don’t know what happened.  The public has a right to know.
The party affiliation of the US attorney is only of importance to partisan haters like you, Hawk.  If he’s wrong, he’s wrong, no matter what party he belongs to, but being a partisan yourself, you don’t realize that.
If he’s right, no harm is done by making the details public, and if he’s wrong, he should be fired and the miscreants should be prosecuted, whoever they are.
Justice.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

You’re right, the possible outing of a covert CIA operative is roughly the same importance as somebody carrying a concealed weapon.  You’re ridiculous.

File a freedom of information act request.  There is no evidence that anything has been hidded.  But first why don’t you look up the statute and the uniform jury instructions and find out what the elements of the crime are.  Maybe it will be clear why the charges were dropped. 

But I’m sure you would rather just attack the US attorney’s character than do even a modicum of research first.

Should we have a special prosecutor? -Hawk

If by “special” you mean “one who rode the short bus to school”, I think we already have one of those!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Hawk: As usual, you resort to off-topic distraction and personal attack instead of substantive argument. 
In the beginning of the Plame misadventure, Victoria Toensing, who helped co-write the actual legislation, revealed that Plame wasn’t covered by the act, and listed the reasons, chapter and verse.  Nevertheless, the “special prosecutor” went merrily ahead, since his interest was obviously to embarrass and harass the Bush administration.
Since none of the details of this attorney’s decision have been revealed, they are, by definition, hidden(or “hidded”, as you would have it).
The burden of proof here is on the attorney, not on me, so your ad hominem is incorrect.

I’m not attacking the character of this attorney, only his competence/culpability.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Fellas,

Don’t stray to close to the chicken-Hawk, it might get spittle on you in the wake of its rants.  Evidently, it found a dog-eared copy of Black’s Law Dictionary at a garage sale and is furiously thumbing through it and then cutting and pasting random legal terms to bolster its arguments.

Actually, I thought I was a bit overkill on showing examples of the bias, double-standards and hyprocrisy on the part of Leftist politicos and the MSM with respect to guns, but all that is a waste of time if it isn’t read or acknowledged.

The troll will believe what it wants to believe—you can’t cajole the brain-damaged out of their condition. 

I wouldn’t waste too much time with it.

...for great justice

Clearly I am the only one who makes personal attacks on this board.

I have not used one term improperly on this thread, while you guys have continually improperly used res ipsa loquitur, and called me out on my spelling to cover your ignorance. 

You refuse to do any research, but you are willing to challenge the prosecutor’s competence. 

I’m done with this circle jerk.

...called me out on my spelling to cover your ignorance.

Wrong.  I called you on your repeated misspelling of a common legal term to question your expertise.  I revealed your ignorance.
Typical bully behavior; when the ad hominem attacks don’t work, become a whining victim.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Proof.  Good discussion of Mr. Webb’s violation of the DC ‘gun laws’.  “All are equal but some are more equal than others"-- 1984.

These Democrats are liars and think they are above the law.  We have a sitting Supreme Court Justice in SC who has been involved in two hit and run accidents.  She finally paid a $200 fine on one.  Pitiful.  Laws for the good people, ignored by bad people.

Communism is evil