Well hopefully more states will follow the example of Colorado and Washington, and then even take it further by legalizing all drugs, at which point there wouldn't be any arms race to get left behind in. Oh how we love to use bandaid solutions and dance around the root of almost every problem we have.

SWAT teams are used on suspected minor drug infractions?

You are more sanguine than I wrt legalization of drugs as some sort of panacea to all our problems. I've gone into this before, so I'm not going to repeat myself, but just as a for instance: black markets, and black markets supported by the stuff from the states have legalized it into states that haven't.

If you successfully defended your family from a no-knock raid you'd be sent to the electric chair as a cop-killer. More or less ever last time.

I did include a case where it happened. Guy was prosecuted but was not convicted.

How it plays out will obviously depend on jurisdiction etc. This happened in Quebec and the SQ has a well earned bad reputation.

8745. So Holder knew. They investigated and when it hit a certain level they notified the President.

That does not seem very scandalous to me.

The question is not a game of gotcha. The question is posed in order to make plain the fact that NO ONE supports and unlimited right to bear arms. NO ONE. And at that point, we've established what you are, m'lady, and we're just haggling over price.

the supreme court may disagree with you

That's easy- because it was going to "break" and no matter how close Holder and Obama are, Obama would be pretty pissed at Holder if he first found out about it from the news or twitter or something...

moreover, you also almost have to assume that Holder knew about Eric Canter going to the FBI head (after Mr, Shirtless tipped off the congressman)- in which case it would have been almost POLITICALLY imperative that Obama know that something was going on with the General...

So basically you're saying Holder lied about his actual reasons.

In that case, I don't see what the argument is. Because that's what I'm saying also. That he lied about his reasons. Why should we accept your speculation of what the "real reasons" were as valid, while arguing that my speculation is invalid?

(Also, once we assume that Holder is lying, then he could be lying about not informing Obama as well.)

the supreme court may disagree with you

In that video, Scalia says "there are some limitations that can be imposed." Points out that cannons aren't covered, but handheld rocket launchers "would have to be determined. CAREFULLY."

Police brutality of any kind is probably the biggest issue to me that no one seems to talk about.

seems to be contradicted by:

With the internet what it is now and since everyone has a video camera on their phones, I can easily find several new incidents daily of police brutality and the authoritative nature of our law enforcement officers.

Well, every topic is "talked about" on the internet. The issue never comes up on a national stage in politics or with the major news outlets. Also I've rarely seen it discuess when it comes to local reporting or state politics. People post their blair witch videos on youtube of a cop on a power trip, it gets a few thousands views, and a week later it's forgotten.

Had we made the determination that a threat to national security existed, we would of course have made that known to the president and also to the appropriate members on the Hill."

Only after Broadwell was interviewed Nov. 2 was the decision made to alert the White House.

"When we got to that point, where we thought it was appropriate to share the information, we did so," he said.

AGAIN: there is nothing in that last statement that indicates that a threat to national security was ever reached. I think you're connecting things way too closely here.

They would tell the president as soon as they determined that a threat to national security existed, this is true. But that doesn't mean that the only circumstances under which they could ever tell the president would be a threat to national security. Does "that point" in the last sentence refer to a determination of a threat to national security? Or does "that point" refer to a general point when "it was appropriate to share the information"? I would lean towards the latter, but if you have more evidence of the former than linking demonstration adjective "that" to an earlier sentence rather than its own sentence from a press conference article in USA Today, I'd be happy to reconsider.

So basically you're saying Holder lied about his actual reasons.

Couldn't he (FBI) have investigated. And waited to let the President know once they felt it was warranted?

Where in the various bits is that scenario invalidated?

SWAT teams are used on suspected minor drug infractions?

Well I don't know what you'd call minor, but anything involving marijuana is minor to me, even if you're a kingpin.

From the site:

Trevon Cole

June 11, 2010—NV

Trevon Cole, 21, and his nine months pregnant fiancee, Sequioa Pearce, were in bed at 9:00 pm on a Friday evening when Las Vegas narcotics officers entered Cole's apartment. Cole moved to the bathroom to flush marijuana down the toilet. Narcotics Dectective Bryan Yant kicked open the bathroom door and confronted Cole. Yant fired one round from his rifle into Cole's head at close range, killing him.

I'm still trying to figure out where Ray is going with all this.

Right now, the best I can figure is that he's implying that Eric Holder should resign because he didn't tell Obama soon enough about an FBI investigation that is turning out to be one of the funniest ####### things I've read about in a while, with almost ZERO national security implications.

Or is he still peddling the idea that Obama knew about this hilarious story and buried it to win the election, despite the Republicans knowing about it before he did, and not saying a damn word about it to anyone in the media?

I understand that Ray is wielding a nice "blame and shame" shotgun, but he's been firing rounds off indiscriminately for a while now that I can't figure out who his target is at this point.

"We conducted that investigation the way we normally conduct criminal investigations," Holder said at a press conference in New Orleans, his first public comments on the matter. "We do not share outside the Justice Department, outside the FBI, the facts of ongoing investigations."

Perhaps I'm misreading the above, but it seems clear to me that the Attorney General is stating that, when a investigation is ongoing, the facts of the investigation are not shared with Congress, the White House, nor any other party outside the FBI.

Now, it's possible:

1) The Attorney General is lying. It's possible that this is just a CYA story Holder made up to protect the administration from criticism that the election was the driving force behind keeping this investigation away from the White House (or, perhaps, the White House did know, and this is just a lie to give the President cover when he says that he was unaware);

2) The Attorney General is telling the truth; notifying the White House regarding the details of the investigation until the investigation was concluded is nothing more than standard operating procedure. If that is so, then it's the procedure/bureaucracy in place that needs to be examined; the individuals should not be criticized for following the rules in place.

Again, I don't want to entirely dismiss the possibility that I'm misreading the Attorney General's comments. But if I have read them correctly, then it seems to me that one must either believe that Holder is lying, or that not notifying the President until the investigation was concluded is just SOP. Because I personally don't see a middle ground where the Attorney General's statement is truthful, and yet the President should have been told anyway.

DB

No, it is not a possibility, unless Holder is lying when he says this:

"We made the determination as we were going through the matter that there was not a threat to national security," Holder said.

Ray, I honestly don't get your point.

Investigation starts. Nothing to be alarmed about. No need to inform President. Investigation continues. Nothing to be alarmed about. Etc.

You're really hung up on the "classified materials" aspect. Nobody who's actually experienced classification in action is. Or was at any point.

EDIT: To go further. If Obama needs to be informed immediately it's because you've decided Petraeus' clearance needs to be revoked as soon as the investigation starts.

Note that this is not an insane position. I can imagine a protocol which says that as soon as an investigation of somebody with his level of clearance is started that clearance must be suspended for the duration of the investigation. (For that matter, you can lose a clearance for sloppy handling of documents even if they're over-classified)

It's just not the way things work right now. In the wake of this whole affair it's entirely possible that this will change.

(Also, once we assume that Holder is lying, then he could be lying about not informing Obama as well.)

Even if Holder is tell us the truth, he could be lying about not informing Obama anyway.

Heck, even before Broadwell got classified documents from Petraeus, she still could have had some classified documents anyway. Why wasn't Obama told about Broadwell as soon as he took office? Either he knew about her then, or he set up a shitty system that prevented him from knowing for political reasons. Either way, Obama is a sham, a turd, and a terrible excuse for a president (excepting all other presidents who served before and will serve after, of course).

Gone for the weekend, in case anyone thinks I'm just ignoring them. Its been a good discussion.

Either he knew about her then, or he set up a shitty system that prevented him from knowing for political reasons.

Or he was also having an affair with her ... which would explain so much.

Well I don't know what you'd call minor, but anything involving marijuana is minor to me, even if you're a kingpin.

But, but, but victimless crimes!

For those who care, there's a CNN timeline of the Petraeus investigation here.

I am saying that this just happening to fall out at 5pm on election night, with Obama being informed the next day, is not a coincidence.

That's it. I'm not accusing anyone of crimes or treason. I'm not linking it to Benghazi, or assuming any Benghazi related scandal, either about Obama's actions w/r/t Benghazi or Petraeus's testimony.

Once more: I am accusing politicians of playing politics. People here oddly seem to think that Obama is above that.

I am saying that this just happening to fall out at 5pm on election night, with Obama being informed the next day, is not a coincidence.

That's it. I'm not accusing anyone of crimes or treason. I'm not linking it to Benghazi, or assuming any Benghazi related scandal, either about Obama's actions w/r/t Benghazi or Petraeus's testimony.

Once more: I am accusing politicians of playing politics. People here oddly seem to think that Obama is above that.

that's exactly the thing. in the span of one post, you say that obama was unaware of the incident, and then imply that he was playing politics by not informing people of the incident he was not aware of.

SWAT teams are used on suspected minor drug infractions?

Yep. Here's a fairly typical example from last month:

Amarillo police have arrested eight people on various drug-related charges after they raided an Amarillo Boulevard motel.

Armed with six arrest warrants, the officers searched six rooms Thursday evening at the Deluxe Inn, 620 W. Amarillo Blvd., and found small amounts of cocaine and marijuana worth about $2,000. The SWAT team, various Amarillo police units and the Texas Department of Public Safety narcotics unit executed the warrants. Two of the rooms were not occupied and officers also found small rocks of crack cocaine inside, police said.

Emphasis mine. Two people busted for "manufacturing and delivery of a controlled substance" (read: small-time street dealers or recreational users with a stash), a couple more popped for outstanding warrants, and four collars for "possession of drug paraphernalia". For that, you need SWAT?

#8769 I most certainly don't think Obama is above playing politics. I'm just buggered as to why anybody would feel the need in this case. If there was some political dynamite then sure, they'd have done their best to bury it until after the election.

I mean it surely speaks volumes that Eric Cantor had the information and didn't see any way to gain a political advantage from going public.

The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda," Schiff said. "He completely debunked that idea."

#8769 - I think I see your point: There's a system in place where the President is not informed until the investigation is over, and the AG worked that system to make sure the investigation didn't conclude until a time that was politically expediant.

OK; I can see that possibility. If that is the case, then I agree with you (again, presuming that I'm understanding you correctly): it's not a crime; it's not a scandal; it's just a pretty shitty thing to do.

DB

So a variety of government officials (including a leading congressional Republican?) "played politics" by waiting to tell the public and the president about essentially a tabloid story with no real importance to the public or the president.

You sure zinged us with that one! I bet those BBTF liberals didn't even see it coming! They thinking that government officials are perfect and all.

The solution to an arms race is for some just not to play--yes. The opposition really likes that option.

What arms race?

Once more: I am accusing politicians of playing politics.

I am pretty sure we all agree on that. Why do you keep coming back to it and making a big deal of something we all agree happens. If it is run of the mill political stuff that every politician since the Romans has done and there was no harm done, then who cares?

Um, sure. Sanity? I am neither a lawyer or gun guy, but what you say does not accord with what I have heard others say. But hey lay that assertion out there.

Have you ever seen the propaganda campaign police departments roll out any time a cop is killed?

#8769 - I think I see your point: There's a system in place where the President is not informed until the investigation is over, and the AG worked that system to make sure the investigation didn't conclude until a time that was politically expediant.

OK; I can see that possibility. If that is the case, then I agree with you (again, presuming that I'm understanding you correctly): it's not a crime; it's not a scandal; it's just a pretty shitty thing to do.

How is it shitty? Do we really need the president to get a daily briefing on every investigation ever? Or are we going to base it on how well the story might sell to the tabloids?

If you're going to brief the president on every government official who's cheating on his wife, that's really going to cut into his golf game.

I suspect the latter (cell phone video, the internet) is going help reduce these instances (or at least keep them at the "natural" levels, cops being cops throughout the ages and all).

You know what phone video has led to?

Laws making it illegal to record the police.

Good lord, it's like you've never interacted with a cop.

Laws making it illegal to record the police.

Here in Minnesota I believe it is illegal for police to interfere with a citizen recording something (including the police). There was a scandal about police confiscating recordings.

SWAT teams are used on suspected minor drug infractions?

The key here is to address the issue using basic assumptions of conservative political theory. Create a government bureaucracy (the SWAT team.) Fund it with a million dollar budget. Give it massive toys (guns and such.)

What the #### do you *expect* it will do? It will justify its existence by using its toys and find excuses to expand its budget.

The 2nd Amendment defends the right to bear *arms.* Armaments. Weaponry. To say that grenade launchers, or even nukes, are arms which can not be held by the common citizenry is to admit, prima facie, that the right to bear arms is restrictable by the state.

If you can't have a grenade launcher, why can you have an automatic assault rifle?

If you can't have an automatic assault rifle, why can you have a high powered, scoped sniper (deer hunting) rifle?

The question is not a game of gotcha. The question is posed in order to make plain the fact that NO ONE supports and unlimited right to bear arms. NO ONE. And at that point, we've established what you are, m'lady, and we're just haggling over price.

Yikes. And liberals complain that conservatives skip over the "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment.

#8778 Sure have. That's why I said jurisdiction matters. Nobody in Quebec believes it when the SQ runs out that propaganda.

"When we got to that point, where we thought it was appropriate to share the information, we did so," he said.

You will note that Holder does not say "Because the farging head of the CIA was resigning over it."


Ray, you will also note that neither does he say "because we determined there was a national security threat."

I bet those BBTF liberals didn't even see it coming!

I know I sure didn't. In fact, now that it's here, I still don't see it.

Yikes. And liberals complain that conservatives skip over the "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment.

So... was hoping you'd answer that question. Again, besides grenade launchers and nukes, what other weapons can be banned without selling out second amendment principles?

Ray, you will also note that neither does he say "because we determined there was a national security threat."

Did you miss the bolded words "that point" and the bolded words "Had we made the determination"? It's not exactly lying, but Holder and the liberal media were definitely playing politics there, by slyly admitting there was a national security threat through a curiously placed demonstrative adjective. Thankfully, intrepid above-it-all nonpartisan internet crusaders have the ability to see through such shenanigans, and shine a light on them through boldface type.

Ray: So when do you think that this should have been made public? And by whom? Should the president or the Atty. General call a press conference to announce every finding of every investigation, even if (as it turns out) it involves no real threat to national security? Do we really want the details of a private affair to be trotted out as if it were the breaking of a spy ring?

And again, if this was really a matter of such importance to "national security", why did Cantor just sit on it?

But when these things happen, very often the innocent guy ends up in trouble - the cops want to cover their ass by showing the guy wasn't really "innocent".

What should set your Spidey-senses to tingling is when the end of the news story includes the innocent guy's arrest history. "2012: cops broke down wrong door, beat the crap out of innocent guy... [last paragraph] who, in 1997, was arrested for DUI." SEE? WHO'S REALLY THE BAD GUY, HERE?

Bull. The defendant doesn't do the negotiation. He doesn't have the special knowledge. He's not the one who has the relationship with the prosecutors. The lawyer does and works it out at every juncture; the defendant formally accedes to that. Don't quibble. You know what was meant.

I quibble because I'm a criminal defense lawyer, and I find myself constantly needing to reassure my clients that I can't (and wouldn't) just "plead them out" without them knowing and agreeing to it. I can tell them if I think a plea is a fair deal or not, but it's always up to them. Anyway I'm often surprised by what they think is fair, compared to what I'd want ("Wait, you'd rather do 20 days locked up and get it over with, than take a couple of years of unsupervised probation and zero jail time? Well... OK, then.").

Also, it might be different in other jurisdictions, but there's effectively no such thing as a "relationship with the prosecutors" where I work. They pride themselves on their fungibility (that's how one of them actually put it), and whatever Prosecutor Monday said does not necessarily bind Prosecutor Thursday at all.

Yikes. And liberals complain that conservatives skip over the "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment.

Once again, Joe, this is why people treat you like an idiot. Because you act and post like an idiot.

If I were to say "the 2nd Amendment isn't universal, and the Congress is well within its rights to regulate the purchase and availability of so-called 'assault rifles;' it's all part and parcel to keeping a well regulated militia" you'd have a #### fit.

If I were to say "the first clause of the 2nd Amendment specifically notes that the right to bear arms is connected with militia membership; in the modern world militias don't exist and have been replaced by professional armies. As such the 2nd is itself fundamentally archaic and out of touch with modern times" you'd probably have a coronary.

But here you are, when it suits you, begging the question of that same initial clause, because you don't like the idea of a universal right to keep and bear grenade launchers for some reason.

If the 2nd Amendment is universal; if the right to "keep and bear arms" is a universal claim that can not be justly infringed; then the the government can not justly or rightfully infringe the right to grenade launchers, or suit case nukes. "Arms" don't end with extended clip 9mm hand guns, after all.

If the government can justly and rightfully infringe on the keeping and bearing of arms such as grenade launchers and suitcase nukes it is incumbent upon gun enthusiasts to explain why "assault rifles" and extended clip 9mm handguns are different in case and class than grenade launchers and thus freely kept and bourne by the citizenry at large.

This isn't a political gothcha, Joey. This is basic ####### logic.

Yikes. And liberals complain that conservatives skip over the "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment.

Shorter JoeK: Arms should be well-regulated, except by liberals.

So... was hoping you'd answer that question. Again, besides grenade launchers and nukes, what other weapons can be banned without selling out second amendment principles?

I don't have a comprehensive list, and I'm sure some items on such a list would be cause for debate. The point is simply that taking guns away from murderers and mentally deranged people — i.e., the "well regulated militia" — doesn't remotely constitute "selling out" Second Amendment principles, nor does a ban on private ownership of nuclear weapons exist on the same Second Amendment "well regulated" continuum as a flat ban of *all* firearm possession by *all* people.

Sam claimed he wasn't playing a "gotcha" game in #8707, but that's precisely what he was doing. The idea that "no nukes today" somehow leads to "no guns tomorrow," and that the latter wouldn't conflict at all with the rights inherent in the Second Amendment, is not only absurd but it's entirely contradicted by over two centuries of practice and precedent in the U.S., including practice and precedent that preceded the Second Amendment itself.

Ray: So when do you think that this should have been made public? And by whom? Should the president or the Atty. General call a press conference to announce every finding of every investigation, even if (as it turns out) it involves no real threat to national security?

Answer: The minute you (Holder) learn that the CIA's mistress was in possession of classified information, inform the President, who should then decide whether to at least temporarily relieve the director of his duties, pending the investigation. Suspending the Director would of course be a public action. And short of that, the public at least had a right to know that the CIA director's mistress was found with classified documents, and the President had decided not to suspend him.

The way it fell out: the President played no role, and therefore was completely unaccountable, because he made no decisions. Accountability and executive decisionmaking are what elections turn on. As it turned out, Obama was no more informed on the matter than Joe The Plumber was. To me, that makes the President look foolish and ineffective, and raises questions as to whether he has an AG who made a political decision to keep him in the dark.

When we got to that point. What point? The point where we made the determination that a threat to national security existed.

No, Ray. If you read the entire transcript of Holder's remarks, he is clear that they determined there was *not* a threat to national security.

Well, I would say that with regard to that issue, what we did was conduct the investigation in the way that we normally conduct criminal investigations. We do so in a way that they can be seen as being done in an impartial way.

We follow the facts. We do not share – outside the Justice Department, outside the FBI – the facts of ongoing investigations.

We made the determination as we were going through the matter that there was not a threat to national security.

Had we made the determination that a threat to national security existed, we would, of course, have made that known to the President and also to the appropriate members on the Hill.

But as we went through the investigation, looked at the facts and tried to examine them as they developed, we felt very secure in the knowledge that national security threat did not exist that warranted the sharing of that information with the White House or with the Hill.

When we got to a point in the investigation – it was very late in the investigation – after a very critical interview occurred on the Friday before we made that disclosure – when we go to that point where we thought it was appropriate to share the information, we did so.

(emphasis added)

He is pretty clear in the bolded part that they never determined a national security threat existed. "That point" simply refers to what comes after in the sentence - the point when they thought it was appropriate to notify the President. He did not explain what made it the appropriate time.

Shorter JoeK: Arms should be well-regulated, except by liberals.

If a right is "regulated" to the point it becomes impossible to exercise, then it ceases to be a right. This is a very basic concept.

Once again, Joe, this is why people treat you like an idiot. Because you act and post like an idiot.

If I were to say "the 2nd Amendment isn't universal, and the Congress is well within its rights to regulate the purchase and availability of so-called 'assault rifles;' it's all part and parcel to keeping a well regulated militia" you'd have a #### fit.

If I were to say "the first clause of the 2nd Amendment specifically notes that the right to bear arms is connected with militia membership; in the modern world militias don't exist and have been replaced by professional armies. As such the 2nd is itself fundamentally archaic and out of touch with modern times" you'd probably have a coronary.

But here you are, when it suits you, begging the question of that same initial clause, because you don't like the idea of a universal right to keep and bear grenade launchers for some reason.

If the 2nd Amendment is universal; if the right to "keep and bear arms" is a universal claim that can not be justly infringed; then the the government can not justly or rightfully infringe the right to grenade launchers, or suit case nukes. "Arms" don't end with extended clip 9mm hand guns, after all.

If the government can justly and rightfully infringe on the keeping and bearing of arms such as grenade launchers and suitcase nukes it is incumbent upon gun enthusiasts to explain why "assault rifles" and extended clip 9mm handguns are different in case and class than grenade launchers and thus freely kept and bourne by the citizenry at large.

This isn't a political gothcha, Joey. This is basic ####### logic.

If that's your idea of "basic logic," I'll leave you alone to continue spewing your philosobabble.

Absolutely no non-deranged person, ever, has claimed that the Second Amendment is absolute or that it allows for private possession of nuclear weapons. And to whatever extent you believe that's a concession (which it isn't), it's assuredly not a concession that puts the entirety of the Second Amendment at risk of being dead letter.

Absolutely no non-deranged person, ever, has claimed that the Second Amendment is absolute or that it allows for private possession of nuclear weapons. And to whatever extent you believe that's a concession (which it isn't), it's assuredly not a concession that puts the entirety of the Second Amendment at risk of being dead letter.

You are incapable of basic reasoning. Probably mentally deranged. As such, you may not have weapons.

.

Typical Sam Hutcheson: Can't ever win an argument with his philosobabble

Dude, circle up the jerk reaction all you want, but I assure you, you are just not following basic logic and concepts of structured debate here. If that is because you're stupid, well, come to grips with your limitations or whatever.