Wednesday, January 16, 2013

D.C. Attorney General to David Gregory: gun laws are just for the little people

From Bill Jacobson at Legal Insurrection:

District of Columbia Attorney General Irvin Nathan issued a lengthy lettertoday explaining the decision not to prosecute David Gregory “despite the clarity of the violation of this important law,” despite rejecting NBC’s claims of a subjective misunderstanding of the law, and despite vowing vigorous enforcement of gun laws. 
Emily Miller of The Washington Times, who has written extensively about the overly aggressive enforcement of D.C. gun laws, including as to high capacity magazines, reacted as follows: 
"It is shameful that the politicians running the nation’s capital have sent the clear message that there are two systems of justice in the city: one for the rich and powerful and one for everyone else."

Just to rub salt in the wound, here's a picture of Attorney General Irvin Nathan taken in 2011 with Beth Wilkinson, with whom Irvin participated in a mock trial for the D.C. Shakespeare Theatre Company, at a party:



Beth Wilkinson is David Gregory's wife, with her arm around the Attorney General who would let her husband walk “despite the clarity of the violation of this important law”.

Friends will be friends. No conflict of interest there.

Want to know more about Ms. Wilkinson-Gregory?

Wikipedia:
In 2006, Fannie Mae recruited Wilkinson as parts of its effort to rebuild its relationship with regulators after accounting scandals and complaints about its corporate culture. Her compensation at Fannie Mae was not disclosed when she was hired.[7] She served asFannie Mae's executive vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary from February 2006 until September 2008.[8] 
She resigned her position at Fannie Mae along with three other senior executives on September 19, 2008, after the troubled mortgage giant was taken over by the government.[9]
Mrs. Wilkinson-Gregory was no doubt paid handsomely (how many million? Guess-- it's fun!) with your money for her work "to rebuild [Fannie Mae's] relationship with regulators after accounting scandals".

Gregory's wife shilled for the Fannie Mae crooks who brought our economy down. And made a pretty penny doing it. And of course her husband, as moderator on Meet the Press, reports on the economic collapse regularly, not mentioning that his wife made a ton of money working for the swindlers who caused it.

Connections. Laws are for the little people.  

5 comments:

  1. Many gun enthusiasts have argued that we need to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people. Let’s hope they start with the conspiracy theorists who amass arsenals against UN black helicopters and all the other crazy theories that fuel and justify the violent fantasies of these sick fools. With irresponsible idiots like Glen Beck pining for a civil war, their guns are only likely to kill innocent people that they imagine are part of the conspiracy.

    Let’s focus our recourses on these dangerous right-wingers instead of wasting time chasing media figures that represent no threat, simply because they used an empty magazine as a prop. Let’s be grown-ups instead of paying petty little games.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJanuary 16, 2013 at 8:14 AM

      A conspiracy theory about conspiracy theorists! That's pretty cool. Nice work.

      But what's not a conspiracy theory is that the Glenbeckistan Navy, as we speak, is in negotiations with Vladimir Putin to acquire a mothballed aircraft carrier. Our first strategic target is going to be Club Med (Barbados).

      Ve vill bury you, running-dog capitalist pig.

      Delete
    2. Pretty funny, KW.

      I write a post pointing out that enforcement of the law is dependent on the political skew of the accused, and you refute my post by asserting that gun laws should only be enforced against right-wingers.

      That's my point. You guys are the reason that millions of Americans have bought guns recently.

      Delete
    3. Round up and disarm the dissenters?
      How very patriotic of you, KW. How very authoritarian.
      Goodness me...

      You do realize a good portion of the people you're making a caricature of are actually veterans and people in positions of authority?
      That you would be pitting urban America against rural and suburban America?
      That MOST of your professional military would be loyal to these very people you describe?
      When I say military, I am referring to the guys who actually do the fighting - not the pentagon brass. Even some of them, however, would flip very quickly being creatures of political opportunity.
      'They' (the Americans) are their former comrades in arms, neighbours, home towns, and countrymen, after all.
      There is also the 'piece of paper' that most Americans and all the military and police have all sworn an oath to that your masters would be directly violating. You start taking peoples guns by force and you'll have dozens of Waco-like events on your hands.
      Too many to handle and without the public support of the last massacre.
      This time nobody will buy the premise. By nobody, I mean the sheeple - not the people.
      How long do you think the normal Americans and even troops will be content to watch that on TV and read about it online? My guess is not very long at all.

      That 'little book' (a Piers Morgan quote) is a bit of a sticker for the Americans. Human life even more so.
      Entire states and even their leadership fall into the category you describe with your stale libels.

      Will you suggest invading, blockading, occupying those states next?
      Pitched battles with State Militias and National Guard if need be? Alphabets against local military?
      All to disarm those who disagree with you?
      Maybe you could call on the UNSC to help you round up your political foes?
      But 'they' are all paranoid....
      YOU folks come in peace.
      You are only trying to save them from themselves, after all.

      Delete
  2. A more salient point would be that Nathan realized the virtual impossibility of securing a conviction in this case even if he did pursue it. Almost any jury would acquit the defendant under these circumstances, which would mean that the prosecutorial resources spent bringing this case would have been wasted.

    ReplyDelete