Remember talking about this guy? A few months ago he managed to typify much that ails America. An elite left-wing TV personality, in December 2012, Gregory violated the silly D.C. Code 7-2506.01(b), by obtaining and displaying (on air) a large-capacity gun magazine. Gregory did so after D.C. police had specifically told him not to… but they never prosecuted him for it. Since D.C. does prosecute the minor infractions of ordinary citizens (unconnected with any other crime, and regardless of the citizen’s lack of criminal intent or record), Gregory clearly got some kind of preferential treatment. Why (or on what rationale), we still don’t know.
William A. Jacobsen has been trying to find out why, and Judicial Watch announced last Monday “that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and Office of the Attorney General (OAG).” The lawsuit follows D.C. having stonewalled on Jacobsen’s earlier FOIA request for documents. Godspeed!
I suppose they probably chose not to prosecute him because his use of a gun didn’t pose a threat, but on the other hand, there probably have been lots of less famous people who got prosecuted for doing things that, while illegal, didn’t pose a threat.
Mitch, exactly. It’s not that Gregory posed a threat; it’s that other citizens are under threat of prosecution, who also don’t pose a threat. So, why isn’t Gregory? Special treatment.
David Gregory is carrying the water for the Obama Progressives. James Rosen is a serious threat to the Obama Progressives. It appears that the AP did not play ball with the Obama Progressives and so they had to be snooped on in order to separate the good guys at the AP and the bad guys at the AP.
The Department of Justice has an interesting problem. Holder “recused” himself from the AP subpoena fiasco. He does not recall exactly “when” he recused himself.
Ooops! Legally, Holder writes his “recusal” and directs the scope of the recusal to a named party and gives the justification for the recusal. Oh, my, Holder just gave his “recusal” orally. Therefore, he was not legally recused.
But, lets just overlook that little formality and move on, OK? Why make a mountain out of a molehill?