Dallas Safari Club pulls support for BLM pick

[brocksw]

She was granted immunity to testify. Innocent witnesses don't require immunity.

For sure. But, immunity doesn't necessarily mean guilty. Sometimes it's just fear of prosecution. We all know lawsuits get thrown around quite frequently, and not everyone subject to a lawsuit is guilty.

Also, Prosecutors can give immunity to a person who has committed minor crimes in order to get that person to testify against someone who has committed more significant offenses. Sometimes immunity is granted or given as a "just in case" to prevent any possible prosecution. Kind of like Trump claiming immunity over the Jan 6th fiasco.

Again, I just haven't seen anything concrete that says she committed a specific crime. She was definitely involved, but it seems it was more an indirect involvement. Trying not to jump to conclusions based on political affiliations.

 

[Squincher]

For sure. But, immunity doesn't necessarily mean guilty. Sometimes it's just fear of prosecution. We all know lawsuits get thrown around quite frequently, and not everyone subject to a lawsuit is guilty.

Also, Prosecutors can give immunity to a person who has committed minor crimes in order to get that person to testify against someone who has committed more significant offenses. Sometimes immunity is granted or given as a "just in case" to prevent any possible prosecution. Kind of like Trump claiming immunity over the Jan 6th fiasco.

Again, I just haven't seen anything concrete that says she committed a specific crime. She was definitely involved, but it seems it was more an indirect involvement. Trying not to jump to conclusions based on political affiliations.

Immunity is only given to witnesses who have sufficient first hand information to secure a conviction, and whose testimony would incriminate them in the same case. It is ONLY a safeguard against self-incrimination and is not used for any other purpose. What you are describing would be some sort of plea agreement, and no source mentions anything except immunity.

 

[brocksw]

Immunity is only given to witnesses who have sufficient first hand information to secure a conviction, and whose testimony would incriminate them in the same case. It is ONLY a safeguard against self-incrimination and is not used for any other purpose. What you are describing would be some sort of plea agreement, and no source mentions anything except immunity.

Alright, you're the attorney, not me. But if that's the case, that doesn't say a whole lot of good about those in the Trump administration or those that were granted immunity in the Trump organization. But again, you're the attorney so I'll let you tell us the facts.

 

[Timeless61]

Alright, you're the attorney, not me. But if that's the case, that doesn't say a whole lot of good about those in the Trump administration or those that were granted immunity in the Trump organization. But again, you're the attorney so I'll let you tell us the facts.

What does this thread have to do with Trump?

 

[brocksw]

What does this thread have to do with Trump?

Oops, did I strike a nerve?

 

[Timeless61]

Oops, did I strike a nerve?

No. Just curious how you make the jump? I do see where you defend BHA and the nominee in question here when given the chance.

 

[brocksw]

No. Just curious how you make the jump? I do see where you defend BHA and the nominee in question here when given the chance.

Squincher was educating me on immunity. I took away from his explanation that if you're granted immunity, you are guilty of a crime. There were some examples that came to mind in the Trump administration/organization that would seem to be unfavorable if that is indeed what immunity translates too.

But I don't know. He's the attorney not me. Ask him.

Yes, I support and volunteer for BHA.

 

[ODB]

Where’s that Fonzi jumping the shark meme??

 

[Okhotnik]

I kind of agree with the article above except that landowners should be able to clear their land, including controlled burns in order to protect their homes from fire. The problem is that permits to do just that are often denied.

But letting the wildfires burn themselves out instead of spending great sums of taxpayer dollars to fight them, which is more often than not, futile, isn't what I would consider a radical idea...and it's also good for wildlife

To be fair DSC is an actual hunting organization that supports hunters rights and conservation and firearms rights. To some on here that is an anathema . The ginger BHA head is probably screaming like a baby over this.

 

[260madman]

Squincher was educating me on immunity. I took away from his explanation that if you're granted immunity, you are guilty of a crime. There were some examples that came to mind in the Trump administration/organization that would seem to be unfavorable if that is indeed what immunity translates too.

But I don't know. He's the attorney not me. Ask him.

Yes, I support and volunteer for BHA.

You’re talking about 3rd person hearsay not actual black and white facts. You’re reaching. I’d never talk to Fed without a lawyer if I am innocent. One word out of place and suddenly you’re up on charges.

I know what you’re trying to compare and you’re wrong. Thanks for playing.

 

[gelton]

Squincher was educating me on immunity. I took away from his explanation that if you're granted immunity, you are guilty of a crime. There were some examples that came to mind in the Trump administration/organization that would seem to be unfavorable if that is indeed what immunity translates too.

But I don't know. He's the attorney not me. Ask him.

Yes, I support and volunteer for BHA.

Prosecutors use immunity to get people to testify that might otherwise be found guilty. In a court of law, the only reason immunity is given is to take down the target of your investigation. If that fails, then the immunity was worthless and looked upon as a huge failure.

Mueller granted several immunity deals and failed to find a crime against the target of the investigation and those crimes that were found had nothing to do with the Russian collusion narrative...Stone-Mannings immunity resulted in the prosecution of the target. Quite a difference between the two.

 

[brocksw]

You’re talking about 3rd person hearsay not actual black and white facts. You’re reaching. I’d never talk to Fed without a lawyer if I am innocent. One word out of place and suddenly you’re up on charges.

I know what you’re trying to compare and you’re wrong. Thanks for playing.

 

[HaydenLane]

She helped create the legislation that delisted gray wolves. Nuff said.

There’s a lot of people here who think the BHA (and any other hunting related organization) needs to be explicitly pro-predator hunting, even if that has nothing to do with their mission statement. Those same people are likely going to be the reason Stone-Manning, a hunter and apparent supporter of predator hunting, will not be the director of the BLM. They’d rather cancel her for something that happened 30 years ago.

I’d guess it’s rather unlikely that, should her nomination be pulled or confirmation fail, we get another nominee who hunts or supports predator hunting in any way from the Biden administration.

Bravo, I guess.

 

[Dos Perros]

Well we’re 1 for 1, how poor could the odds be?

“something that happened 30 years ago” reminds me of when Rep Omar causally referred to 9/11 as “some people did something.”

As far as I understand it, this woman was involved in trying to hurt or kill people over something rather trivial. That may not categorically exclude her but she should answer for it (and I expect she will); similarly organizations who lazily signed in to some list of support should weigh in and justify it themselves. I don’t think either is too much to ask and that any of you should disagree with that.

 

[HaydenLane]

“something that happened 30 years ago” reminds me of when Rep Omar causally referred to 9/11 as “some people did something.”

Let’s not compare sending a letter to literally killing 3000 people. Beyond that, marking and warning loggers about the spikes refutes any idea that their intent is to kill or injure.

That may not categorically exclude her but she should answer for it (and I expect she will);

Isn’t that the entire point of confirmation hearings? She was already going to have to answer for her past. That isn’t what anyone is asking for. What they are asking is that she be disqualified outright and that all organizations withdraw their support immediately.

 

[Travis Hobbs]

Obama’s BLM director pulls support for Tracy Stone-Manning over tree-spiking incident

President Barack Obama’s first Bureau of Land Management director has pulled his support for Tracy Stone-Manning, saying she should withdraw her nomination to head the agency over her involvement in a tree-spiking case three decades ago.

www.washingtontimes.com

Bob Abbey dropping his support of Stone-Manning should raise more eye brows than just about anything.

He is/was not exactly what you would call conservative

How this is up for debate and anyone can support someone for a position like this is unbelievable. Of all the people in the world this is really the best option

 

[brocksw]

Obama’s BLM director pulls support for Tracy Stone-Manning over tree-spiking incident

President Barack Obama’s first Bureau of Land Management director has pulled his support for Tracy Stone-Manning, saying she should withdraw her nomination to head the agency over her involvement in a tree-spiking case three decades ago.

www.washingtontimes.com

Bob Abbey dropping his support of Stone-Manning should raise more eye brows than just about anything.

Abbey's take is probably the most reasonable take I've heard against her nomination. Almost solely based on her nomination attracting controversy to the agency.

E&E News: Obama BLM director: Biden needs a new nominee

<p>Republican opposition to Tracy Stone-Manning's nomination for director of the Bureau of Land Management now has a Democrat and former senior Obama-era official on its side.</p>

www.eenews.net

 

[HaydenLane]

Obama’s BLM director pulls support for Tracy Stone-Manning over tree-spiking incident

President Barack Obama’s first Bureau of Land Management director has pulled his support for Tracy Stone-Manning, saying she should withdraw her nomination to head the agency over her involvement in a tree-spiking case three decades ago.

www.washingtontimes.com

Bob Abbey dropping his support of Stone-Manning should raise more eye brows than just about anything.

He is/was not exactly what you would call conservative

How this is up for debate and anyone can support someone for a position like this is unbelievable. Of all the people in the world this is really the best option

You don’t get the world, you get (presumably) women or minority democrats, in good standing with the Biden admin, with a background in conservation or land management, and preferably experience working with or for the government. Maybe there are better, but not by much.

I hope you were this up in arms about Pendley. Either way, taking this stance against someone who is pro-hunting and predator hunting is a great way to shoot yourself in the foot.

 

[Deadfall]

Devil you know, better then one you don't. With administration who knows who is up next....

 

[Travis Hobbs]

Either way, taking this stance against someone who is pro-hunting and predator hunting is a great way to shoot yourself in the foot.

I’ll take a stance against someone with radical history like this, all day, everyday.

I don’t give a shit if she hunts or not.