Republicans Reiterate to Holder: Perjury Is a Crime

Attorney General Eric Holder is in a long line of Obama Administration Officials and appointees that currently have to deal with scandals. The leader of the most powerful law enforcement arm of the Federal Government has been accused by many in the Republican Party and in the public of acts of sheer stupidity. Though not a “convictable” offense alone, this lack of oversight and failure in judgment pertaining to his overt scrutiny of the media has led to an even bigger accusation: perjury.

The heart of the issue lies in the statements that the Attorney General made regarding James Rosen, a Fox News reporter, who was implicated as a potential co-conspirator in an alleged violation of the Espionage Act. Holder spoke as if Rosen was never seriously considered for criminal charges and in due fairness, no criminal charges were ever made. Republicans, however, say that the statements he made clearly violate and affidavit sought by the FBI in relation to the execution of a search warrant.

The perjury decision is expected to come down in the coming days but the real question is whether or not the Attorney General can (clearly he shouldn't!) escape the scandal surrounding him. The DOJ leader should be ashamed of his behavior but it appears an act short of God (or President Obama himself) is going to make him budge and admit that he just may have done something wrong. Sure, his excuse to those media outlets participating in his behind closed doors assessment of the situation was that there needs to be a balance struck between the concerns of national threats and journalism.

Admitting he or the DOJ he oversees was wrong would be a bridge too far and require too much humility. The excuse, however, does not carry water. It is time for Holder to go... not for the good of Republican officials. Not for the good of the media. And assuredly not for the good of President Obama. He needs to go for the good of the American people.

Posted by KatynG at June 3, 2013 5:17 PM
Comments
Comment #366962

They always get caught in the cover up.

Posted by: CJ at June 4, 2013 6:04 AM
Comment #366976

People that cut accross the political spectrum are calling for him to step down. That is quite an indictment on his character, abilities and integrity.
Personally, I think he should have left after his gun episode.

It is my opinion that he is a liar. Notice it is my opinion.

Posted by: tom humes at June 4, 2013 10:22 AM
Comment #366977

I remember the Karl Rove indictment watch that Truthout ran for days. In the end a lot more will be said than done.

Holder has the “definition of is is” approach down pat. He was deliberately misleading in his testimony, but because the warrant was at the probable cause stage and not the prosecution stage it going to depend this time on what the definition of “potential prosecution” is (instead of is is). Probably gets him off of perjury.

And a lawyer being misleading, well, that’s nothing new.

Posted by: George in SC at June 4, 2013 11:34 AM
Comment #366979

Amazing how easy it is to accuse people of things. The trick in dealing with perjury is first proving that what he said was false, and second proving that with the facts available and known to him, that he knew it was false.

If you fail to do that, all you have is overreach.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 4, 2013 11:50 AM
Comment #366980

Stephen, the reality is that either

a) He lied to congress. That is only true if he intended to prosecute Rosen but is now saying he didn’t.

b) He lied to the federal judge. That is only true if he DIDN’T intend to prosecute Rosen but is now saying did.

They can’t both be accurate, can the? No judge would have issued that warrant without him saying he was willing to prosecute Rosen because it was such a huge overreach.

You can keep trying to defend, but those defenses are starting to ring very very hollow.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 4, 2013 12:15 PM
Comment #366981

SD….I think you are in denial. Or maybe a better term would be “refusal”. “Refusing”to acknowledge this guy has either lied to congress or lied to a federal judge to obtain a warrant to circumvent the first amendement.

This is the biggest difference between us Stephen. At least I have the courage of my convictions and honesty to admit and even complain about Bush. Even when he was still predident. I don’t feel the need or desire to walk in lock step with any party. I am free and I can think for myself. Something I am afraid you have given up in order to belong to the party.

Posted by: JWL at June 4, 2013 1:17 PM
Comment #366982

One of the most ridiculous articles and silly threads I’ve seen in a while. Conservatives, I don’t think you have any idea what you are talking about. For a thorough debunking of this foolishness, see the following:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/30/right-wing-medias-fake-narrative-about-rosen-wa/194269

Posted by: phx8 at June 4, 2013 1:35 PM
Comment #366983

Here is Walter Pincus, Pulitzer Prize winner and national security reporter from the Washington Post, writing on May 27th:

“All reporters covering national security, including myself, recognize we regularly seek classified information. We also know that sources can be accused of breaking the law if caught passing highly classified information to those not cleared to receive it, such as journalists.

While getting my degree at Georgetown Law School and later when I was subpoenaed in the probe of the leak of the identity of CIA covert officer Valerie Plame Wilson, it became clear that reporters could be labeled co-conspirators, aiders and abettors or accessories in criminal leak cases.

To be so named in an application for a search warrant when the government wants to get a journalist’s or any citizen’s e-mails or phone records does not mean prosecution. A journalist, however, is not very different from other citizens in the eyes of the law when it comes to the government seeking records from a third-party provider such as Google or a phone company.

Applying labels such as co-conspirator provides a probable cause for the judge to grant the warrant, as in the Rosen case. If Rosen offered money or some other reward, it might be a different case. I believe the First Amendment covers the right to publish information, but it does not grant blanket immunity for how that information is gathered.

When First Amendment advocates say Rosen was “falsely” characterized as a co-conspirator, they do not understand the law.”

That extended excerpt is quoted in the previous link. But like the previous article says, don’t let ignorance of the law, or facts, or evidence stop you fevered conservatives from getting your crazy on. Like Stephen Colbert says, go with your gut. Or close your eyes and clap your hands and say ‘I believe!’ See how that works out.

Benghazi Conspiracy Theory! Catch it!!!

Posted by: phx8 at June 4, 2013 1:44 PM
Comment #366985
With Fox’s Rosen, the administration got an actual warrant to read his email and contends that he has committed crimes by pursuing and publishing a story about North Korea, even though the story apparently doesn’t include any classified information per se. Rosen hasn’t been legally charged as of yet, but as Glenn Greenwald notes, the accusations against Rosen parallel government charges against WikiLeaks honcho Julian Assange. “Under U.S. law,” writes Greenwald, “it’s not illegal to publish classified information,” so the Obama administration is claiming that it’s illegal for journalists and publishers to “solicit” such information. That doesn’t simply fly in the face of the First Amendment and Vietnam-era rulings guaranteeing press freedoms, it declares “war on journalism” by essentially criminalizing the very act of investigative reporting.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/22/obama-s-war-on-journalism-an-unconstitutional-act.html

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 4, 2013 2:07 PM
Comment #366986

phx8 and SD in competition for unadulterated, lock-step loyalty to the elites of the left.

Holder perjured himself either to Congress or to a Federal judge or to both. Holder has trouble with integrity with the American people.

Bring back Joe McCarthy!!!

Posted by: tom humes at June 4, 2013 2:09 PM
Comment #366987
It is virtually impossible at this point to overstate the threat posed by the Obama DOJ to press freedoms. Back in 2006, Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales triggered a major controversy when he said that the New York Times could be prosecuted for having revealed the Top Secret information that the NSA was eavesdropping on the communications of Americans without warrants. That was at the same time that right-wing demagogues such Bill Bennett were calling for the prosecution of the NYT reporters who reported on the NSA program, as well as the Washington Post’s Dana Priest for having exposed the CIA black site network.

But despite those public threats, the Bush DOJ never went so far as to formally accuse journalists in court filings of committing crimes for reporting on classified information. Now the Obama DOJ has.

“the DOJ’s seizure of AP records will probably only exacerbate these problems.” That’s certainly true: as surveillance expert Julian Sanchez wrote in Mother Jones this week, there is ample evidence that the Obama DOJ’s seizure of the phone records of journalists extends far beyond the AP case. Recall, as well, that the New York Times’ Jim Risen is currently being pursued by the Obama DOJ, and conceivably faces prison if he refuses to reveal his source for a story he wrote about CIA incompetence in Iran.


There is simply no defense for this behavior. Obama defenders such as Andrew Sullivan claim that this is all more complicated than media outrage suggests because of a necessary “trade-off” between press freedoms and security. So do Obama defenders believe that George Bush and Richard Nixon - who never prosecuted leakers like this or formally accused journalists of being criminals for reporting classified information - were excessively protective of press freedoms and insufficiently devoted to safeguarding secrecy? To ask that question is to mock it. Obama has gone so far beyond what every recent prior president has done in bolstering secrecy and criminalizing whistleblowing and leaks.

That, of course, is precisely the point of the unprecedented Obama war on whistleblowers and press freedoms: to ensure that the only information the public can get is information that the Obama administration wants it to have. That’s why Obama’s one-side games with secrecy - we’ll prolifically leak when it glorifies the president and severely punish all other kinds - is designed to construct the classic propaganda model. And it’s good to see journalists finally speaking out in genuine outrage and concern about all of this.

Meanwhile, to convey just how warped this all is: it really is true that this very behavior of trying to criminalize national security reporting was a driving force of the worst elements on the Right during the Bush years; back then, I wrote constantly about the dangers to press freedoms such threats, by themselves, posed. Please just watch this 4-minute segment from a 2006 Meet the Press episode where the Washington Post’s Dana Priest explains to Bill Bennett, who had called for her imprisonment, exactly what press freedoms and the law actually provide; Bill Bennett is who - and what - the Obama DOJ and its defenders are channeling today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Tl_TqW3R9eA

Here’s an amazing and revealing fact: after Richard Nixon lost the right to exercise prior restraint over the New York Times’ publication of the Pentagon Papers, he was desperate to punish and prosecute the responsible NYT reporter, Neil Sheehan. Thus, recounted the NYT’s lawyer at the time, James Goodale, Nixon concocted a theory:

“Nixon convened a grand jury to indict the New York Times and its reporter, Neil Sheehan, for conspiracy to commit espionage … .The government’s ‘conspiracy’ theory centered around how Sheehan got the Pentagon Papers in the first place. While Daniel Ellsberg had his own copy stored in his apartment in Cambridge, the government believed Ellsberg had given part of the papers to anti-war activists. It apparently theorized further that the activists had talked to Sheehan about publication in the Times, all of which it believed amounted to a conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act.”

As Goodale notes, this is exactly “the same charge Obama’s Justice Department is investigating Assange under today,” and it’s now exactly the same theory used to formally brand Fox’s James Rosen as a criminal in court.

You can keep pretending that this is all a ‘conspiracy theory’ being passed around by zealous Republicans, phx8, but the truth hurts, and the truth is that Obama’s DOJ is doing something even Nixon and Bush weren’t evil enough to go through with…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 4, 2013 2:18 PM
Comment #366988

The link for the previous article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/20/obama-doj-james-rosen-criminality

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 4, 2013 2:31 PM
Comment #366989

tom humes,
Here is what conservative Jennifer Rubin wrote in the Washington Post on May 27th in making a case for perjury:

“If Holder never considered prosecution of journalists including Rosen, then the affidavit laying out a purported criminal case against Rosen was a ruse, a false statement under oath, directed to the court to conduct a wide-ranging dragnet. If, on the other hand, the affidavit which Holder signed off on is true in laying out the case against Rosen, then he didn’t level with Congress. In either event, he needs to come back and explain himself.”

However…

“Rubin completely omits the key fact that Holder’s statement explicitly references the theoretical prosecution of a journalist for “disclosure.” Rosen was not under investigation for his purported “disclosure,” rather for soliciting a government official’s disclosure of classified information. If Holder has instead claimed that “in regard to potential prosecution of the press for the solicitation of material,” Rubin might have a point. On its face, however, Holder’s real testimony - not Rubin’s fabricated one - is completely reconcilable with the warrant request.”

Rhinehold,
A criminal investigation is not the same as a criminal prosecution.

Currently there is no shield law for reporters. Maybe there should be. A very real conflict between the need for national security, and the need for a free press. Greenwald rather carefully steps around this issue, the lack a federal shield law, and then makes an over-the-top assertion. I would also be curious to find out how Greenwald knows there was no classified information in the original article. You can bet North Korean intelligence has researched the leak on their end. Has it occurred to anyone that Rosen could be cooperating with our own intelligence community to plant a false story intended to mislead the North Koreans?

Finally… Should anyone who is a reporter be allowed to “solicit” classified information? How do you define ‘reporter’?

Posted by: phx8 at June 4, 2013 2:40 PM
Comment #366991
A criminal investigation is not the same as a criminal prosecution.

Criminal prosecution IS NOT HE ISSUE. The issue is criminal investigation. An investigation of the press like this is beyond the limits of what the government can, or should, or ever have done.

Currently there is no shield law for reporters.

Actually, there already is one:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The only thing a shield law would do is limit the rights of the press, while claiming to expand them (a trick used by many authoritarians like the current administration) and allow the government to determine who is ‘the press’ and who isn’t.

A very real conflict between the need for national security, and the need for a free press.

Greenwald explains how out of touch that ‘argument’ is.

“Obama defenders such as Andrew Sullivan claim that this is all more complicated than media outrage suggests because of a necessary “trade-off” between press freedoms and security. So do Obama defenders believe that George Bush and Richard Nixon - who never prosecuted leakers like this or formally accused journalists of being criminals for reporting classified information - were excessively protective of press freedoms and insufficiently devoted to safeguarding secrecy? To ask that question is to mock it. Obama has gone so far beyond what every recent prior president has done in bolstering secrecy and criminalizing whistleblowing and leaks.”

Has it occurred to anyone that Rosen could be cooperating with our own intelligence community to plant a false story intended to mislead the North Koreans?

Wow you are really desperate here, aren’t you?

Should anyone who is a reporter be allowed to “solicit” classified information?

100% yes. As they have done for centuries and has been upheld as legal by the Supreme Court for as long.

How do you define ‘reporter’?

And there is the authoritarian leaking out… And why a ‘shield law’ is an affront to a free press AND a free society. Something the left just isn’t interested in anymore. (see my article in the middle column for details).

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 4, 2013 3:08 PM
Comment #366992

The only thing a sheild law will do is limit the free press by defining what is and what is not a journalist. Since this administration thinks that Fox News is not a proper news organization then they could prosecute Rosen or anyone else at Fox News. What a wonderful idea! When the next conservative administration is elected then they can ban MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and all the others that don’t agree with the politics of a conservative president.

Better start building more prisons, I think we’re goning to have an overcrowding issue.

Posted by: JWL at June 4, 2013 3:37 PM
Comment #366993

If prosecution was not the objective, then why were the federal papers used by Holder referencing the fear that he would be a flight risk?

Why did Holder’s group go shopping for a judge to get the desired results?

Why does Holder testify before Congress that he has the German General syndrom?

This behavior is not a new revelation to anybody. He has been behaving this way for years. It is part of his character. And that is a flaw that is totally unacceptable.

Posted by: tom humes at June 4, 2013 4:00 PM
Comment #366994

tom humes,
Read the linked article. I really shouldn’t have to cut and paste the whole thing for you. Just click on the link. Holder did not “shop” for a judge.

Rhinehold, JWL,
40 states & the district of Columbia have reporter shield laws, with varying degrees of both judicial and legislative protection. 49 states have some forms of protection. Only WY has none. There is no federal shield law for reporters, but there are lots of state laws.

Seriously, guys, get your acts together.

Posted by: phx8 at June 4, 2013 4:32 PM
Comment #366995
Seriously, guys, get your acts together.

The only ones needing to ‘get their acts together’ is the authoritarians running the federal government at this time…

And their lame defenders.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 4, 2013 4:37 PM
Comment #366996

BTW, it’s pretty clear that you don’t understand the nature of state shield laws, what they do and why they are in place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States

It’s about being arrested and put in jail for refusing to reveal sources, not about losing your 1st and 4th amendment rights as the government seeks to find your sources…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 4, 2013 4:48 PM
Comment #366997

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

“President Richard Nixon had claimed executive authority to force the Times to suspend publication of classified information in its possession. The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was subordinate to a claimed need of the executive branch of government to maintain the secrecy of information. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did protect the right of the New York Times to print the materials.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 4, 2013 4:49 PM
Comment #366998

So, the existence of shield laws restrict the rights of the press, but only if they are at the federal level, and not at the state? Uh huh.

I already read the Wikipedia article, and shield laws involve more than just arrest and incarceration. It varies from state to state.

Posted by: phx8 at June 4, 2013 4:57 PM
Comment #366999

PH that affidavit is way over the top in order to obtain the warrant without disclosure. It contends that Rosen compelled Kim to disclose information by asking for it. If you extend that logic then anyone in the press who asks about a classified subject could be considered a criminal.

Holder’s explanation is that, while, he considered Rosen a criminal, he would never do his job and consider him for prosecution.

Plain and simple the FBI/DOJ went too far in an effort to get a warrant without disclosure. Holder parsed words with Congress so as to not admit that fact. Is that perjury? Probably not. But it’s not good.

Posted by: George in SC at June 4, 2013 5:02 PM
Comment #367000

Rhinehold,
The Nixon era case involves the right of the NYT to publish. In the current case, the equivalent organization would be FOX. No one prevented FOX from publishing.

George in SC,
Holder acted within the law. Now, if people dislike the existence of courts secretly authorizing warrants in matters of national security, or if they dislike the lack of a shield law at the federal level, that is a different issue; really, it is up to Congress to address those concerns. I’m fine with that.

Holder acted within the law. He did not perjure himself, and the attacks against him are factually erroneous- and that is putting it kindly.

Posted by: phx8 at June 4, 2013 5:57 PM
Comment #367001

Rhinehold, George, and anyone else with a brain…

This is like beating a dead horse. There is no point. These defenders of illegal behavior will only scream if it is a conservative in the WH restricting their rights. They are perfectly willing to lay down and die as long is it is their guy in the WH. They are all hipocrites. To even try and debate these half-wits is like beating your your own head against a wall. Logic escapes them all. Let them have their way, and if it all blows over and gets swept under the rug, then the conservatives can to the same to them and we can all have a good laugh in between the tears for the loss of a great nation.

Posted by: JWL at June 4, 2013 6:14 PM
Comment #367002

Hmm. Should I tell folks to take another look at what I post, and reconsider what I mean?

Personally, I don’t believe Holder lied to Congress.

Cue the shouts and the catcalls from the right. Yeah, I know, you believe he did.

But I can personally believe a lot of things that turn out to be wrong. In fact, that’s one defense against the charge of perjury. Perjury is misleading the court with false statements. If you didn’t know your facts were wrong, how is that perjury.

But first you have to prove that there’s falsity to begin with! You can say you don’t believe him, but if he can provide reasonable evidence to support his claims, your perjury charge goes nowhere.

What I said, if people were actually paying attention is:

1) You have to prove what Holder told Congress was false.
2) and you have to prove he wasn’t merely wrong, but trying to mislead Congress by giving false testimony.

If you could show he was saying false things to mislead those he was testifying to, THEN you could charge him with perjury. But before that, it’s all just your partisan sentiment.

Republicans and Conservatives on this site seem to require lockstep agreement in order for people to avoid the charge that they are lockstep partisans. Ironic, isn’t it?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 4, 2013 6:21 PM
Comment #367003

“The Nixon era case involves the right of the NYT to publish. In the current case, the equivalent organization would be FOX. No one prevented FOX from publishing.”

Correct, Phx8, and in addition, Daniel Ellsberg mailed the “Pentagon Papers” to a NYT reporter without any solicitation on the part of the reporter.

This case is about the grey area of active solicitation or inducement by a reporter for an official to breach national security law and disclose highly confidential information.

At the time of the breach, the FBI, the DOJ and FOX News thought the information disclosed constituted highly sensitive classified information. FOX News explicitly acknowledged in the published article that it had withheld certain specific information that it had obtained in the interest of national security.

At what point does solicitation cross the line? At what point does the soliciting actions of a journalist justify a search warrant? Kim asked Rosen, according to the affidavit, for help in getting a job in a think tank. Does that indicate a quid pro quo arrangement in exchange for providing the information? Rosen, apparently, had no interest in giving anything in return other than his thanks. But, how does the FBI and the DOJ know that at that point in the investigation, particularly when Rosen was using clandestine means for communication between them.

Perhaps, as George in SC says, it was a technical ruse to obtain more information against the leaker, Kim. Perhaps, it was an overzealous, newly appointed Director of DOJ being naively tough on national security.

Whatever the motivation, I can see libertarians being upset but I cannot see the outrage of mainstream conservative Republicans when the Bush administration made the very same legal argument during the leak to the NYT on the surveillance program.

Posted by: Rich at June 4, 2013 7:15 PM
Comment #367004

Stephen…

Yes….if you try very, very, very hard you might come up with some sort of explanation about why Holder said what he said and how he said it and what he was thinking when he said it and what the meaning of “is” is and the definition of “potential” and whatever other BS you can try to pull from your magic hat, BUT in the end we all know perfectly well what you and your buddies on this site would be saying if this were Bush or any other conservative.

Can you even imagine what hellfire and brimstone would be rising from the gates of hell if THE EVIL BUSH did this to Chris Matthews or maybe Candy Crowley if you prefer. Holy Shit…..you guys would be besides yourselves.

C’mom….man…admit it. DOUBLE STANDARD!!!!!!!!

Posted by: JWL at June 4, 2013 7:16 PM
Comment #367006

Lets see Holder tells congress he didn’t know about F&F until a short time before the investigation, but in fact he knew a year before. Now he says he didn’t know about Rosen getting investigated or the warrant that he himself signed. Now it don’t take rocket science to figure something stinks in D.C. Now we hear from some on W.B. that the same thing was happening during the Bush years but when Pelosi took over the House NOTHING was done about it. When the Democrats took over both houses of congress why weren’t there hearings done about the wrongs that the IRS did to the left leaning groups? Pelosi and company hated Bush yet nothing was done to right the wrongs. WHY????

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 4, 2013 9:55 PM
Comment #367007

It seems like everyday another scandal sees the light of day, and we here the exact same talking points from the left.

What do all these scandals have in common:

1. They were done by low level employees.

2. No one knew anything about them until they were in the press.

3. The left is he first to be outraged by the mistakes.

4. No one has been fired for wrong doing.

5. As soon as the story breaks, the liberal talking heads are saying the WH knew nothing about it.

6. And lastly, the WH does their best to cover everything up.


Posted by: CasperWY at June 4, 2013 10:04 PM
Comment #367008

Jonathan Adler, no lockstep Obamabot, considers the threat of perjury charges thin.

Orin Kerr, goes even further not to mince his words.

What I see here in the comments section and in the entry above is an opportunistic hunger for scandal to discredit the administration for Right Wing Political benefit. That blind greed for the destruction of the Obama Administration’s reputation means they will latch on to whatever suits that purpose, and believe it without reservation.

Ultimately, folks should realize that none of this will elevate the Republican Party beyond its current squalor.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 4, 2013 11:44 PM
Comment #367010

Stephen, These are simple questions that requires a simple answer. What do you call a person who, under oath says he just found out about certain things going on, but later it is found that that person knew of the event long prior than he said? What do you call a person who says he knew nothing of an investigation but is found that he signed the order? Now these are simple questions requiring a one word answer

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 5, 2013 12:16 AM
Comment #367011

Stephen,
The ‘all scandal, all the time’ approach has one advantage for the GOP. It motivates the base. At the same time, it demotivates a lot of other voters, because the sheer negativity makes those with only a casual interest in politics turn away in disgust, and possibly not vote. With no leadership and no popular policies, turning off a lot of voters would seem like a good idea. So, motivating the base matters in a midterm election. It becomes even more important in a midterm election during the second term of a popular president, one who has the wind of a strong economy at his back.

Will it work?

Probably not.

This approach failed badly in 1998. In the Senate, the Democrats defended more seats, but the make-up of the Senate remained unchanged. In the House, the GOP actually lost five seats, barely keeping its majority. Since the opposition almost always gains seats in a midterm, the loss was a debacle, costing Gingrich his job as Speaker.

There is no reason to expect better results with the ‘all scandal all the time’ approach this go around.

Posted by: phx8 at June 5, 2013 12:22 AM
Comment #367012
What I see here in the comments section and in the entry above is an opportunistic hunger for scandal to discredit the administration for Right Wing Political benefit.

No would expect you to see anything else, Stephen. Don’t look at the complete overreach and assault on the 1st amendment, no it’s all the Republicans…

There is no reason to expect better results with the ‘all scandal all the time’ approach this go around.

You seem to be missing a good example of the ‘all scandal all the time’ situation, phx8. Say, from 2000 to 2008? By the end of Bush’s first term, there were *34* ‘scandals’. In fact, there is a whole website (that you and Stephen love to quote from) that sprang out of these ‘scandals’ called Talking Points Memo.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_scandals

Let’s stop acting like you and your party didn’t do the very same thing. It’s getting sickening to watch what you guys are doing to my old party.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 5, 2013 12:34 AM
Comment #367013
“The Nixon era case involves the right of the NYT to publish. In the current case, the equivalent organization would be FOX. No one prevented FOX from publishing.”

Correct, Phx8, and in addition, Daniel Ellsberg mailed the “Pentagon Papers” to a NYT reporter without any solicitation on the part of the reporter.

This case is about the grey area of active solicitation or inducement by a reporter for an official to breach national security law and disclose highly confidential information.

Again, this is no ‘grey area’. You and phx8 are missing the rest of that story apparently. I’ll restate it.

Ellsberg mailed the Pentagon Papers to the NYT reporter. But Nixon wanted to get the reporter so he suggested ‘hey, maybe we could get him on espionage charges’

“Nixon convened a grand jury to indict the New York Times and its reporter, Neil Sheehan, for conspiracy to commit espionage … .The government’s ‘conspiracy’ theory centered around how Sheehan got the Pentagon Papers in the first place. While Daniel Ellsberg had his own copy stored in his apartment in Cambridge, the government believed Ellsberg had given part of the papers to anti-war activists. It apparently theorized further that the activists had talked to Sheehan about publication in the Times, all of which it believed amounted to a conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act.”

The thing is, Nixon didn’t take it as far as Obama/Holder did. What Rosen did was pretty much what every investigative reporter has done as part of their job. For this administration to do what they did, something no White House had ever done before, is something that apparently the left just thinks is ok.

Here’s the problem for the left defending this action. As soon as a Republican is in office, they will have the power to do the very same thing. Just as they have legitimized every other horrible thing that Bush did by supporting Obama doing the same (or worse) things, such as warrantless wiretapping, signature strikes, etc.

According to the left, it’s perfectly ok for the President of the United States to spy on reporters. The expansion against the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments by this administration are making Bush look like a freaking choir boy…

And you sit there and defend it out of partisan inanity.

This is exactly how we got to where we are today, because of both the left and the right, incrementally just moving us closer and closer to an authoritarian police state. Police states don’t spring up overnight, they are brought about by people defending the actions of people they they like against people they don’t like. Instead of defending civil rights for everyone, it’s just their side they want to defend. In the end, we all lose.

BTW, we all know that the left doesn’t give a crap about perjury charges, as long as they are directed at Democrats. History has shown us that. So why are we surprised in this case?

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 5, 2013 12:47 AM
Comment #367014

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/06/its_time_to_call_for_a_special.html#incart_river

At least a few are getting it…

For two years, from 1969 through 1971, the FBI’s Intelligence Division, at the direction of the White House, conducted warrantless wiretaps of the phones of four journalists, and the FBI delivered the records of the wiretaps to the White House.

The facts that we know so far about the current storms surrounding the Obama administration reveal nothing that sinks into the Watergate sewer. We don’t have the FBI illegally tapping reporters’ phones; we have lawful seizures of phone company records of reporters’ phone calls. The attorney general’s approval of those warrants grossly contradicts President Barack Obama’s mantra that America should protect national security without sacrificing our civil rights ideals, and genuinely threatens some press independence. Overkill but legal.

We have the Cincinnati office of the IRS singling out for close scrutiny applications from groups using the name “Tea Party”; those groups sought tax-exempt status under a law covering groups that benefit “social welfare.” Civil servants trying to sift through a deluge of electronic applications seem to have been tone deaf to the abuse-of-power appearance of what they did. Nothing revealed so far resembles the White House Counsel giving the IRS a list of “enemies” and asking the agency to audit them.

But without a special prosecutor, we would have learned nothing more convincing about Watergate than we have learned about the reach of the current controversies.

I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. I am a liberal Democrat partly because of Watergate. I don’t think that Obama or his advisers are lying. But I want a special prosecutor here. I don’t want to be fooled again.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 5, 2013 12:53 AM
Comment #367015

As I quoted before:

But my friend got to the essence. He wrote, “The left likes to say, ‘Watergate was worse!’ Watergate was bad—don’t get me wrong. But it was elites using the machinery of government to spy on elites… . It’s something quite different when elites use the machinery of government against ordinary people. It’s a whole different ball game.”
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 5, 2013 12:54 AM
Comment #367016

Rhinehold,
Want to see what a real political scandal at DOJ looks like?

“Lawyergate: the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy refers to President Bush firing, without explanation, eleven Republican federal prosecutors whom he himself had appointed. It is alleged they were fired for prosecuting Republicans and not prosecuting Democrats.[43][44] When Congressional hearings were called, a number of senior Justice Department officials cited executive privilege and refused to testify under oath and instead resigned, including:
1.Michael A. Battle Director of Executive Office of US Attorneys in the Justice Department.[45]
2.Bradley Schlozman Director of Executive Office of US Attorneys who replaced Battle[46]
3.Michael Elston Chief of Staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty[47]
4.Paul McNulty Deputy Attorney General to William Mercer[48]
5.William W. Mercer Associate Attorney General to Alberto Gonzales[49]
6.Kyle Sampson Chief of Staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales[45]
7.Alberto Gonzales Attorney General of the United States[50]
8.Monica Goodling Liaison between President Bush and the Justice Department[51]
9.Joshua Bolten Deputy Chief of Staff to President Bush was found in Contempt of Congress[52]
10.Sara M. Taylor Aide to Presidential Advisor Karl Rove[53]
11.Karl Rove Advisor to President Bush[54]
12.Harriet Miers Legal Counsel to President Bush, was found in Contempt of Congress[52]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States

Now THAT is a DOJ scandal.

Scan through the list of Obama administration scandals- it’s short- and then scan the ones from the Bush administration- it’s not short.

Posted by: phx8 at June 5, 2013 1:04 AM
Comment #367017

phx8, thanks for making my point for me.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 5, 2013 1:13 AM
Comment #367018
A White House spokesman said Tuesday there’s nothing secret about the secret email accounts held by administration officials, and defended the practice as sensible time management.

Asked about revelations that some Obama Cabinet officials including former EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson have used secret alias email addresses, White House press secretary Jay Carney said the subterfuge “makes eminent sense” because those officials would otherwise be swamped with unwanted messages. He said other administrations also have used the secret — or in his words, “alternate” — email accounts.

“There’s nothing secret,” Mr. Carney said. “It’s about having a public email address as well as … one for internal, you know, workings.”

While at EPA, Ms. Jackson used the email address “Windsor.Richard@epa.gov” for important business. The agency even awarded the fictional staffer’s email account certificates proving that he had mastered all of the EPA’s technology training.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/4/white-house-defends-secret-email-accounts/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 5, 2013 3:33 AM
Comment #367019
On May 22, an FBI agent shot and killed Ibragim Todashev as they were interviewing him about his association with Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev. From the start, news account - based on official claims - were wildly contradictory in several key respects, but most reports claimed that Todashev had used a knife to attack the agent, who then killed him in self defense. As it turns out, even the FBI now admits that Todashev was unarmed when they killed him. The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf now examines many of the very strange questions surrounding this episode.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/02/drones-obama-yemen-pakistan-todashev

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 5, 2013 3:34 AM
Comment #367020

Rich KAPitan-
You require a simple answer. Me, I’d rather give the right answers, cover what I think are the relevant issues.

Look, in my answer to my critics, I pointed out that logically, what they believe to be true can be proven.

If the facts are right.

That’s how logic is supposed to work. It’s not merely, “I’ve got all these facts here, and this is a plausible connection between them,” it’s “Here are the facts, and these are the tests by which we can say that this conclusion is true.”

The important thing to keep in mind here is that either of us can be wrong. Facts do exist that we don’t know of, and they could tilt the balance either way. Or, in a direction neither of us anticipates. Nature, history, and other real world forces have no obligation to follow our nice, neat little dualities, or to even validate them as meaningful!

The problem is, while I can anticipate the possibility that Holder could have committed perjury, you don’t seem willing to entertain the other possibility. That, among many others.

Thing is, I think Republicans these days tend to eagerly pursue discrediting and defaming Democrats. They’ve formed their whole party around opposing the left.

But not everything that is opposite of what the Democrats say or want is necessarily either smart, or truly conservative. By falling into the trap of oppositional dualism, the Republicans and the Conservative movement have strangled their own ability to innovate and adapt.

You need to get some perspective. You need to realize that the people you need to convince aren’t necessarily that charmed with the rhetoric that works on conservative sites, nor so quick to agree with your claims..

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 5, 2013 9:07 AM
Comment #367021

Stephen, Simple answer is LIAR. He knew about F&F earlier than he stated at the investigation. He knew that he signed the orders on Rosen before he testified. So why beat around the bush Stephen, he lied. You can give all kinds of BS answers Stephen but the FACTS are he LIED.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 5, 2013 11:21 AM
Comment #367026

SD and friends have got to be clinging to the hope that somehow the whole country is just going to look the other way and ignore all that is going on. Now our attorney general, remember the one working for the most transparent administration in US history, has refused to answer the direct request for an explanation of his testimony before congress. I guess he doesn’t want to pile lies on top of other lies. Can’t be any other explanation.

But to quote another transparent administration official, “What difference does it make”, when according to SD the conservative agenda is so weak that all they have left is scandals. I guess we’ll have to wait and see about that in November, 2014. But it ain’t looking good for your commrades Stephen.

Posted by: JWL at June 5, 2013 6:14 PM
Comment #367027

Stephen,

There are some known facts that the left just seems to want to dismiss, but are important to many others.

1) The IRS targetted specific political groups for extra scrutiny. We don’t know exactly who or why yet, but that doesn’t change the fact that it happened and it is wrong by anyone’s standards. We also know that it wasn’t just a couple of ‘rogue agents’ at the Cincinnati office, some of the inquiries were signed by Lois Lerner.

2) The DOJ went above and beyond the accepted limits of the 1st and 4th amendment in SECRETLY garnering the phone records and movements of several reporters, dozens of phone numbers and even their families. Nothing like this has been done before, and in one instance they could only do so by going to several judges to get the warrant and suggesting that the reporter was in violation of the Espionage Act, simply by doing their constitutionally protected jobs. We don’t know who gave the order, but we do know that Holder signed the warrant.

3) Several members of the administration were using fake emails in the course of their normal daily business (even going so far as to apply for and receive certificates for these individuals who didn’t exist, including one for ethics). The administration says ‘this is normal and legal’ but it sure doesn’t sound like it to me considering the strict legal rules regarding emails for White House communications.

There are other things as well, but I think you get the idea. The attempt to say that these aren’t ‘important’ or ‘they are witch hunts’ is only doing your party harm by making them look like raving loonies.

To put it another way, you are sounding like the Bush apologists that you demonized for eight years… Congratulations.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 5, 2013 7:27 PM
Comment #367028

Clinging to their hope and change, the liberals are screaming from the mountain tops….”Say it ain’t so Mr. O”

Posted by: JWL at June 5, 2013 7:51 PM
Comment #367030

Is there a liberal out there who would be willing to admit that if the shoe was on the other foot; if Bush or any other Republican were the president and if these scandals were under a his administration, would those on the left say the same things? Or would they be calling for even more investigations? I rest my case…those on the left are hypocrites.

Posted by: CasperWY at June 5, 2013 8:44 PM
Comment #367031

Rich KAPitan-
I believe I answered that question on Rosen by providing the opinion of two Libertarian/Conservative bloggers who basically said that Holder’s distinctions held water. In other words, by the two part test I put up, it fails on the first test. Don’t the words “unindicted co-conspirator” mean anything to you? Or, put another way, did Holder seek an indictment? No.

JWL-
If he believes his original testimony to be sufficient, then why go for another round? At some point, you essentially have Congress invading the functions of the Executive branch.

You’re too eager to gloat, especially after losing an election you expected to win. As with Clinton before him, the Republicans are trying to second guess the judgment of the American people, and are abusing their Congressional powers to further their own political ends.

Rhinehold-
I think if you actually read sites like TPM and Daily Kos, you would know that far from hiding it, we were on to Lois Lerner and her stuff weeks ago. We’d also point out Obama didn’t appoint them, so he holds no special claim on their loyalty.

On the subject of the DOJ warrants, almost nobody with a serious law background is disputing the that warrants were legally issued. It’s distasteful enough, and I bet you most Democrats would support removing the chilling effect through legislation. Why don’t you take advantage of that, and serve one of your causes through outreach to liberals?

As for violation of the espionage act, the reporter was encouraging a government official to give up classified information to somebody not cleared for it.

And really, Republicans were accusing the Administration of being complicit with the leaks. Turns out, a reporter for the very news organization that likely hyped that idea was responsible. If you encourage people to go after leakers, why are you surprised, shocked, shocked I tell you, to find the trail leads to reporters and warranted searches of their records?

It’s not something that makes me proud of this administration. But at least I would support a law restricting such investigations, irrespective of who else supported it.

As for the fake e-mail story? Or is it secret e-mail? Or is it alternate e-mails?

Wake me up when the e-mail story starts to turn up an actual conspiracy. I’m not interested in what it sounds like to you.

As for sounding like the Bush apologists?

Obama didn’t start a war he couldn’t finish, much less two. Obama did create a legal black hole in Guantanamo Bay, nor did they begin Cheney’s dark side policies.

There are so many factual things I can gripe about the Bush Administration that I get nothing but excuses about from Republicans, if not outright defiance.

People on the defensive sound similar, but my main problem is an atmosphere in which it seems fault-finding overrides fact-finding, and every investigation is a deliberate attempt to drive some scandal all the way to the top.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 5, 2013 9:14 PM
Comment #367032

Stephen, Did I say anything about an indictment? No I didn’t, I said and I quote He signed an order to get a warrant to take to a judge so who did he lie to the judge or congress. He had to get a judge for the warrant, so I ask again did he lie to congress or a judge or both. Stephen, Holder has a history of not being on the up and up.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 5, 2013 9:23 PM
Comment #367033

Anyone notice that Issa still has not released the full transcripts of the IRS hearings or the names of people testifying?

Posted by: phx8 at June 5, 2013 9:52 PM
Comment #367034

How many things are Issa waiting for from this administration?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 5, 2013 9:54 PM
Comment #367035

Funny how a few months ago phx8 and Stephen were talking about their president’s grand vision and agenda for his second term. It must be pretty disheartening to know that will never happen. They’re reduced to being apologists and defending their president from his many scandals. So much for gun control. So much for a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. So much for tax increases. Poor liberals.

Posted by: Joseph at June 5, 2013 11:59 PM
Comment #367036

Joseph,
I am still happy- very happy- about the way this second term is proceeding. Most importantly, the economy is doing well. Gun control was never part of Obama’s grand vision or agenda; it was forced on him by events. Americans demanded action. Gun control has failed in the past and it failed this time around. If you feel like conservatives benefited from that failure, then good for you. It also looks like immigration reform may fail too. If you feel like that helps conservatives, then once again, good for you. But I seriously doubt you’ve thought through the implications.

Apparently you are unaware the tax increase for the wealthy went through, and the payroll tax holiday ended.

Posted by: phx8 at June 6, 2013 12:10 AM
Comment #367040

Sorry phx8, but gun control has always been part of Obama’s and the left’s agenda. Obama and his administration have chosen their “fights” and gun control was their choice.

Joseph, the left has not been reduced to being apologists for Obama; they have been apologists for Obama for the past 4 1/2 years.

And this comment by phx8 is ignorant:

“Apparently you are unaware the tax increase for the wealthy went through, and the payroll tax holiday ended.”

Apparently phx8 is unaware that “everyone’s” taxes went up. I guess the doubling of tax burden for those couples, with 2 children, making combined earnings of $70K to the government makes phx8 happy. $70K is certainly not “wealthy” and is not even middle class. The tax burden went from $3500 to $6500. Are you sure you want to consider this a success story for Obama?

http://interactive.taxfoundation.org/taxcalc/#calculator

Posted by: DSP2195 at June 6, 2013 10:06 AM
Comment #367044

Joseph-
There are at least forty-two months left in this Presidency. Do you really think you can keep folks interested in Benghazi, the IRS mess, and the AP scandal for that long?

More to the point, if you look at the evidence during the elections after 1994, They end up being a net loss for the Republicans, despite all the political damage they dealt to Clinton, and presumably the Democrats.

You say, but we elected Bush in 2000!

You mean, you barely elected him, in a contested election that hinged on a few thousand popular votes, and Florida’s electoral votes? If Gore had been just a little bit more charismatic, just a little bit more appealing to the people one state, you would have lost.

And remember: he ran as a Compassionate (read: moderate) conservative, an obvious reaction to the built up reputation during the Clinton years of Republicans as mean and stingy elitists who left the poor to their own devices.

Even with 9/11 to panic people in his direction, and Rove’s tactics, whose effects are felt even today, turning people against each other, Bush still only managed to in by one state and a few hundred thousand votes.

Compare your mortal enemy! He won by millions each time. He clobbered both opponents in the Electoral college. The second time, he did it AFTER an election that was a defeat for him almost on the order of Clinton’s defeat.

You can panic people for an election or two. You can push your little scandals. But if Clinton’s party was able to pick up seats in each of the elections following the Republican’s taking power and setting up their Scandal Factory, heck, even after impeaching him, then you’re not really doing yourselves huge favors.

Your Scandalmongering can dominate the press, at best, for a few months at a time. Then things will begin to get old, and even with Conservative media outlets continually pushing scandals, folks won’t be paying attention. Meanwhile, the Republicans will have plenty of chances to screw up and produce their own scandal.

And, if nothing else, their refusal to do much of anything useful or productive with their House and Senate Seats will lead people to wonder: what good are these guys? And don’t say “they’re stopping the Obama Agenda”, because they sent Obama back to the White House with more Democrats in each chamber of Congress.

Will you ever admit that you’re hanging onto political power by your fingernails? I think not. That would be far too much perspective, far too much self-awareness.

Rich KAPitan-
I know this doesn’t often sink in, but your basic argument is that Holder lied when he named Rosen as a Co-conspirator, yet said he wasn’t seriously considering prosecuting him.

It’s amazing how little people truly understand our legal system. The same way some idiots fail to recognize that the establishment clause prohibits Sharia law, others fail to recognize that there’s a difference between believing somebody committed a crime, and stating that belief, and seeking an indictment and a prosecution for that crime.

As my source, Jonathan Adler said:

The core of the claim is that the Attorney General’s testimony conflicts with the fact that he signed a warrant application that attested that there was “probable cause to believe that the reporter has committed or is committing a violation of section 793(d), as an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator, to which the materials relate.” But there’s no contradiction between Holder’s statement and his reported actions, let alone a basis for accusing him of lying under oath. Holder signed a document stating that the government believed there was probable cause to believe Rosen had committed a crime, but there’s no evidence that Holder (or anyone else) in the Administration actually considered taking the next step of indicting (let alone prosecuting) Rosen for his journalistic endeavors. Prosecutors don’t prosecute everyone they believe may have violated the law; they don’t even consider prosecuting everyone they investigate. Some “unindicted co-conspirators” are never at risk of prosecution.

Probable Cause is just the first step. Then you gather evidence for an indictment, if you’re looking to get one. Then you get the indictment, then you prosecute.

There’s no evidence that Holder made any move to indict Rosen, much less prosecute him.

In short, you’ve failed the first test of perjury: falsity.

DSP2195-
I looked into your Tax calculator. I picked Married, 2 Children, and evenly distributed 35,000 between the two parents. There was a figured that doubled, but that was a figure for a hypothetical “over the cliff” scenario. The real figure on income tax was actually somewhat less.

That was made moot by the Compromise at the beginning of this year. As for the increased Payroll Tax liability?

Look, when we started the Stimulus, we granted a tax cut to those making lower to middle class incomes. This one was entirely predicated on reduction of income tax.

The Republicans refused to renew it. The compromise was the Payroll Tax holiday, with the money to replace it to come out of the general fund.

It ended, eventually, because it wasn’t a good idea to fall short on the money needed to keep Social Security and Medicare going, and eventually, that was what was going to happen.

So, if people ask why their taxes went up, you can point to yourself and proudly claim responsibility. No? Well, you had the chance to renew it, and you didn’t, so don’t you complain.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 6, 2013 11:35 AM
Comment #367049

Stephen, I know you are a Democrat and want to protect YOUR PEOPLE even when they did something unacceptable. Holder LIED plain and simple when he said he didn’t know about Rosen yet he signed the warrant application. Maybe that to you isn’t a big thing but to others it is a LIE. I’m not a lawyer but I do know when someone says he don’t know about something and it turns out that he actually does is a LIE.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 6, 2013 1:12 PM
Comment #367061
Holder LIED plain and simple

Holder stated he did not intend to prosecute Rosen. Is there an iota of evidence that he actually did intend to prosecute Rosen? Or did he simply add him as co-conspirator on the warrant request in order to facilitate the leak investigation without actually intending to prosecute?

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 6, 2013 8:00 PM
Comment #367062

Warren, You and Stephen must have flunked reading while in school because I NEVER MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT PROSECUTING. I said and I quote he said he didn’t know anything about AP or Rosen yet he signed the warrant so that makes him a lier saying he didn’t know about the AP thing. LEARN HOW TO READ before you 2 spout off.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 6, 2013 9:02 PM
Comment #367064

My apologies, I conflated your comments with Rhinehold’s, but you comments are even more ridiculous.

I believe this is the statement from Holder that you are referencing.

“In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material — this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy,” Holder said during the hearing.

Here, we have a statement focused on the topic of prosecution of journalists involved with leaking sensitive secrets. It is beyond ludicrous to interpret the “this” in this testimony to mean anything other than prosecution. You seem to fallaciously think that “this” refers to any involvement in the investigation which is decidedly not the case.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 6, 2013 10:17 PM
Comment #367065

Warren, What’s more ridiculous is the fact that he doesn’t know what is going on in his department. The AP thing, Rosen yet he signs a warrant. Not \the first time he said nhe knew nothing about something, I refer back to F&F where he said he didn’t know about it yet come to find out he knew long before testifying. So IMO Holder is a lying sack of crap.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 6, 2013 10:31 PM
Comment #367067

Do I really have to hold your hand and guide you word for word on this one?

Did Holder say he didn’t know anything about Rosen or the AP? No, he didn’t; instead he said he didn’t anything know anything about prosecution of those people.

Re Fast & Furious: If you are still outraged by this “scandal” then I have little hope for your sanity.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 6, 2013 10:52 PM
Comment #367069

Don’t be a dumbass Warren he sighed the warrant. He went through 3 judges before he found one that would give him the go ahead. The only thing that stopped him was the fact he got found out. Yes I’m still outraged by F&F an agent was killed and still no answers as well as Benghazi. I thought Bush had a dirty administration but Obama has him topped hands down.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 6, 2013 11:12 PM
Comment #367081

I can’t believe I actually have to hold your hand and guide you through this one:

Earlier, you falsely stated that Holder claimed zero involvement in the Rosen investigation. Now, you cite his signature on a search warrant to claim a contradiction. However, you still haven’t established your allegation that Holder claimed under oath that he had zero involvement.

The closest thing we have to your allegation is Holder’s sworn testimony claiming that he had no plans to prosecute Rosen. Conservative media (and Rhinehold) claim that the signed warrant represents plans to prosecute, but this is also baseless. It is possible to obtain warrants to investigate someone without intending to prosecute or indict them.

Yes I’m still outraged by F&F an agent was killed and still no answers as well as Benghazi.
Pure baloney. Your partisanship blinds you to the answers that were provided months ago. Posted by: Warren Porter at June 7, 2013 11:17 AM
Comment #367086

Warren, Holder claimed Rosen to be a flight risk when asking the judge to OK the warrant, that has been brought out. Why did Holder have to ask 3 judges before he got the ok for the warrant? It seems funny to go through all that trouble to get warrants if you are not intending to prosecute. Why claim flight risk? You are the one who is partisan blind if a republican was president you would be not only calling for the AG’s head but also for the presidents as in the case of Gonzalez Bush’s AG, Rove, and others of the Bush administration. It seems to me you and others practice hypocracy as long as democrats are involved in wrong doing. Vague answers were provided, NOT substancial ones.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 7, 2013 12:23 PM
Comment #367110
It seems funny to go through all that trouble to get warrants if you are not intending to prosecute. Why claim flight risk?

It’s not funny at all; it is SOP.

http://www.volokh.com/2013/05/29/did-eric-holder-lie-to-congress/


Why did Holder have to ask 3 judges before he got the ok for the warrant?
I don’t know how this is relevant to your claim of perjury.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 7, 2013 3:36 PM
Comment #367111

Warren, I never claimed perjury that’s up to congress to decide. But IMO he lied to congress. Why did Holder have to go through 3 judges, because the first 2 wouldn’t comply with his request, it don’t take rocket science to figure that out besides it was in the news. It is funny when you have to shop for a judge to get a compliance with a warrant request. Your link shows 2 different opinions, did you read the last paragraph. You see opinions are like assholes everyone has one, mine is that he lied, yours is he didn’t. We’ll wait and see.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 7, 2013 3:50 PM
Post a comment