Once again, Eric Holder's testimony before Congress is being called into question. On May 15, he disclaimed any thought of prosecuting a member of the press in connection with the AP/James Rosen leak investigation. Then it was learned that he had signed off on a search warrant application for the e-mail account of Fox News reporter James Rosen, whom the document mentioned as a likely crim9inal co-conspirator.
Holder was facing a Wednesday deadline, set by the committee, to explain his May 15 testimony.
At the time, the attorney general said under oath he knew nothing of the "potential prosecution" of the press. Days later, it emerged that Holder was involved in his department's successful effort to obtain Fox News reporter James Rosen's personal emails -- the DOJ sought access to the documents by arguing Rosen was a likely criminal "co-conspirator" in a leak case.
So when the House of Representatives sent him a letter asking for clarification, see what they got-from an underling.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/03/something-to-hide-republicans-reject-doj-explanation-holder-testimony/
Here is the DOJ response:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/06/03/justice-department-response-to-chairman-bob-goodlatte/
The next step is clear; Holder will have to go back to Capitol Hill and testify under oath as to why he wasn't perjuring himself on May 15. At this point, his defense-as laid out by his underling- is that there is no harm-no foul because Rosen was never actually prosecuted. I suppose a smart lawyer could fight a perjury charge on this by splitting hairs on what Holder meant on May 15, but one thing is pretty clear to everyone now-even on the Democratic side.
Eric Holder is a liar who has brought great discredit to the once-proud Department of Justice. He is unfit to continue as Attorney General.
5 comments:
What he said was "In regard to potential prosecution of the press .... This not something I've ever been involved in, heard of, or would think is wise policy."
Now that is a flat lie and the explanation another hair splitting that doesn't apply. He specifically said POTENTIAL prosecution so whether or not Rosen was actually prosecuted is not relevant. He got the subpoena and the telephone records for, as he represented in the subpoena for possible prosecution. He also represented that Rosen was a co-conspirator and a flight risk. Is the Justice Department itself making false accusations to obtain subpoenas against political opponents? Where are we, in Stalin's Russia?
So he lied in the subpoena, again before Congress, and then in the "explanation." He even got the telephone records os the reporter's parents. They " flight risks" too?
I don't know why they accommodation opportunity to explain himself. They should proceed without delay with the obvious perjury process.
.
Miggie,
I agree with your assessment on that quote. Shame on any Dems that defend him in light of that.
Its pretty simple really.
Rosen was suspected as a co-conspirator, but prosecuting him was not contemplated.
Ever hear of "unindicted coconspirator"?
I'm wary of prosecuting leaks, but then, didn't you just run a piece about not outing your undercover agents?
Seems to me that you could get exactly the same info relative to e-mail/telephonic contact between reporters and suspected
leakers by starting with the records of the leakers rather than those of the reporters.
And, of course, the idea of prosecuting reporters is at least implicit, if not explicit, as well as inherent in this entire process.
elwood... when a reporter publishes leaked information, we all know who the reporter is. We don't know who the leak came from.
I'm not big on punishing leaks, although there is some information that should be kept under wraps for genuine reasons of public safety.
But you make a purely methodological statement, and it doesn't hold water. Not at all.
Post a Comment