Patterico's Pontifications

5/29/2013

House Investigating Whether Holder Lied Under Oath

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:48 am

The House?! Partisan!!!! I say we put the nation’s top law enforcement officer on it instead. Have Eric Holder investigate whether Eric Holder lied under oath!!!

I love the way they are already redefining what he said:

Justice did not return a request for comment, but [Democrat Rep. Hank] Johnson on Tuesday defended Holder, arguing his statement was specific to Johnson’s line of questioning about the Espionage Act and not meant to pertain to other investigations.

“The attorney general’s statement that no journalists have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act during his tenure is accurate,” he told The Hill.

Um, that’s not what he said that is in controversy. This is:

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.

He reviewed an affidavit that sought records because they might be relevant to the potential prosecution of James Rosen for aiding and abetting the disclosure of material by a government employee. He was involved in it, and he heard of it, and Hank Johnson is trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes.

Chris Christie Wins Teddy Bear for Obama

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:41 am

Awwwwwwww.

Screen Shot 2013-05-29 at 6.40.35 AM

IRS Scandal: More Proof Emerges of D.C. Involvement — But in What?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:34 am

Some more evidence has emerged of inquiries to Tea Party groups originating from the IRS in Washington DC. Ed Morrissey says this is evidence that Washington, D.C. was involved in the targeting of Tea Party groups. Maybe — but I’m not completely sure what to make of this evidence.

The scandal is not that organizations were being asked for more information — that happens all the time with organizations seeking tax-exempt status. The real scandal is why they were targeted to begin with: that they had names that sounded conservative. It’s not clear to me that the new evidence sheds any light on that question, although it might.

I think we need to know: did D.C. typically get involved in the process of questioning an organizing selected for further scrutiny ? If so, the new evidence doesn’t necessarily tell us much about who was involved in targeting conservatives as such — unless there is some unreported aspect of the communications that I am missing.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1888 secs.