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.

279 Responses to “House Investigating Whether Holder Lied Under Oath”

  1. it must be hard to remember that you’re supposed to respect congresswhores and that you’re not supposed to lie to them

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  2. Well, keep in mind the “they” in terms of covering up for Holder will include virtually the entire mass media. And folks on Main Street generally speaking wouldn’t know Eric Holder from William Holden.

    I’m already starting to flash back to the mid-1990’s. Conservatives then got bogged down and all OCD with trying to show the public how corrupt the Clinton administration was and then were shocked — shocked! — the public didn’t really care. Then Al Gore came within a few disqualified military ballots of being POTUS.

    That’s not to say the House shouldn’t investigate Holder. They should. Definitely. But it won’t be a political panacea. Holder won’t be the Dem nominee in ’16 and the general electorate doesn’t vote based upon who’s corrupt in Dem circles. Were that the case no Democrat since Tammany Hall ever would have been elected president.

    It’s about beating Hillary in ’16, not tertiary scalps on the wall. If conservatives completely lose sight of that over the next few years, as they certainly are wont to do, then say hello to the 2nd Clinton administration.

    William Scalia (89a442)

  3. Holder said that Guam would not tip over if more Marines went there and Johnson is sure he lied.

    Mike K (dc6ffe)

  4. Having Hank Johbson defending you seems a bit silly. Maybe he is the only person dum enough to even bother to try ?

    JD (df45ac)

  5. The Attorney General is basically the top federal equivalent of a ‘district attorney’ or whatnot, right? Not like a judge, but actually supposed to be in charge of a *prosecution* office, e.g. tasked with arguing for the prosecution in any case.

    Now, one can (and should) argue that a judge approving a wiretap order, search warrant, etc. does so without any bias regarding guilt or innocence, merely signing that sufficient grounds to request said information gathering technique exists in the eyes of the law.

    But the *prosecution* office requesting said information, again, without presupposing guilt or innocence, since we’re the latter until proven the former, fills out said request stating we think this is worth pursuing, because we think there’s smoke there – our subject is at least a person of interest. Any internal approval process leading up to getting that request in front of a judge is therefore a stage in a “potential prosecution” which were exactly Holder’s words.

    I fail to see how they can argue the contrary. But then I just know law from TV…I’m sure there’s some highfalutin’ Latin term for parsing definitions finer than wondering what the definition of the word “is” is, and keeping your claim to integrity intact.

    Juan Williams has also totally jumped the shark on this one. He doesn’t even make the erroneous pedantic definitional argument. He just tries to say he doesn’t see any difficulty with Holder signing, discussing, and then judge-shopping a piece of paper while also remaining completely ignorant of it (“he can’t see everything”…)

    rtrski (b47753)

  6. Suppose there was never any intent to prosecute Rosen. Then Holder/DOJ only lied to the court, right? Shouldn’t Judge Lamberth order him to appear?

    crazy (d60cb0)

  7. If Holder investigates himself he can use the good cop/bad cop routine on himself, which would make for some more interesting comedy out of the DOJ.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  8. They already knew Kim was guilty, but there was no operations, or operatives leaked, it’s in the article itself

    narciso (3fec35)

  9. then say hello to the 2nd Clinton administration

    Team R also needs to find someone what can beat her

    and their track record is not auspicious

    so far for 2016 they have an impressively crappy bench – their mostest electable candidate is a morbidly obese professional obama fluffer

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  10. Holder was so determined to go after James Rosen that he went to a third judge for the secrecy order after the first two turned him down. This secrecy order was based solely on the assertion that Rosen was criminally culpable.

    The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay. Otherwise: “The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account,” Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument.

    Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen’s request to overturn the order of the two judges.

    And yet he told Congress that he supported nothing of the kind. I’m going to bet the next limited hangout will be that he had to lie to protect an ongoing investigation.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  11. Give the guy a break. Maybe he’ll hold a press conference and say, “I’ve completed my investigation of myself and my actions. Damned if I didn’t do everything I’ve been accused of. I suggest that I be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

    Joe Miller (00407a)

  12. Give the Obama folks a break. They are doing the best they can. And I’ll bet they are sorry they went after AP. Had the stuck to James Rosen, Fox, and the Tea Party you woundn’t hear a word from big media. Except cheers. Their post Bengazi performance is the perfect example.

    glenn (647d76)

  13. If you’re on lunch break, Mark Steyn is sitting in for Rush and discussing how appalled Holder is at what Holder was doing, and how deeply troubled Obama is at what Holder did that he’s asked Holder to look into it.

    Somewhere narciso yesterday linked to some IowaHawk twitterings and others-
    such as Holder was interrogating himself with the “good cop-bad cop” technique, but then forgot which he was…

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  14. and that Holder released himself after not reading himself his Miranda rights

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  15. In this world turned upside down, it is not a conflict of interest for Holder to investigate himself but I’m sure it is only a matter of time before some Democrat will claim that it is a conflict of interest for Congress to investigate Holder for lying to Congress on the ground that it was Congress he lied to and that investigation should then also be handled by Holder.

    Thresherman (b808d1)

  16. If Holder is confronted by Issa about this, he will simply quote Tommey Lee Jones and say ” I don’t care”. He has already been held in Contempt once, what one more going to do?

    Charles Curran (78e0c1)

  17. No problem. Obama will fix it with a pardon and the world will find a new equilibrium.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  18. “They already knew Kim was guilty, but there was no operations, or operatives leaked, it’s in the article itself”

    narciso – Exactly. But Rosen is guilty of thought crime because he works for Fox.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  19. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/perjury-may-not-be-such-a-tough-rap-to-prove-in-the-eric-holders-case.php

    Perjury may not be such a “hard rap to prove” in Eric Holder’s case

    …Holder was asked whether the Justice Department could prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act of 1917. His response (emphasis added) was:

    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.

    …Bill Otis confirms that during his days as a federal prosecutor, telling the court that a wiretap target might have been an aider, abettor or co-conspirator in a serious federal crime “was most assuredly vouching that there was a potential prosecution of that target.”

    I doubt the Obama administration’s persecution of the small segment of the press that doesn’t simply take Carney at his word but instead seeks to develop unofficial sources will harm Obama greatly. It should; this was clearly coming from the WH. If it were otherwise Obama wouldn’t have his dependable sidekick Holder investigate Holder in order to produce the predictable result.

    But then everything currently bubbling to the surface was clearly directed by the WH. The IRS commissioner visited the WH over 100 times which is far more than any IRS commissioner in any previous administration. During the Bush era the IRS commissioner visited the WH once during each term. And all the principles involved in targeting Obama’s political enemies are still on the payroll. In fact, some have even been promoted.

    Similarly, the Benghazi lie originated at the WH. We know this from the emails the WH released. At 2:27pm on 15 September (page 95 of 100) Petraeus washed his hands of the talking points and punted to the NSS and said it was their call if they wanted to use those but he wouldn’t. Or in other words he left it up to the WH.

    More significantly he asked about the mention of the Cairo cable getting scrubbed. This is the key to understanding why the WH had to lie and say the protests were over a video and had nothing to do with the administration and its policies. Because we know the protests were over the administration and its policies. This is no secret. The CIA cited social media as its source. The jihadist groups that threatened the Cairo embassy were very public and very clear about their demands on the administration.

    This is why the Benghazi scandal is by far the worst. Obama just announced the other day the administration is changing its policies. He wants the AUMF changed, he wants legislation to limit drone usage (as Brit Hume says he’s going to Congress and begging “stop me before I kill again”), and he wants to close GITMO and release some prisoners to Yemen fully aware that Yemen has neither the resources nor inclination to maintain custody of them.

    So what happened in Cairo and Benghazi had everything to do with the administration’s policies, and now the administration is capitulating and changing its policies to meet the demands of our enemies.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  20. Liars lie.

    And WTF do I care what a man that thinks an island can TIP OVER thinks about ANYTHING?!?

    © Sponge (8110ec)

  21. He probably told the truth to Congress (there never was any thought of prosecuting the reporter, especially the way he rephrased the question) but lied to the judge.

    Although he will have a defense of saying a possibility of prosecution, however remote, is enough to make a statement true in an affidavit.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  22. Holder probably doesn’t care what he pouts in an affidavit – as long as it works.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  23. 10. Except for national security cases. They’ve already said that.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  24. Well it’s more like the way Van Jones put it once,
    “Obama already knows what he wants to do, we have to encourage him to become what he was supposed to’
    or words to that effect

    narciso (3fec35)

  25. Holder feels remorse
    Heh perjury will do that
    lawyer heal thyself!

    Colonel Haiku (0e505e)

  26. Comment by Steve57 (9b1cdb) — 5/29/2013 @ 10:26 am

    Similarly, the Benghazi lie originated at the WH. We know this from the emails the WH released.

    We don’t know it originated there.

    They maybe decided at the White House that they wanted to get the word out that the attack was not pre-planned (supposedly) to more people than just the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which was the original plan when the talking points started being drafted..

    The fact that Tommy Vietor wrote:

    There is massive disinformation out there, particularly with Congress. They all think it was premeditated based on inaccurate assumptions or briefings.

    doesn’t mean that the idea that it’s disinformation to think it was premeditated and that all the early briefings were wrong originated with him, or with anyone else at the White House.

    If it somehow did how come nobody’s pointing fingers in that direction? Not one leak as far as I know.

    Tommy Vietor himself attributes his claim to the National Security Council, which he says wants to get the word out that what was said before was wrong:

    So I think this is a response to not only a tasking from the house intel committee but also NSC guidance that we need to brief members/press and correct the record.

    Point blank. He’s pointing fingers at the NSC.

    Now where does the NSC get its information from? Does it make it up out of whole cloth? If it did, could it get away with it? If it did, and it got away with it for a time, why would nobody else blame them oove rthe coiurse of half a year?

    The only way that nobody will say precisely where this idea came from is if the source(s) are highly classified, top secret, SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE. Completely implausible intelligence maybe that the U.S. government had to know was wrong, but “intelligence” nevertheless. Probably coming from a few apparently unconnected sources.

    One version of the talking points even mentions “intelligence partners”

    http://rapgenius.com/News-genius-benghazi-talking-points-revisions-9-14-2012-lyrics

    We are working w/ Libyan authorities and intelligence partners in an effort to help bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.
    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  27. Sammy – You have been reported to PETA.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  28. The big lie that this was a spur of the moment thing done by a group of individuals who did not know each other before, which is what the talking points essentially says, is the same thing actually that was said by the defense in the first trial of Lemrick Nelson for the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum in the Crown Heights riot/pogrom on August 19, 1991 – a case botched in more than one way by Kings County (Brooklyn) DS Charles Hynes, who is running for re-election this year and whom now CBS has developed a documentarty series about.

    This idea was already there in the first draft of the talking points at 11:15 am Friday, Sept 14:

    We believe based on currently available information that the attacks on Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. COnsulate and subsequently its annex.

    The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals form across many sectors of Libyan society. That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.

    Currently available = as opposed to what we thought initially

    Spontaneous = not premeditated, not earlier anyway than when news of the cairo protests reached Benghazi.

    mix of individuals = they didn’t know each other.

    They comncede some Islamic extremists were involved but defend Ansar al Sharia

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  29. The idea of a demonstration and was already known to a reporter at the time of the State Department breifing on Sept. 12, 2012 by several Senior Administration Officials.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  30. Holder’s in a tight spot, he should rent a copy of the 1974 Mel Brooks film Blazing Saddles for inspiration.

    Cleavon Little (as Bart) was in dire straights and came up with a unique gambit to escape the ire of an outraged town council and the citizens of Rock Springs, and he didn’t need no stinkin’ badges to do it either.

    ropelight (bd6714)

  31. Race Card deployed in 5 …. 4 …… 3 ……

    glenn (647d76)

  32. Sammy, how many times do we have to go through this. The reporters knew of the idea of a protest on September 10th, the same day the CIA sent it’s cable citing social media as the source of its warning. The jihadists were telling everybody because they wanted the media to cover their violence on September 11th in Cairo.

    http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/jihadis-threaten-to-burn-u-s-embassy-in-cairo/

    And they got their desired media coverage.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPszLCEyu-I

    They demanded the US release its detainees, principally the blind sheikh, as a first step toward the US demonstrating a less arrogant attitude toward Muslims.

    And Obama has announced he’s changing his policies to do exactly that. This comes shortly after Obama sent extra aid to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt which they publicly proclaim is in fact the jizya the conquered dhimmis owe to their conquerors.

    It’s all happening before your eyes, right out in the open. Are you so blind you can’t see it?

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  33. The CIA, in one version of the talking points, referred to what “social media” said. They are not
    mentioning anything on El Fagr, bit social media

    What may have appeared there might have been different. They might have mentioned the video and not the release of the Islamic jihadis who are imprisonment and in detention centers in the U.S. including Guantanamo Bay as well as Omar Abdul Rahman [the “Blind Sheikh’}

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  34. dang it Sammy!
    knew al sharpton was involved
    and resist we much

    Colonel Haiku (6b7e88)

  35. You would think any leaks re Stuixtnet would have precedence, but you’d be wrong, there was some scrutiny, but not full spectrum as with Rosen,

    narciso (3fec35)

  36. that damn blind sheik can
    kiss my mamajammin’ ass
    and twice on Sundays

    Colonel Haiku (86ce72)

  37. Sammy, who cares what else might have been said on social media. You’ve got a video of one of the main organizers of the protest telling you in his own words what the protest was about.

    He was all over the place getting interviewed during and after the protest. Obama and Mohammad al Zawahiri see eye to eye; the US has been an arrogant country. In fact on his first foreign trip Obama said so himself although he was tearing down his country before a different audience at the time:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/5101244/President-Barack-Obama-America-has-been-arrogant-and-dismissive-towards-Europe.html

    Telegraph – President Barack Obama: America has been ‘arrogant and dismissive’ towards Europe

    Well Obama has certainly put a stop to America behaving arrogantly.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/28/egyptian-cleric-says-american-aid-mandatory-tax/?page=all

    This taxpayer aid constitutes a “poll tax” that America must pay to placate the Muslim Brotherhood, according to Khaled Said, a cleric who serves as the official spokesman for the country’s Salafi Front, an extremist political party that has called for Islamic law in Egypt.

    “They pay so that we will let them be,” Said stated in a recent interview on Egyptian television.

    Said’s remarks come on the heels of Secretary of State John Kerry’s announcement that the United States has allocated another $250 million in aid to Egypt.

    “If the revolution declares a framework for dealing with the West and America — they will accept it, kiss our hands, and double the aid they give us,” Said said during his television appearance, according to a translation of his remarks by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). “We consider this aid to be jizya [poll tax], not regular aid.”

    …“We must strive to realize the goals of the revolution, and to establish a sovereign, Arab Islamic state in Egypt,” he said. “Then this state will impose payment of aid upon America as jizya, in exchange for allowing it to realize its interests—the ones that we approve, get it?

    “They must pay reparations for destroying our country and the Islamic nation—them and others in the West—so that we will agree to cooperate with them,” Said added.

    “It’s significant that this sheik is willing to say this publicly,” said David Reaboi, vice president for strategic communications at the Center for Security Policy. “Maybe he’s savvy enough to know US media, for the most part, is allergic to understanding or even presenting what’s said in Islamic societies in their shariah or Muslim contexts.”

    Are you, too, allergic toward understanding what is unfolding in plain sight, Sammy? Because Obama is meeting a great many jihadi demands in his “shift” in strategy.

    Some commentators have been puzzled by Obama’s declaring the war on terrorism to be winding down if not over. They think Obama has some sort of tin ear. That’s not it. He has a schedule to meet and it’s unaffected by events. He’s following the advice of the Muslim Brotherhood associates in his own executive department. whose advice, surprise surprise, dovetails perfectly with the jihadist demands.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  38. huggy bear says that
    word in jail is teh blind sheik
    likes to drop teh soap

    Colonel Haiku (2cef89)

  39. Headline @ the AP:
    LIKE YOUR HEALTH CARE POLICY? YOU MAY BE LOSING IT
    And within the article:
    … it doesn’t seem to square with one of the president’s best known promises about his health care overhaul: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan.”

    — This is followed by some drivel about how the replacement plans MIGHT be better, but the thing to note is that the headline relates directly to catching the president in a lie.

    Smack a lapdog one too many times and it WILL turn on you.

    Icy (76748a)

  40. Sammy, just effin’ give it up. It’s not a secret what Zawahiri and his affiliates were saying. It’s social freakin’ media. And the CIA doesn’t have a monopoly on people who can transliterate it. What they were saying on social media, such as Mohammad al Zawahiri’s twitter feed, does not conflict with what they were telling the press.

    The Cairo embassy assault was pro-al Qaeda through and through. That’s why the protesters were shouting “Obama, Obama, we are all Osama.”

    That’s why they burned the US flag and replaced it with the al Qaeda flag.

    The Cairo attack was not about the video. The jihadists who organized the protest used the video, yes. To swell the size of the crowd and thus demonstrate their power to mobilize the “Arab street.” But no one knew of this “insult” until the jihadists organizing the protest told them.

    http://www.aawsat.net/2012/09/article55240641

    ASHARQ AL-AWSAT: Al-Qaeda flags in Cairo

    What happened in Egypt was amazing, specifically the attack on the US Embassy in Cairo, where the American flag was burned and the al-Qaeda flag was raised, all because of what is said to be an offensive film about the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). The protests witnessed the participation of Islamic groups, Christians, and even so-called ultras – radical football fans.

    When I say that what has happened in Egypt is amazing, the reason is simple: no one knew anything about this film that is said to be offensive to the Prophet (pbuh) until now. Even the news agency Reuters, which broadcasted news of the attack on the US Embassy in Egypt, said in its initial report: “it was not clear which film prompted the protests”! This is a puzzling matter; no one had heard about this film; no one knew its name, so is it rational to set the world on fire whenever someone launches a trivial insult towards Islam, or one of its symbols? The truth that must be told, and especially with regards to the events in Egypt, is that the matter is more complicated than an offensive film. The earlier reaction of some Egyptians, for example, towards the case of an Egyptian national accused of smuggling illegal drugs into Saudi Arabia was similar to their reaction now against the US Embassy, the only difference being that in the former example the al-Qaeda flag was not raised, nor was the Saudi flag burned, which means that the problem in Egypt is much more complicated than a strong fervor for the Islamic religion.

    Zawahiri and the other organizers know they’d never get the Christians and ultras to turn out to support their real goals. So they used the film as an additional pretext for their demonstration and attack (they told the Christians that the film also insulted Jesus and Mary). But the film was not the reason they organized the protest. And the CIA was reminding the WH and DoS of that when they inserted the line about the 10 September cable warning of the jihadist threat to the Cairo embassy.

    Key word: jihadist.

    The WH wouldn’t have known about the film if the CIA hadn’t warned them about the jihadist threat to the embassy. Jihadists from groups that belong to the core of al Qaeda’s international coalition. Including on jihadist who is the brother of the emir of al Qaeda.

    There demands were very public, and if the CIA was aware of the demand about the film which was a minor pretext, then they were aware of their major demands as well. It is absolutely foolish to argue otherwise.

    This is what makes the WH spin a lie. As I’ve mentioned numerous times they seized on the minor pretext of the film like a drowning man to a life ring. They stripped out all the rest; the al Qaeda links, the fact the protest was intended to show Obama that al Qaeda is no where close to being on the ropes, the fact the protest was organized by jihadists, and what their real demands actually were.

    It’s true there was mention of a video. But the WH is lying when it tells the world the Cairo assault was about the film and nothing else. In fact it’s a lie to say the attack was really about the video at all.

    The WH knew about the reality of the situation and denied it, and their shift in course now in denial of the realities of the present is proof positive of that. If al Qaeda was really at death’s door they Obama administration wouldn’t be changing their policies to meet al Qaeda’s demands.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  41. R.I.P. Jack Vance, Science Fiction Grand Master

    Icy (76748a)

  42. @Steve57, the first mention of “inflammatory material posted on the internet” was in the SecState Statement of the Attack on Benghazi at around 10pm on 9/11.

    I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that State’s inputs to the talking points during the week made them more consistent with HRC’s 9/11 press release and less consistent with what actually happened.

    http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/09/197628.htm

    crazy (d60cb0)

  43. crazy, I’m aware of Hillary!’s press release on the night of the attack. She said that “some” had attempted to justify the violence due to the film trailer. But who are “some?” I’d say it’s Vietor and Rhodes on the National Security Staff in the WH.

    But actually I believe the tweets from the Cairo embassy press office were the first attempts to blame the film trailer and only the film trailer. I’d bet they were just following orders like those IRS agents in Cinci. It had to be the WH that came up with the idea just cherrypicking the one minor data point that didn’t indict the Obama administration. The evidence is the WH first distanced itself from their own story while they figured out how to turn things around on Romney, then embraced the story again after they fine-tuned their spin. After all, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research monitors the foreign press and sends out regular foreign press translations primarily to look for exactly the threats these jihadist groups were making in the Cairo papers.

    In fact due to recent revelations we can conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt the WH was actively lying in the days and weeks following the violence. On September 14, 2012 this is how Jay Carney responded to Jake Tapper:

    “We don’t know otherwise. We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that many Muslims find offensive, and while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified it is not a reaction to 9/11 or US policy.”

    Specifically about Benghazi we know they had information that suggested it was a preplanned attack. The letter the undersecretary of state for near east affairs sent to the Libyan government informing them that Ansar al Sharia attacked the Benghazi facility confirms that fact. As does the testimony of Greg Hicks and others, as well as the timeline for State’s Diplomatic Security Service. They had plenty of information that did more than just suggest this was a preplanned attack at the time the WH sent Carney and Rice out to lie and claim they didn’t. The information screamed unequivocally “preplanned attack!”

    If we expand to look at what happened in region we know the jihadis who organized the Cairo embassy attack did not do so because of a video. The jihadists told us so before, during, and after the Cairo attack.

    The WH spin that this was all due to a video is a lie along the lines of Schulman claiming to have visited the WH 118 times over two years for an Easter egg hunt.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  44. Hank Johnson’s one major (good) accomplishment in being in Congress is being opposed by … Hank Johnson!

    You know? It kind of fits.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  45. @Steve57, I agree. The only point I was trying to add was that we KNOW what HRC said the evening of 9/11. I expect any proof of who said what to whom at the WH that evening to stay locked up. I’m with you on the clearly self-serving falsehoods they told to get through the election. The lovely problem the administration has is Holder’s ability to stymie any attempt to get to the truth on anything is on the verge of crumbling.

    crazy (d60cb0)

  46. The way I read it, Holder said it isn’t wise policy to get caught.

    Amphipolis (e01538)

  47. crazy, I agree. Moreover Hillary! talked to BHO at 10:00pm before issuing that press statement. Krauthammer was on Fox pointing to that as the real scandal. That was the only phone call Obama made that night. Prom Queen didn’t talk to anyone at the Pentagon or CIA. As Krauthammer points out, he didn’t talk to anyone who he had purportedly told to go to the aid of those in Benghazi (another verifiable lie). His first priority was to work on his cover story with Hillary! while his administration abandoned Americans who were at that moment fighting for their lives.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Y-vy8PSaz-Q

    I just think Krauthammer and some others miss a simple point. King Putt and Hillary! didn’t concoct the “demonstration about a ‘hateful’ video” lie at 10:00pm. They simply decided to recycle the lie they had been using all day about Cairo and apply it to Benghazi.

    We’ll never know who said what to whom inside the WH. So we’ll never know what Valerie Jarrett told Tiger Beat to do and when she told him. But Congress can call Petraeus back and grill him. And Congress can get the September 10 cable. After all, it was a warning based on social media. CIA can’t claim its classified. In fact there are a number of people from CIA that need to be subpoenaed as well as the message traffic related to the events in Cairo and Benghazi.

    One of the keys to exposing the scandal(s) surrounding the Benghazi assault is exposing the administration’s lies about Cairo.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  48. 45. No, the first mention were teh tweets from the Cairo Embassy. Which if the CIA notes it informed the embassy means that what it informed it was about a protest being organzied over a video. I don’t accept that the CIA must have told the State Department in Cairo something accurate.

    I have several differences with Steve57 will outline them tomorrow afternoon.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  49. Obama spokesman: I would refer you to the Justice Department (Holder)

    Pathetic.

    Amphipolis (e01538)

  50. Sammy, the administration is falling for the good cop/bad cop routine the MB and AQ is running on him. If you give the MB what it demands, then AQ will back off.

    So Obama is giving the MB what it wants. Did you not catch any of Obama’s clueless and pathetic NDU speech? He had to lie about the video and claim that the Cairo/Benghazi attacks had nothing to do with his policies because it’s his entire foreign policy that’s the disaster that must be concealed. Obama essentially came out and announced that the US is shifting from retreat in the ME and North Africa to a policy of abject surrender to the MB and other groups just so long as they aren’t AQ. In the pathetic hope that the “good cop” Islamists will rein in the “bad cop” Islamists. It’s not just me. Everyone is noticing.

    http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/7194.htm

    Op-Ed In London Daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Attacks Obama: The Weakest President In The History Of The U.S.

    …”[Obama] is responsible for the fact that Syria has reached this level of confusion and loss. Were it not for his hesitancy, his weak approach, his lack of determination and his eagerness to [gain] popularity on Twitter… the Russian ‘Snow Emperor’ Vladimir Putin wouldn’t have dreamt of attaining the role [he has attained], with the Western world ready to charge him with the task of solving the Syrian problem. [Were it not for Obama’s weakness,] Bashar Al-Assad would not have said in a recent interview with the Argentinean paper [Clarin] that he felt he was beginning to overcome the intense pressures that have been exerted upon him. [Moreover,] Iran’s arrogance and contempt wouldn’t have grown to the point of making a public announcement that the war in Syria is its own war and [to the point of] ordering its [operations] officer in Lebanon, Hassan Nasrallah, to declare war and launch resistance [actions] – not on the Israeli border but against the Syrians in Al-Qusair, which has been besieged by Assad’s shabiha[5] and by Nasrallah’s fighters for a while, right in front of Obama!

    “The U.S. is currently living under one of the weakest leaders in its [history]… while Russia has a firm and determined leader. This becomes even sadder when you realize that the U.S. is believed to be supporting the Syrian rebels while Russia [is considered] a supporter of the [Syrian] regime. In this situation, the alliance [between the U.S. and the rebels] is a liability more than an asset…

    “The most acute [aspect of] the problem is that Obama is laying down the systematic groundwork for the development of extremism and sectarian violence that will make us miss the Al-Qaeda of George W. Bush’s era, while deluding himself that he eliminated Al-Qaeda when he killed Osama bin Laden!”

    …The Al-Qaeda attacks of the recent years pale beside what might happen in the future and what is already happening: [the fighting] in Homs and its rural area, the attacks on mosques and Husseiniyyas [Shi’ite cultural and religious centers] in Iraq, and [the attacks of] the Turkish ‘Alawite fighters [of the Popular Front for the Liberation of] Alexandretta,[6] who are coming to the aid of the ‘Alawites in Syria.

    Al-Qaeda’s former attacks were high-quality and were carried out be elite squads of fighters, [but these fighters] did not represent broad sectors of Arab society. The wars currently being waged in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, on the other hand, are frightening because they rely on [entire] social [sectors] that support [the fighters] and shelter them.

    “This leads us to a frustrating conclusion about Obama’s precise and rigid implementation of his bad and superficial policy of retreating [from the Middle East] at any cost, even in the face of new developments. [We must conclude that] this is not a skilled statesman and politician with creative solutions, but an ordinary academic who repeats meaningless slogans and does not possess the political sensitivity to give each factor the weight it deserves, to take bold [action] when necessary and to refrain [from action] when necessary…”

    Obama is a rigid ideologue who believes America’s problem is it isn’t sufficiently pro-Islam. Which means Mashari Al-Zaydi is in effect correct because that ideology is exactly what you find in the vast majority of ordinary academics these days.

    I believe we see the reason why Obama doesn’t permit his daily intelligence briefs. He doesn’t want to deal with people who won’t tell him what he wants to hear.

    I can guarantee you CIA or perhaps even his own DoS told the WH of the jihadists’ motives for the Cairo embassy assault, and what the real events surrounding Benghazi were. But Obama was hell bent on showing the “Muslim world” we are not at war with Islam by giving in to radical Islamists who pretend they’re not as radical as AQ. In effect, Obama is backing the fascists to stop the communists. As if we needed more than his Cairo speech to know Obama not only isn’t a historian but incapable of learning from history even as an amateur.

    Being nice to Islamists didn’t stop the Benghazi assault. So his plan is to be even nicer to Islamists. Acknowledging reality would derail that plan. He certainly can’t acknowledge the jihadists planned the Cairo and Benghazi attacks and the real reasons why. Hence the lies about how everything was due to a video. An American video.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  51. “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.”

    Orin Kerr explained last week how to read that affidavit. Now, House Committee staff know who that guy is, and are probably smart enough to understand his point. So, the question is, how hard does it irk them that their bosses make them go through this BS?

    “The House?! Partisan!!!!”

    Then again, maybe their job is to not think too hard about this stuff. Still, that’s got to irk anyone smart enough for to get that gig.

    nick (595f9e)

  52. I’ve found Al Sharq to be a very good paper, even considering their biases, Obama’s analysis misses the fact that Bosnia and Chechnya, not Iraq or Palestine were the touchstones to AQ’s recruiting boom.

    narciso (3fec35)

  53. I like how Il Douche floated a No-Fly-Zone for Syria, helpfully trying to give the game to the winning Islamists.

    As tho Israel would help us keep our aircraft carriers afloat.

    An Ambassador isn’t worth putting men in harms way but men, material, and squeester be damned if the US can lose another war.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  54. a rueful chuckle

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  55. Lie=nuance.

    Kevin P. (1df29c)

  56. Nice article, elissa. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

    Speaking of which there’s a good article up at Powerline.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/did-eric-holder-commit-perjury-it-looks-that-way.php

    As many have pointed out when Holder approved (after extensive discussions per the DoJ) the application to get a secret search warrant to go through Rosen’s email, the application was based on an affidavit that stated there was probable cause to believe Rosen had committed a crime. And of course when you tell a judge that you have probable cause to believe the target committed a crime, you are telling the judge that there is potential prosecution for the target of the warrant in the future.

    But John Hinderaker who was initially very skeptical of making a perjury case against Holder reviewed the affidavit and say it goes even further than simply asserting probable cause. He quotes from it (emphasis Hinderaker’s):

    Because of the Reporter’s own potential criminal liability in this matter, we believe that requesting the voluntary production of the materials from Reporter would be futile and would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation and of the evidence we seek to obtain by warrant.

    As Hinderaker concludes:

    So the issue is rather squarely posed: Holder testified that he had never “been involved in” or even “heard of” any “potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material.” And yet, he participated in “extensive deliberations,” “discussed” and approved of the filing of an application for a search warrant that specifically represented to the court that a reporter has “potential criminal liability in this matter.” It is hard to imagine a more direct contradiction.

    If Holder is going to stick to his story that he never intended to prosecute Rosen and therefore there was never a potential prosecution in Rosen’s future, it means he lied to the judge to get the secret warrant. Because if there was never the potential for prosecution, there was never any potential criminal liability.

    As an aside, is anybody besides me finding it side-splitting funny that the DoJ is on the one hand insisting it informed Fox of its investigation into Rosen, at the same time we are learning the DoJ went judge shopping to find a court that would let them do their eavesdropping in complete secrecy?

    I concede incompetence to the Obama administration. Massive incompetence. But that doesn’t rule out malevolence. Lots of malevolent people are also incompetent. I just find it funny that as in everything else the Obama klown kar administration is just as incompetent at cover-ups and stonewalling as they are at their other misdeeds.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  57. “If Holder is going to stick to his story that he never intended to prosecute Rosen and therefore there was never a potential prosecution in Rosen’s future, it means he lied to the judge to get the secret warrant. ”

    The affidavit explained why the Privacy Protection Act requires that those conclusions be reached. Notably, it doesn’t require a prosecution, but probable cause.

    “at the same time we are learning the DoJ went judge shopping to find a court that would let them do their eavesdropping in complete secrecy?”

    They also didn’t go “judge shopping.” They appealed a clearly incorrect decision. It stretches the definition of “judge shopping” to include appeals.

    nick (595f9e)

  58. Yes, they did because then the subpoena would have been public, and they could challenge it.

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

    narciso (3fec35)

  59. Did you mean to link to a blog post that said

    “Now I’m no fan of the Attorney General, and have been critical of the Administration’s decision to target journalists in its leak investigations, but if this is all there is, I don’t see it. ”

    ?

    nick (595f9e)

  60. Well the facts contained therein belie his premise;

    narciso (3fec35)

  61. Yes. And so what if prosecution isn’t required. The affidavit said the reporter had “potential criminal liability in this matter.” Holder testified under oath that “(i)n 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 personally authorized a search warrant request based upon statements that are diametrically opposed to the statements he made under oath to Congress. On the one hand he told a federal judge that he needed the secret warrant to gather evidence to establish both Rosen’s and Kim’s guilt or innocence.

    Mr. Kim’s missing responses to the Reporter’s emails would materially assist the FBI’s investigation as they could be expected to establish further the fact of the disclosures, their content, and Mr. Kim’s and the Reporter’s intent in making them, and could be expected to constitute direct evidence of their guilt or innocence.

    Holder told a judge that both Kim and Rosen were targets of a criminal investigation. Kim has indeed been indicted. Holder told Congress he had never been involved of or even heard of a potential prosecution of a reporter for disclosing information.

    Which is it? It can’t be both ways. He either lied to Congress or he lied to the judge. He got a warrant for a reporter in a case in which the DoJ clearly intended to end in prosecution, and has, but then he claims he has never heard of such a thing.

    You may not like my characterization of the DoJ’s actions as judge shopping, but it is clear the DoJ went into overtime to find a judge that would issue a secret warrant. Which makes their recent claim they had informed Fox even more laughable.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  62. “Well the facts contained therein belie his premise;”

    The next post in that blog should also be interesting to you.

    “The affidavit said the reporter had “potential criminal liability in this matter.”

    Right. Because there’s probable cause…. David Gregory had “potential criminal liability” for his high capacity magazine. But there was no prosecution.

    “Which is it? It can’t be both ways.”

    Sure it can, because they’re two different things. The affidavit has statements about what the evidence shows about Rosen. What Holder told Congress are statements about what DOJ planned to do. Holder didn’t tell congress that there’s never been a reporter that had probable cause. What Holder said was they didn’t plan on prosecuting any reporters.

    nick (595f9e)

  63. Somehow, I knew that the whole defense would be to parse “prosecute.”

    “So, since we didn’t prosecute Rosen, the whole invasion of his privacy and allegations of espionage co-conspiracy do not matter.”

    Anybody up for a way-back machine comparison to a certain former President?

    Neither am I.

    All we have to do is remember.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  64. Get it through your head nick. They never told the judge when they asked for the warrant they never planned to prosecute the reporter who was the target of the warrant. They told the judge that Rosen had potential criminal liability precisely to get a secret warrant that two other judges had refused to issue. Which is the exact opposite of saying you have no plans to prosecute reporters.

    It’s a flat lie. I realized partisans would crawl out of the woodwork to defend the indefensible. Thanks for letting me know I can rely on you.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  65. “They never told the judge when they asked for the warrant they never planned to prosecute the reporter who was the target of the warrant”

    They don’t need to tell the judge that. They just have to make out probable cause and give a reason why they don’t want to provide notice to the reporter.

    “I realized partisans would crawl out of the woodwork to defend the indefensible.”

    Over on the other thread there’s a link to a post on the volokh conspiracy. Read that one and the one after it. Those aren’t “partisans crawl[ing] out of the woodwork.”

    nick (595f9e)

  66. The affidavit has statements about what the evidence shows about Rosen.

    This is false. The affidavit also has statements about what the DoJ intended to do with that evidence.

    Such as establish guilt. Which can only be established in a court of law following a successful prosecution.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  67. “The affidavit also has statements about what the DoJ intended to do with that evidence.”

    And it doesn’t say they intend to prosecute him…. and they

    “Such as establish guilt. Which can only be established in a court of law following a successful prosecution.”

    You didn’t read the link did you?

    nick (595f9e)

  68. I have several differences with Steve57 will outline them tomorrow afternoon.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/29/2013 @ 4:43 pm

    To be honest, you have several differences with reality. What are you, an anal retentive magician? Must be because you keep pulling things outa your ass!

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  69. So why no prosecution of Woodward, whose source was General Jones, three years ago, why has it taken so long with Sanger’s releasing the Stuixtnet information, or those that leaked to Townsend and Clarke,

    narciso (3fec35)

  70. They just have to make out probable cause and give a reason why they don’t want to provide notice to the reporter.

    Correct. And the reason was because of Rosen’s “potential criminal liability in this matter.” If Rosen had no potential criminal liability because they never intended to prosecute him, they lied to the judge.

    If Holder had never been involved in or even heard of any “potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material” then no member of the press has any potential criminal liability in any matter concerning disclosure of material.

    Yet he told a judge Rosen had “potential criminal liability in this matter.” You can’t square this circle, nick. These are not two different things we are talking about. We are talking about one thing. Holder’s knowledge of potential prosecutions at the DoJ, not the certainty of prosecution. He told a court one thing in a search warrant application. He told Congress another thing under oath.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  71. Just to be clear, if Holder told the truth to Congress and lied to the judge I don’t believe that constitutes perjury. But he should be disbarred and sued for all he’s worth by Rosen.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  72. “And the reason was because of Rosen’s “potential criminal liability in this matter.” If Rosen had no potential criminal liability because they never intended to prosecute him, they lied to the judge.”

    Ah. I see what you’re not getting. Potential criminal liability is a statement about what the law criminalizes. But just because someone has potential criminal liability doesn’t mean there’s a prosecution. There’s potential for you to get a speeding ticket as soon as you cross the speed limit, but that doesn’t mean there’s a cop that’s going to give you one.

    Check the volokh link that narciso posted. And the one after it. It will make it clear.

    nick (595f9e)

  73. Just to be clear, if Holder told the truth to Congress and lied to the judge I don’t believe that constitutes perjury. But he should be disbarred and sued for all he’s worth by Rosen.

    Comment by Steve57 (9b1cdb) — 5/29/2013 @ 9:05 pm

    If lying to a judge while swearing that the facts contained in the warrant are true, is not perjury, nothing is Steve. Just like a deposition, or testifying in court, to obtain the warrant you have to raise that ole right hand and swear that the facts contained therein are true.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  74. Nickie boy,
    quit trying to defend the indefensible. Holder lied under oath to the judge and to the American People when he testified before congress. No matter how you try to parse it, it still comes down to this one fact. HE F*CKING LIED! No if’s, and’s, or butt’s about it.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  75. It’s like one of these overreaches in a bad “Law and Order’ episode, they didn’t prosecute Goldman or Shane, for Kirikaou, they are asking for Risen to testify for Sterling, things of that nature.

    narciso (3fec35)

  76. “quit trying to defend the indefensible. Holder lied under oath to the judge and to the American People when he testified before congress.”

    Sorry bud, it’s just not there. Narciso’s link has someone who so wants it to be so (maybe like you) but who explains why there’s nothing there.

    nick (595f9e)

  77. Sorry son, but it is all there. Undoubtedly, you don’t understand what it takes to convict for perjury. All it takes are two opposing sworn statements from the same person. No need whatsoever to prove which one is false. And all it takes to deny that Holder committed perjury, is a hyper-partisan hack.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  78. nick, it is clear. “No potential prosecution” = “no potential criminal liability.”

    Thanks for the speeding analogy. But when a city announces it has become a sanctuary city or a state announces it will no longer enforce laws against possessing pot for personal use, then in those jurisdictions there is no longer any “potential criminal liability” for being in the country illegally or for possessing pot no matter what the law says. Those laws aren’t being enforced.

    Of course one could argue the feds could enforce their immigration or drug laws. But when the feds in the person of Eric Holder says his DoJ as a matter of policy will not prosecute a reporter under the Espionage Act of 1917 (that was at the heart of the question Holder responded to), then that means no reporter has any “potential criminal liability” for violating that law. That’s what he told Congress. That’s the opposite of what he told a judge to gain a secret warrant.

    As I said, the conflict between those two assertions are clear. They couldn’t be clearer.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  79. And furthermore, Holder was judge shopping. If taking the warrant application to one judge, and being refused, then taking it to a second judge , and being refused, then finally taking it to a third judge that then over rules the other two and grants the motion, if that ain’t judge shopping, then you don’t understand what judge shopping is, boy!

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  80. 83. Sorry bud, it’s just not there. Narciso’s link has someone who so wants it to be so (maybe like you) but who explains why there’s nothing there.

    Comment by nick (595f9e) — 5/29/2013 @ 9:21 pm

    Seriously, nick. I like Jonathon Adler, but he’s basing his analysis on what “The Hill” and “The Atlantic Wire” have to say.

    Based on what I’ve seen reported, it’s not even close.

    That’s hardly a basis to conclude there’s no there there.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  81. ohnoes i just yawned do you think it might could be scandal fatigue?

    but i don’t feel tired

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  82. The Atlantic Wire, is known to be extremely gullible when it comes to this administration,

    narciso (3fec35)

  83. Apologies if this has already been pointed out, but the alarm clock is my enemy, so I offer James O’Keefe’s attribution to this blog in his expose’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R_En28jaeM&feature=player_embedded

    sybilll (ea69a2)

  84. Holders and Nickies defense “I didn’t say what I actually said”. Or better yet, “Who you gonna believe?”, “Me or your lying ears?”

    According to Little Nickie, prosecutors can go around issuing subpoenas and search warrants without the intent to prosecute. He reads a little catch phrase like probable cause most likely from dailykos, uses it freely, but he doesn’t f@cking understand what it means.

    He just can’t seem to grasp that when you tell a judge that someone has a potential for criminal liability, that you are telling the judge that the fruits of the search warrant will most likely give you the evidence needed to charge and convict said person of a crime.

    After all nickiepoop, they weren’t getting the search warrant to obtain Mr. Rosen’s chocolate chip cookie recipe, they were looking for evidence that he had broken the Espionage Act of 1917. And they allege that he is a flight risk and might destroy evidence. Tell me this O Great One, were they lying then? HowinHell could James Rosen destroy his phone records or his emails that are kept on his phone companies and internet providers servers? He has no access to them. Is he gonna yell allahuie akbarrie and blow the computers up?

    peedoffamerican (a84075)

  85. Just thought of something. My cats must all be muslims. It sounds sorta like allahhh ackkkkkkbar that they say just before they puke up a hairball!

    peedoffamerican (a84075)

  86. “Seriously, nick. I like Jonathon Adler, but he’s basing his analysis on what “The Hill” and “The Atlantic Wire” have to say.”

    Which is the same as you, the same magic words that you declare are the equal (“No potential prosecution” = “no potential criminal liability.”) Despite two people at that blog explaining it to you.

    “He just can’t seem to grasp that when you tell a judge that someone has a potential for criminal liability, that you are telling the judge that the fruits of the search warrant will most likely give you the evidence needed to charge and convict said person of a crime. ”

    They even explained in the section where they mentioned that why they mentioned it. There’s a whole lot of “I want it to be so” here that ignores quite a bit of practice and law. Not to mention ignoring what words mean and several explanations (some by a co-partisan) contrary to yours.

    “If taking the warrant application to one judge, and being refused, then taking it to a second judge , and being refused, then finally taking it to a third judge that then over rules the other two and grants the motion, if that ain’t judge shopping, then you don’t understand what judge shopping is, boy!”

    If a court rules wrongly and you go to the supreme court and get it overturned, and you want to call that “judge shopping” well, then, there’s a big market out there for judges, because there’s a lot of people petitioning the supreme court for review.

    nick (595f9e)

  87. “According to Little Nickie, prosecutors can go around issuing subpoenas and search warrants without the intent to prosecute.”

    They did intend to prosecute. Kim.

    nick (595f9e)

  88. What ridiculous nonsense, do we really need a congressional investigation to confirm something we already know? Are we afraid to stand up as individuals and face the truth, do we need the comfort of numbers or do we require some sort of official confirmation before we acknowledge something as obvious as that water is wet?

    Eric Holder is a liar’s liar, it’s as plain as the nose on you face, in fact it’s so indisputably obvious that only a fool, another liar, a paid dissembler, or a complete ignoramus would pretend otherwise. Only the truth will set us free of this corrupt Attorney General, and the sooner the better.

    ropelight (be3960)

  89. What Holder said was they didn’t plan on prosecuting any reporters.

    Yet that is the exact opposite of what he signed off on in the affidavit.

    Nick/nickc’s sophistry and word games are cute. He simply denies the plain meaning of the actual words used.

    JD (df45ac)

  90. Not to mention ignoring what words mean

    Okay, Nicky made me laugh out loud.

    JD (df45ac)

  91. as Ag80 reminds us, it’s ‘the meaning of is, is’ all over again,

    narciso (3fec35)

  92. Did the White House lie about Benghazi? Of course they did, and that is not the key point. The real scandal in Benghazi is a crime much more fundamental.

    The real question is “Who issued the military stand down order?” That code yellow got four people – including a US Ambassador – abandoned, left behind, and killed. Whoever issued it is guilty of dereliction of duty and cowardice in the face of the enemy during time of war – capital offenses the last time I checked. Right there is the there there.

    Since it is known that the order came from at least the level of a four star general – the possible suspects list is rather short; The joint chiefs of staff, the POTUS… It is rather hard to believe that professional military men were afraid to order others to fight.

    So we are left with only one possible suspect: It must be Ruemmler in the West Wing with an auto-pen.

    Now a question for our host DA – how far under the jail would Eric Holder be if he were an average criminal suspect and not Attorney Sergeant Schultz Eric Holder – head of the Department of JustUs?

    An Observation (864645)

  93. Are you, too, allergic toward understanding what is unfolding in plain sight, Sammy?

    — Oh please, somebody tell me this is a rhetorical question!

    Icy (329aee)

  94. If a court rules wrongly and you go to the supreme court and get it overturned, and you want to call that “judge shopping” well, then, there’s a big market out there for judges, because there’s a lot of people petitioning the supreme court for review.
    Comment by nick (595f9e) — 5/30/2013 @ 3:13 am

    — Another one ^^^ for the Hall of Fame.

    Icy (329aee)

  95. Holder lied, lefties cried and here’s to hoping he will be fried.
    hush hush, off teh record and strictly on teh QT…

    Colonel Haiku (399c43)

  96. Heck of a job, no seriously, we’ve seen this movie before;

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/30/sen-john-mccain-accused-posing-kidnappers-syria/

    narciso (3fec35)

  97. 94. “According to Little Nickie, prosecutors can go around issuing subpoenas and search warrants without the intent to prosecute.”

    They did intend to prosecute. Kim.

    Comment by nick (595f9e) — 5/30/2013 @ 3:13 am

    And they never would have received permission to secretly tap Rosen’s private correspondence if they told the judge they never intended to prosecute him.

    Which is why they used language that told the judge they intended to prosecute Rosen.

    I think it’s remarkable that you think it’s really clever of Holder to evade his responsibility to be truthful to both the judiciary when seeking a warrant and to the legislature when it’s exercising its constitutional oversight over agencies that are entirely its creation.

    Telling.

    But its not really clever of Holder. He’s been too clever by half.

    “Seriously, nick. I like Jonathon Adler, but he’s basing his analysis on what “The Hill” and “The Atlantic Wire” have to say.”

    Which is the same as you, the same magic words that you declare are the equal (“No potential prosecution” = “no potential criminal liability.”) Despite two people at that blog explaining it to you.

    Umm, no. I’m not relying on third party information. But thanks for asking. And apparently by “magic words” you mean to disparage the fact that words have definitions. Which is something that defenders of this administration have to say to continue defending it. For instance, when it comes to drone strikes, an “imminent threat” no longer has to be in the foreseeable future. But let’s review:

    Because of the Reporter’s own potential criminal liability in this matter, we believe that requesting the voluntary production of the materials from Reporter would be futile and would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation and of the evidence we seek to obtain by warrant.

    Had Holder’s DoJ been truthful with the judge they never would have gotten a secret search warrant. Let’s parse words. Holder told Congress that as a matter of “wise policy” he wouldn’t prosecute reporters for disclosing information under the Espionage Act of 1917. But he never said he wouldn’t prosecute reporters for lying to investigators or otherwise obstructing justice.

    So the plain fact is had he been truthful he never would have gotten a secret search warrant. Because of course the truth is had they approached Rosen and told him they didn’t intend to prosecute him for disclosing classified information (what Holder told Congress) but required his cooperation then it wouldn’t have been futile to ask for his voluntary cooperation.

    They didn’t do that. They had to tell the judge that they had probable cause to believe Rosen had committed crimes for which he could be potentially prosecuted in order to not only get a search warrant, but a secret search warrant.

    The English word for that tactic is called “lying.” It’s a simple concept, nick. Try it.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  98. in teh clearing stands a Holder and a liar by his trade
    and he carries a reminder of every flub that laid him out
    or f*cked him til he cried out in his anger and his pain
    “I am leaving, I am leaving but Obama still remains
    Lie-la-lie… lie-la-lie… lie-lie-lie-lie-lie-la-lie… lie-la-lie…

    Colonel Haiku (a04464)

  99. “with regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I have ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be a wise policy.”

    — That ^^^ is what you need to explain away, Little Nicky.
    Is it really your ‘defense’ of Holder’s actions that despite telling a judge “We need to watch this guy; he might be guilty of something,” he never intended to prosecute Rosen?

    So, your ‘defense’ of Holder is that he didn’t lie to Congress, he just lied to the judge. Wonderful.

    Oh, wait. That’s right, you claimed that he didn’t lie to the judge either, because ‘intent to prosecute’ isn’t required when swearing out a surveillance warrant.

    So . . . Holder is in the clear BECAUSE his only intention was to spy on Rosen, not to prosecute him.

    Well, congratulations! Now we can add the Fourth Amendment to the list of rights guaranteed the people that are going by the wayside.

    Icy (329aee)

  100. Two things. First, George Zimmerman’s wife was charged with perjury for less than this.

    I’d like the people who were outraged that Zimmerman’s wife didn’t volunteer the information about her hubbie’s legal defense fund when the judge asked about their assets when setting bail to defend Holder’s actions.

    Because it’s far more plausible that a non-lawyer could believe that the money in what she was told was a legal defense fund that could only be used for certain purposes weren’t really her assets at a bail hearing than it is to believe the Attorney freakin’ General didn’t know he had heard of a potential prosecution of a reporter when he couldn’t have gotten a secret search warrant for a reporter unless he convinced the judge the reporter could be prosecuted.

    Second, if we apply the “Holder standard” to Holder himself it is perfectly reasonable for Congress to give Holder an anal exam even if there is zero possibility they’d ever attempt to prosecute him. At this point anybody who would suggest Congress should respect Holder and his privacy more than Holder should have respected Rosen’s is simply being a partisan hypocrite.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  101. nick, please tell me why Congress should be less promiscuous about airing theories about why they have probable cause to believe Holder committed a crime than Holder was about Rosen committing a crime.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  102. The larger picture, parts of this have appeared in the Beast and the Times.

    http://rt.com/op-edge/obama-worse-nixon-press-freedom-778/

    narciso (3fec35)

  103. Yes, narcisso, I linked to Goodale’s op-ed in post #173 on the Rosen thread.

    http://patterico.com/2013/05/20/fox-news-reporter-targeted-as-criminal-suspect-by-obama-doj-for-publishing-leaks/#comments

    It was in response to Mahalia Cab’s ridiculous assertion that conservatives were being hypocrites because they “never cared about these 1st Amendment battles till Rosen was named,” as if a President having his DoJ target a reporter as a criminal co-conspirator in a leak investigation has ever been an issue before.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  104. I didn’t know if you had gotten the full version.

    narciso (3fec35)

  105. Holder got away with the FALN and Marc Rich pardons, which Clinton gave him because he’s a tone dead affirmative action hack who could be trusted to do the dirty job the boss wanted. This is no different-no direct orders, winks and nods, you know what to do. Somehow that didn’t preclude him for being chosen and confirmed as USAG. He will get away with this also.

    Bugg (ba4ca9)

  106. A little too obvious, i’d like to see what questions they ask on the record;

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-calderone/whos-attending-holders-off-the-record-meeting_b_3359562.html

    narciso (3fec35)

  107. Just to be clear, if Holder told the truth to Congress and lied to the judge I don’t believe that constitutes perjury. But he should be disbarred and sued for all he’s worth by Rosen.

    Comment by Steve57 (9b1cdb) — 5/29/2013 @ 9:05 pm

    80. Comment by peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 5/29/2013 @ 9:13 pm

    If lying to a judge while swearing that the facts contained in the warrant are true, is not perjury, nothing is Steve. Just like a deposition, or testifying in court, to obtain the warrant you have to raise that ole right hand and swear that the facts contained therein are true.

    But the question is waht kind of a “lie”

    It is perfectly true that it’s a plausible legal opinion to say that a reporter asking a source to find out soemthing the source does not already know, if the thing the reporter wants to know is classified, constitutes espionage, and that this “espionage” could be investigated.

    If lying to a judge while swearing that the facts contained in the warrant are true, is not perjury, nothing is Steve. Just like a deposition, or testifying in court, to obtain the warrant you have to raise that ole right hand and swear that the facts contained therein are true.

    Comment by peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 5/29/2013 @ 9:13 pm

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  108. Oops. peedoffamerican’s comment ends where teh italics end.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  109. 86. But judge shopping for search warrants isn’t illegal – just a problem with the law maybe.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  110. The New York Times reported on the front page Saturday, May 25, 2013
    in an article by Mark Landler and Mark Mazetti that Benjamin J. Rhodes,
    whom it described as a deputy national security adviser, wrote the
    speech that Obama delivered Thursday May 23, 2013 that declared an
    end to the post-9/11 era.

    But in the Monday, May 27, 2013 newspaper, it attributes a lot of the
    work to the White house counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, who also kept the
    news of the IRS scandal from him.

    « The same day [last Thusday, when Sri Srinivan, whom Kathryn Rummler had
    suggested, was confirmed as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the District
    of Columbia] Mr. Obama delivered a long-awaited address that she had helped hone for months, calling for scaling back the global war on terrorism, limiting the use of armed drones and closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. »

    – article by Jackie Calmes on page A10 of the Monday, May 27, 2013 New York Times.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  111. As I read the volokh.com explanation of why Holder did not commit perjury, I found myself more and more convinced that he did in fact commit perjury.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  112. Colonel, that rfff on “The Boxer” may be the most potent one, yet.

    I say you should be promoted to General.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  113. I think I can summarize my differences with Steve57 and others over the talking points and Benghazi:

    (If we had more facts we’d know who was right)

    1> Steve57 thinks the warning that the CIA gave the Cairo embassy about an upcoming demonstration must have focused primarily on the idea the demonstration was about freeing the leader of the original 1993 World Trade Center bombers, Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, and other jihadists.

    I think it must have talked mostly or even exclusively about the video.

    It is true that anyone following things closely enough could have told that al-Qaeda (or proto-Al Qaeda) was going to make a demonstration about freeing important members. But that doesn’t mean that’s what the CIA told the embassy.

    Steve57 is presuming a CIA that is both honest and competent. I, on the other hand, am talking about the CIA that exists in the real world.

    There is every reason to believe that the communication from the CIA focused on the video.

    First, that’s what the Cairo embassy tweeted about, in a pathetic attempt to avoid a problem. Second it was mentioned as a sort of warning in the talking points and this only makes sense if the warning to Cairo was about a video. Third, they mention getting the information from “social media” (i.e. Facebook and Twitter) which I think is not where the calls for the release of Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman were made.

    2> Steve57 thinks the tweets from the Cairo embassy were an effort to mislead the American public. I think that’s ridiculous, and that they were an attempt, in all seriousness, to forestall a demonstration, hoping that Egyptians who knew English would get the word out to those who didn’t.

    3> Steve57 thinks the mention of the warning to the Cairo embassy was put into the talking points as a way of warning the White House they were wrong. I think it was put in as a way of saying they had given the State Department some kind of notice by which they could have anticipated Benghazi.

    4> I think David Petraeus believed this was a clue and he was disappointed that even that “warning” was taken out of the talking points. Steve57 thinks David Petraeus was thinking it undermined the main thesis and when it was gone he didn’t like it.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  114. From the State Department briefing Sept 12, 2012:

    Briefing by Senior Administration Officials to Update Recent Events in Libya Special Briefing Office of the Spokesperson Via Teleconference Washington, DC September 12, 2012

    So let me give you a little bit of the chronology to the best of our knowledge. Again, the times are likely to change as it becomes a little bit more precise, but this is how we’ve been able to reconstruct what we have from yesterday.

    At approximately 4 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time yesterday, which was about 10 p.m. in Libya, the compound where our office is in Benghazi began taking fire from unidentified Libyan extremists. By about 4:15, the attackers gained access to the compound and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire. The Libyan guard force and our mission security personnel responded. At that time, there were three people inside the building: Ambassador Stevens, one of our regional security officers, and Information Management Officer Sean Smith…. etc

    The briefers later get a question: (the demonstration story, by the way, as we can see, is already out there)

    OPERATOR: Josh Rogin with Foreign Policy is next. Please go ahead.

    QUESTION: Thank you very much. First, just one point of clarification. Can you tell us what time in the timeline that Ambassador Stevens was delivered to you at the airport? But the larger question is, you didn’t talk at all about the protests. You started your timeline with that the firing began. Can you talk about the timeline of when the protests started, how that fit in with it, and your sense of whether or not the protestors and the assailants were the same?

    And a question for Senior Administration Official Number Three, I believe, who talked about the mission of the forces there: You said they were there to protect the Embassy. Does that mean that – are you saying clearly that they will not be involved in the search for the perpetrators?

    Thank you.

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: With regard to when we gained possession of Ambassador Stevens’ body, it was extremely late our time. I think it was already dawn in Libya, but I just don’t have a precise time for you, Josh.

    With regard to the protests – I assume you’re not talking about protests in Cairo, are you? You’re talking about protests in Benghazi?

    OPERATOR: He is back in the main conference.

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Okay. We frankly don’t have a full picture of what may have been going on outside of the compound walls before the firing began. So I really just don’t have any specifics on that at the moment. I apologize.

    Let’s take the next one.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  115. Good Allah, man, he was in an Ansar Al Sharia hospital, where he was abandoned, dying, a trade for
    Abu Yahya’s death just monthes earlier, the only people in the crowd, were a smorgasbord of Militias including Khattalah’s Abu Obeida, and a smattering of other elements, including Jashef’s, Tunisian Combatant Groups,

    narciso (3fec35)

  116. 122. Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 5/30/2013 @ 3:32 pm

    Good Allah, man, he was in an Ansar Al Sharia hospital,

    I don’t think they knew that, although stevens would have known if it was an ansar al sharia hospital.

    Good Allah, man, he was in an Ansar Al Sharia hospital, where he was abandoned, dying,

    Was he already dead, or dying? Do we know the truth now?

    The rescue party which was going to gte him was told at one point that the hospital was surroudned by ansar al Sharia.

    There is a video of people taking him out of the building which was apparently not translated honestly.

    I even speculated he had been put back in, after being taken out and interrogated.

    Do we even know now when he died? Is that known, but top secret?

    a trade for Abu Yahya’s death just monthes earlier,

    I don’t believe jihadists do that sort of thing, although they might like people to beleive there is/was no special motive.

    the only people in the crowd, were a smorgasbord of Militias including Khattalah’s Abu Obeida, and a smattering of other elements, including Jashef’s, Tunisian Combatant Groups,

    And really, probably, all the same group, following centralized orders, whatever the names or parts they were split into.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  117. Former National security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor was involved in the AP story. He claims never was any intention originally of going public with the Yemen bomb story!

    (something could be lost from this story – I have this from the Yated Ne’eman of May 24, 2013, in an article taken mostly from the Washington Post)

    “According to the White House National Security spokesman at that time,
    Tommy Vietor, the confrontation between the CIA and AP officials over the story came during a meeting on Monday, May 7. [2012] CIA officials told the AP officials that the national security concerns were “no longer an issue,” but then asked the AP to hold off publication for another day, so that the White House could break the sensitive story itself. The AP refused.

    CIA officials then asked the AP if it would wait for a day in return for a promise that it would get an exclusive on the story for one hour before
    any other news organization. As AP journalists and editors were considering the offer, the White House killed it, and said the most time it could give the AP was just five minutes. AP officials rejected that offer and decided they would publish the story that afternoon to protect their scoop, rather that wait for a White House press conference.

    Defenders of the AP decision to break the story note that the next morning, John Brennan, then Obama’s counterterrorism adviser and now director of the CIA, appeared on a morning network TV news show to boast about how the CIA operation had thwarted an active threat to homeland security.

    Vietor now claims that the White House was not planning a press conference to take credit for the CIA success. He explains that Brennan made the TV appearance to provide the public with details and context that were missing
    from the AP story.”

    Somebody’s lying somewhere. Was somebody in the CIA lying about the press conference? (in order to get out the story?) Is the AP lying? Is Vietor lying? What does Vietor say exactly? Is he confirming the date and time of the CIA/AP meeting, but not anything about what was said there?

    Vietor is also mentioned in an article in the Sunday, May 26, 2013 New York Times: (about the leak inquiries)

    Talking about Obama’s speech:

    « “He makes the case that we have 18-year olds fighting wars and acting like adults, and we have senior adminsitration officials quoted in stories acting like children,” said Tommy Vietor, a former National Security Council spokesman. Mr. Obama and top administration officials say some leaks put Americans at risk, disrupted intelligence operations and strained alliances. »

    – article by Ethan Bronner, Charlie Savage and Scott Shane on page 15
    of the Sunday, May 26, 2013 New York Times, continued from the front page.

    Disrupted alliances? There we have Saudi Arabia. What other country could it be where an alliance could be disrupted by the Yemen story?

    There we have Prince Bandar (then Saudi National Security Adviser, which is even higher ranking than merely head of intelligence, which he
    is now also (?)

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  118. Whisper teh Sounds of Sammy…

    Colonel Haiku (cdd0b7)

  119. Well first, it wasn’t their operation to reveal, it was the UK and the Saudis, I know there are sibling rivalries but Bandar would never do anything to undermine his cousin Nayef, that way,

    narciso (3fec35)

  120. What is common to both stories, Benghazi and the press trawl, is the facts did not satisfy the narrative, that was put forth,

    narciso (3fec35)

  121. “– That ^^^ is what you need to explain away, Little Nicky.”

    There’s no need to explain anything away. You just need to understand what the warrant affidavit says. It’s not required to say they intend to prosecute “Reporter A” and it doesn’t.

    nick (595f9e)

  122. sigh, that was a discouraging exercise, it’s as if the law doesn’t matter, one might as well be yelling
    ‘albatross’ in a Python sketch.

    narciso (3fec35)

  123. nickie, they told a judge they intended to prosecute a reporter to get a search warrant. They told a judge the warrant had to be secret because the reporter would be a flight risk if he became aware of the fact they intended to prosecute him.

    Nobody is a flight risk from “no potential prosecution.”

    Give it up nick. You’re flat wrong and just making yourself look silly.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  124. I’m not sure which is scarier: that nick is technically correct — an AG can show ‘probable cause’ and obtain a warrant to spy on someone he has no intention whatsoever of indicting — OR, that nick has no moral compunction against an AG using and abusing his power in this manner.

    Equally scary, nick seemingly has no problem with the fact that Holder: A) Lied to Congress about his involvement in the spying; and, B) Made the judge that granted the warrant look the fool by publicly admitting that he never intended to prosecute.

    It seems that in nick’s worldview, anything that is (barely) legal is acceptable behavior.

    Oh, and his “Holder didn’t lie to Congress about going after reporters because he was only PRETENDING to go after a reporter” spin is worthy of earning him the post as Hillary’s press secretary.

    Icy (e4801a)

  125. nick may be right that Holder didn’t perjure himself before Congress. But if that’s true Holder did lie to a judge.

    You simply can not in paragraph 45 tell a judge that it would be “futile” to ask the reporter to voluntarily produce the emails the FBI sought because of “the Reporter’s own potential criminal liability in this matter” and pretend you are not telling the judge the reporter faces potential prosecution. It is not a discussion of what the law criminalizes as nick pretends. That comes much earlier in the affidavit when the agent lists his evidence for probable cause. That line above is stating the reporter may be prosecuted.

    You can not tell the judge in section VII REQUEST FOR NON-DISCLOSURE BY PROVIDER that the court has to order Google to not inform Rosen of the existence of the warrant when there is “reason to believe that notification of existence of the warrant will result in” among other possibilities “(2) flight from prosecution” and pretend that Holder was not telling the judge that “the subscriber of the SUBJECT ACCOUNT,” Rosen, faced potential prosecution.

    Fine, maybe nick is right and Holder didn’t perjure himself before Congress when he said he never intended to prosecute Rosen. But he can’t pretend Holder didn’t lie to the judge. He told the judge that Rosen had to be kept in the dark about the existence of the warrant because there was reason to believe that might result in “flight from prosecution.”

    nick can’t spin that.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  126. I disagree, Steve57. I’m not saying that Holder didn’t lie to a judge, but I think he’s gonna get away with it. In my opinion, the charge of lying to Congress has greater potential to damage him.

    Icy (e4801a)

  127. Well, nick might try to spin that. So let’s nip that in the bud. I can see a clever lawyer trying to spin that as “they told the judge not to tell Rosen of the warrant because through him Kim might have found out about the investigation fled prosecution.” But the the problem with that is throughout the affidavit the DoJ identified both Kim and Rosen as subjects of the investigation. They identified both as potential criminals and facing possible prosecution. You can not identify Rosen as a co-conspirator, use phrases like “their guilt or innocence” and “subjects might flee” and pretend the affidavit is secretly only referring to Kim some of the time when it lumps Rosen in with him but not at other times. It is referring to both of them all of the time. And the FBI agent said very clearly what the two subjects of the investigation would be fleeing from.

    Prosecution.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  128. 39. Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 5/29/2013 @ 12:42 pm

    .‘Words just words’

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/29/report-six-days-after-obama-announced-new-policy-limiting-drone-strikes-u-s-kills-pakistani-taliban-number-two-in-drone-strike/

    The limitations don’t apply to the Pakistan/Afghanistan theater so long as U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/world/asia/drone-strike-hits-near-pakistani-afghan-border.html?pagewanted=all

    But in the days since the president’s speech, American officials have asserted behind the scenes that the new standards would not apply to the C.I.A. drone program in Pakistan as long as American troops remained next door in Afghanistan — a reference to Mr. Obama’s exception for an “Afghan war theater.” For months to come, any drone strikes in Pakistan — the country that has been hit by the vast majority of them, with more than 350 such attacks by some estimates — will be exempt from the new rules.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  129. Icy, we are going to be treated to an AG who is already under criminal and civil contempt of Congress taking the fifth when questioned about his potential perjury before Congress.

    Because his only defense against perjury before Congress is that he lied to a judge. Where I see Holder having screwed himself isn’t in telling the judge that he had probable cause to believe Rosen had committed a crime under the Espionage Act of 1917. There might be wiggle room there to claim that could be true while also claiming Holder truthfully told Congress no reporters including Rosen ever faced potential prosecution.

    He screwed himself when he told the judge why the warrant had to be secret. He told the judge that the “subjects,” plural, “might flee.” There were two subjects named in the affidavit. Kim and Rosen. So he told the judge that both Kim and Rosen were flight risks. And he told the judge that if they fled, they would be fleeing prosecution.

    I haven’t seen what documents Holder personally signed, so I don’t know if he attested to anything under the penalty of perjury. But he clearly lied to the judge. The English language simple can’t be twisted far enough to claim otherwise.

    So now Congress gets to ask Holder when he was lying. Was he lying when he requested the warrant, or was he lying when he testified before Congress. And Holder will undoubtedly plead the fifth.

    And then the real fun begins. First, Obama can claim to be outraged all he wants but when he keeps people on the payroll after they plead the fifth and clearly have lied to at least on other co-equal branch of government he clearly isn’t outraged at all. In fact he no longer can claim these weren’t policies he personally approved of. Clearly not just Holder at DoJ, but Lerner and others at IRS, the harassment of his enemies (his word) by other agencies, etc., were all doing his bidding. Indeed the people at the IRS who were getting large performance bonuses while they were persecuting his enemies could not have received those bonuses if they were engaging in activities that could have potentially embarrassed the President. That’s why the President has to personally sign off on bonuses over $25k. The people at Treasury approved those bonuses while knowing of the investigation into their activities. And the President signed off on them.

    Therefore the President did not consider those activities embarrassing. He can’t pretend to be outraged now; those were his policies.

    Second I can hardly wait for the judge in the contempt of Congress case against confirmed liar Holder to get a hold of the guy. Really, is there any reason for a judge to believe word one from Holder’s DoJ when they attempt to argue Congress can’t get the documents they’ve subpoenaed because of the executive branch’s claim of executive privilege? The judge will have seen Holder take the fifth to avoid incriminating himself when asked about perjury.

    Whether or not Holder would be damaged more by perjuring himself before Congress or lying to a judge isn’t the main issue to me. The main issue to me are 1) political accountability at these rogue agencies and 2) sufficiently crippling Obama to destroy his second term agenda.

    Under Obama, executive departments and agencies have willfully refused to comply with Congress while Congress has attempted to exercise its oversight authority. One may be excused for having a low opinion of members of Congress. But not of holding the Constitution in contempt. Which is what Obama’s executive branch has done and continues to do when it defies Congress.

    Obama’s policies have been a disaster across the board. His plans are just as bad if not worse. He needs to be stopped. And the horrible consequences need to be exposed. And I’m talking about more than just the current scandals igniting in DC.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  130. 36. Comment by Colonel Haiku (6b7e88) — 5/29/2013 @ 12:36 pm

    dang it Sammy!
    knew al sharpton was involved
    and resist we much

    Al Sharpton was very close to the Clinton Administration, and the Clinton Adminsitration was very worried about what was in the girgente Report to the Governor on the Disturbances in Crown Heights, which was being kept completely under wraps by New York’s Governor Mario Cuomo until its release on Tuesday, July 20, 1993.

    It actually wasn’t so bad for some people active in politics in New York, but nobody in the White House knew.

    That’s probably why Vincent Foster (I suspect) read my e-mail, because it started out about Crown Heights, and then it terrified him that everything was going to come out.

    I think Foster had given instructions that anything that mentioned Crown Heights was to be prionted out and given to him.

    I mentioned Janet Reno’s coverup of the murder of Don Aronow and segued into Waco and said reporters knew more than what they wrote, and that if Sessions was fired as FBI Director reporters would be released from their pledges of confidentiality and I said to read that day’s (July 19) Wall Street journal editorial for proof.

    I even explained what Sessions might say – how he was kept from the scene at Waco and his water cannon plan was rejected in favor of tear gas – and the the news came that Sessions had called a press conference for, I think, Thursday. Foster did not realize that a lot had been in TIME and Newsweek.

    That’s when I think he rushed out and ran to the Saudi Arabian Ambassador and attempted to blackmail him into given him one of those briefcases he kept around him filled with money
    (to pay for a lawyer) forgetting about diplomatic immunity.

    Anyway, back to Al Sharpton.

    When the Rev Al Sharpton showed up at the Justice Department on Wednesday, July 21, 1993, and was ushered inside, in contrast to the Jewish
    demonstrators who were there asking for Janet Reno to initiate a civil rights prosecution of Lemrick Nelson, who had been acquitted of
    the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum, he called for a re-investigation of the car accident.

    I think this was actually to get people’s back up
    about investigating that accident, because I think indeed it needed to be investigated.

    It was caused by the other car that ran a red
    light and crashed into the car driven by Yosef Lifsch.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  131. If you wanted to have an accident caused by a Jewish driver, at apre-pallned date and time, the only way you could be sure that there would be a Jewish driver at the scene would be to have this happen in the procession to and from the cemetery that the Lubavicher Rebbe did every Monday night, like clockwork.

    How could somebody do this? There were people who practiced insurance fraud, causing accidents. They would crash cars into innocent uninvolved other cars.

    If one of those people was invoolved this could be planned. If you really studied accidents, you could probably get any result you wanted,
    the way an expert pool player can make all kinds of shots.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  132. There’s a good article up at Powerline today:

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/eric-holders-pattern-of-giving-false-testimony.php

    Eric Holder’s pattern of giving false testimony

    When President Obama nominated Eric Holder for Attorney General, the Republican establishment was not displeased. As I wrote at the time, “most members of that establishment feel more comfortable with their fellow Washington insider than they do with taking their chances on an Obama nominee to be named later.”

    …Then, there was the matter of Rod Blagojevich, the crooked former governor of Illinois. Here, there is no doubt that Holder gave inaccurate testimony. Holder testified that he performed no substantive legal work for Blagojevich and that a contemplated representation of the governor by Holder’s law firm “never materialized.”

    But in fact, Holder signed a letter dated April 2, 2004 in which he requested that the Chairman of the Illinois Gaming Board provide him with nine categories of documents in furtherance of an investigation Holder was performing on the governor’s behalf. The letter begins: “As you know, Governor Blagojevich has appointed me to investigate issues relating to gaming in the Village of Rosemont, Illinois.”

    Holder’s request for production constituted “substantive work” for “Blago” on the “Gaming” investigation. Indeed, substantive work would have been required just to formulate a targeted request with the level of specificity that Holder’s letter set forth.

    …Holder’s false testimony about the “Blago” representation is, in some important respects, a precursor of his false testimony about the James Rosen matter. In both instances, Holder’s statements to Congress cannot be reconciled with legal documents that Holder signed.

    There’s more information about Holder’s false testimony at the link.

    I wonder what the statute of limitations is on perjuring yourself before Congress? Because it certainly doesn’t look like this is the first occasion.

    Paul Miregoff mentions the Marc Rich pardon. There is no way that the name “Marc Rich” was unfamiliar to Holder, as he claimed during his confirmation hearings, since he headed the team suing a Swiss subsidiary of Marc Rich’s business empire precisely because of its connection to Marc Rich. Andrew McCarthy did great work exposing this lie before Holder’s confirmation hearings were complete.

    As Mirengoff points out, the only way Holder can claim not to have known Marc Rich’s criminal history is if he deliberately avoided reading the documents in his own suit against Rich.

    The Blago testimony is even more damning. He couldn’t have avoided knowing his own actions, although that again is consistent theme among political appointees in this administration. Mirroring the antics of the guy at the top of the compost pile in the WH.

    I don’t know which carries greater weight in perjury cases, but it seems to me the legal documents should trump the verbal testimony. Especially when the document couldn’t exist if the later testimony was true, as is the case in Holder’s Blago testimony. I see no reason why Congress, or any court, should believe what Holder said when it contradicts what he wrote as part of the official record in a proceeding in a court of law.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  133. Comment by Steve57 (9b1cdb) — 5/31/2013 @ 11:28 am

    I wonder what the statute of limitations is on perjuring yourself before Congress?

    Probably the standard 7 years (or is it ten?) But porobably this wouldn’t be pursued if it was already the next Congress.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  134. I think someone by the name of Shawn S Turner added the biot about the notification to the Cairo Embassy to the talking points

    http://i40.tinypic.com/20z1e8o.jpg (this picture shows the word Cairo being added, but i think this is the original author)

    Someone had a question: Who’s “we” ?

    http://i43.tinypic.com/34gldmd.jpg

    But I can’t make out or udnerstand what positioon the person who wrote who’s we occupies.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  135. Sammy, your list of what you think I think is way off base. I do not assume the CIA is “both honest and competent.” If I did I wouldn’t have repeatedly said on comment threads on this blog I think the CIA is worthless, the whole thing needs to be bulldozed, and we need to start over.

    I wouldn’t have approvingly quoted an article that said “If pesky Fox News persists in asking questions, then the third line of defense is to give the nod to the CIA to leak a diversionary story to favored news outlets and reporters” if I didn’t think the CIA was dishonest enough to do it.

    http://patterico.com/2012/11/05/l-a-times-takes-cia-and-pentagon-spin-on-benghazi-as-gospel/

    In fact I have repeatedly said that the reason the CIA put in the line referencing their 10 September cable warning of the jihadist threats to the Cairo embassy is because they could see where the WH wanted to go with their cover story. And the CIA was letting everyone know the lie wouldn’t work because they had told too many people otherwise. Hence the specific mention of jihadist threats, and the only specific mention of any particular report although there clearly would have been other warnings they could have referred to.

    The CIA is perfectly willing to lie on behalf of this administration. They were just worried the lie wouldn’t work because of their prior warning cable.

    Your analysis goes downhill from there.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  136. To be clear, the CIA didn’t know on 10 September 2012 what lies they’d need to come up with to cover the administration’s a** on 12 September 2012. That’s the problem the CIA is alerting all the other “equities” to when it inserted that line about a specific cable.

    That is the only reason they had to refer to a warning about the Cairo embassy in a set of talking points about Benghazi.

    Some components of the CIA are more honest and competent and competent than the rest. But not the institution as a whole. And neither the whole or its constituent parts are prescient enough to know today what lies they may have to come up with the day after tomorrow.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  137. Getting back to Holder’s lies, Ed Morrissey has a good post up at HotAir:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/30/krauthammer-holders-rosen-ruse-damning/

    Charles Krauthammer played devil’s advocate on Fox News’ Special Report last night, using the latest defense of Eric Holder from Department of Justice apologists that Holder never really intended to prosecute James Rosen and so didn’t lie to Congress. …That argument essentially claims that Holder signed off on a false representation to three federal courts, a “damning” defense (via NRO):

    “Their defense is, ‘It was a ruse. We didn’t really want to prosecute him,’” Krauthammer explained, “which is probably true, because it’s never been successfully done.”

    “They did it as a ruse in order to put Rosen in a separate category,” he said, ”because if you are a co-conspirator . . . then it allows you to do all kinds of things to his e-mail, to his communication — personal and professional — that you can’t if he’s a journalist.”

    The Justice Department’s argument — that it knew Rosen was not a criminal, but pretended like he was for its convenience — is, says Krauthammer, “damning.”

    This is why it’s called a perjury trap. The only difference in this case is that Holder sprung it on himself. Officers of the court — and the Attorney General certainly falls into that category — cannot deliberately make false representations on material matters either in court or in submissions to a court and remain attorneys for very long. It’s entirely possible that Holder could face prosecution for both statements.

    Not while Obama is President he won’t. But then Obama won’t be President forever.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  138. 143. Comment by Steve57 (9b1cdb) — 5/31/2013 @ 12:52 pm

    To be clear, the CIA didn’t know on 10 September 2012 what lies they’d need to come up with to cover the administration’s a** on 12 September 2012. That’s the problem the CIA is alerting all the other “equities” to when it inserted that line about a specific cable.

    It may have been someone in the White House’s
    Office of the Director of National Intelligence who inserted that reference to a cable. It’s not clear.

    I found this: http://i40.tinypic.com/20z1e8o.jpg

    Now that’s the re-editing of that line to add the word “Cairo”

    CNN says Shawn S. turner is a spokesman for the White House Office of the diurector of National Intelligence:

    Page 29-30 (6:41 p.m.; 6:43 p.m.): Office of the Director of National Intelligence proposes an edit: “I’ve been very careful not to say we issued a warning,” wrote Shawn S. Turner (a spokesman).

    I found a page by CNN that let’s you search the emails, but it doesn’t look like it has been scanned into text well:

    http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/05/politics/white-house-benghazi-emails/index.html

    proposes an edit: “I’ve been very careful not to say we issued a warning,” wrote Shawn S. Turner

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  139. Somebody writes “Who do you mean by we?” This could be somebody from the State Department. CNN is of no help.

    http://i43.tinypic.com/34gldmd.jpg

    [Taped over and replaced by some undecipherable inmitials] in coordination with CTD, we have soem concerns:

    1. The accuracy of the sentence of the first bullet

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  140. which states “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.” And – who is the “we” that is referenced?

    2. We recommend editing the last sentence in the second bullet to “That being said, there are indications that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

    I will be free to discuss in about 20 minutes if necessary.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  141. I don’t know what the second line said right before that proiposed edit.

    Was “attacks” changed to “violent demonstrations” or “ties to al Qa’ida” eliminated?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  142. Now “we” would seem to be the CIA, but maybe that’s misleading.

    Anyway, somebody had a question or two about that statement going:

    “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.”

    Was it true? And who is supposed to have written the cable to the Cairo embassy about an upcoming demonstration?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  143. 145. 143. Comment by Steve57 (9b1cdb) — 5/31/2013 @ 12:52 pm

    To be clear, the CIA didn’t know on 10 September 2012 what lies they’d need to come up with to cover the administration’s a** on 12 September 2012. That’s the problem the CIA is alerting all the other “equities” to when it inserted that line about a specific cable.

    It may have been someone in the White House’s
    Office of the Director of National Intelligence who inserted that reference to a cable. It’s not clear…

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/31/2013 @ 2:09 pm

    What part of the Sept. 15th 2:27pm email from Petraeus that leads off with “No mention of the cable to Cairo, either? Frankly, I would just as soon not use this, then…” leaves you unclear as to which entity inserted that line?

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  144. Now this line was later edited by Shawn Turner at 6:41 PM to say Cairo Embassy.

    http://i40.tinypic.com/20z1e8o.jpg

    Shawn S Turner works for the Director of National Intelligence. It’s not clear that Shawn S. Turner composed the line in the first place.

    The e-mail questioning the accuracy of that statement was sent at 7:51 PM, although it quoted only the first version, without the word “Cairo”

    Could it be that the cable to the Cairo Embassy was sent by James R. Clapper’s outfit??

    http://www.dni.gov/index.php

    This would multiply the possibility it only, or mostly, mentioned the video.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  145. Comment by Steve57 (9b1cdb) — 5/31/2013 @ 2:33 pm

    What part of the Sept. 15th 2:27pm email from Petraeus that leads off with “No mention of the cable to Cairo, either? Frankly, I would just as soon not use this, then…” leaves you unclear as to which entity inserted that line?

    Petraeus was brought in late. He may have been mistaken in thinking the cable was sent by the CIA. Nodboy there was telling him uch of anything.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  146. petraeus knew that all those “warnings” about conditions in benghazi had been removed, but was surprised to find out taht the Sept 10 cable was gone too.

    As I said, mention of that only makes sense if the notification to the embassy in Cairo menmtioned the video.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  147. Sammy, the DCIA is never unclear about what reporting his own agency has produced.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  148. The DCIA is especially never unclear about what reporting his own agency has produced when responding to requests from the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  149. “Well, nick might try to spin that. So let’s nip that in the bud. I can see a clever lawyer trying to spin that as “they told the judge not to tell Rosen of the warrant because through him Kim might have found out about the investigation fled prosecution.””

    They also don’t know who else the reporter (who is not named) got information from.

    “I’m not sure which is scarier: that nick is technically correct — an AG can show ‘probable cause’ and obtain a warrant to spy on someone he has no intention whatsoever of indicting — OR, that nick has no moral compunction against an AG using and abusing his power in this manner.”

    Under the 4th amendment they could get a warrant to search someone who they were convinced was completely innocent, so long as they have probable cause to believe the search is for evidence of a crime (say, by someone else).

    Narciso linked to volokh. Do spend some time there reading Kerr’s post too. That’s the guy who used to be the contact point for these sorts of warrants.

    nick (7e5f23)

  150. “so long as they have probable cause to believe the search is for evidence of a crime (say, by someone else).”

    I mean, so long as there is probable cause to believe the search will yield evidence of a crime.

    nick (7e5f23)

  151. It’s not the ethics of spying on someone you do not intend to indict, without his knowledge, in order to get the goods on somebody else that’s at question. That’s done all the time. The question is whether Holder is talking out both sides of his mouth and whether that amounts to perjury.

    nk (875f57)

  152. Yes, they could have gotten a warrant, nick. They could have gotten a warrant to search Rosen’s email account if they only suspected Kim of committing a crime. But they couldn’t have gotten a secret warrant for Rosen’s email without naming Rosen a co-conspirator and labeling him a flight risk.

    Flight from what? Prosecution, as they told the judge.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  153. who is this “nodboy”?
    what does sammy have on him?
    and resist we uch

    Colonel Haiku (39f32e)

  154. Since I did bring up the e-word, ok, say Holder did tell the truth to Congress. Where does that leave him with perjury to, and fraud on, the Court?

    nk (875f57)

  155. Actually they didn’t say he was a “flight from prosecution.” They said “Targets of this investigation may further mask their identity and activity, flee, or otherwise obstruct this investigation.” They describe the risk to the investigation, not prosecution.

    The “flight from prosecution” quote is from the portion of the affidavit reciting the law.

    You know, these things are written carefully, by sharp guys like the ones over at Volokh. The problem is that that careful writing only counts if it is also read carefully. And it seems people don’t really care to do that.

    “It’s not the ethics of spying on someone you do not intend to indict, without his knowledge, in order to get the goods on somebody else that’s at question.”

    Icy seemed to raise that point, so I just wanted to put it to rest that whether he finds it distasteful or not, it’s perfectly fine legally.

    nick (7e5f23)

  156. Lest we forget, this administration has other scandals that need to be aired in public.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/31/us-to-blame-for-jailing-hero-bin-laden-doctor-says-pakistani-report/#ixzz2Utfx2VMk

    I agree with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) who observes you can’t entirely trust a self-serving Pakistani report that places the entire blame for Dr. Afridi’s conviction and imprisonment on the Obama administration.

    But I observed at the time that the Obama administration’s public high-fiving over the Abottabad raid fingered the doctor in ways that were impossible to ignore.

    Also the families of the members of DEVGRU who were killed in Afghanistan along with Army aircrew following the raid are going public with the fact that the administration’s football-spiking not only got their loved ones killed but put their relatives (i.e. themselves) in danger.

    No one in the know ever publicly admitted there was such a thing as SEAL Team 6. Officially they didn’t exist. Then Obama blew their cover to publicly preen for reelection. And now they’re dead as a result.

    Just one quote from the article, because former SecDef Robert Gates reportedly said something I finally and wholeheartedly agree with:

    The U.S. intelligence community was alarmed at the Obama administration’s loose-lipped attitude toward the raid, according to New York Times reporter David Sanger’s book “Confront and Conceal,” which claimed leaks prompted then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to angrily confront Obama’s National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon.

    “I have a new strategic communications approach to recommend,” Gates is quoted as telling Donilon. “Shut the f@*k up!”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/31/us-to-blame-for-jailing-hero-bin-laden-doctor-says-pakistani-report/#ixzz2UvPJt3SH

    This administration has a lot of American blood on its hands.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  157. “Where does that leave him with perjury to, and fraud on, the Court?”

    (1) The affidavit doesn’t say lie about the plans for the reporter, nor Kim. And (2), there’s also the wee little technicality that Holder didn’t sign what was submitted to the court. It’s not his submission to the court. But I’m sure it won’t be long before someone finds a way around quibble.

    nick (7e5f23)

  158. I don’t know, nick. Clinton thought he was the cunningest of linguists but when either Congress or judges feel they had a fraud perpetrated on them they don’t ask what the meaning of “is” is. But you are making a valiant effort.

    nk (875f57)

  159. nick, “A” for effort. You’ve stretched the English language beyond the breaking point, and are now wrapping another rubber band around it. It’s not the least bit credible, but it shows passion.

    Do I need to point out your appeals to authority (the sharp guys at Volokh) are logical fallacies?

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  160. It’s not required to say they intend to prosecute “Reporter A” and it doesn’t.

    It is cute how nickie runs around with the goalposts, instead of addressing the clear and simply statements made to the Court, and to Congress.

    JD (b63a52)

  161. “Clinton thought he was the cunningest of linguists but when either Congress or judges feel they had a fraud perpetrated on them they don’t ask what the meaning of “is” is”

    A fraud is based on what one says, true, but like I said, it wouldn’t be long before someone brushed aside the inconvenient fact that Holder didn’t sign or submit that affidavit to the court.

    “Do I need to point out your appeals to authority (the sharp guys at Volokh) are logical fallacies?”

    That’s fine, you don’t have to believe them because they are authority. Just that I think they’re convincing arguments and know what these things look like, and know why affidavit says what it says, and try to explain all these things, rather than rely on authoritative statements. Now, these things might not matter to you, but then again I think you’ve made pretty clear that there’s a lot that falls in that category.

    nick (7e5f23)

  162. A fraud is based on what one says, true, but like I said, it wouldn’t be long before someone brushed aside the inconvenient fact that Holder didn’t sign or submit that affidavit to the court.

    I have no problem with following the links of the chain of command. That’s also called conspiracy, you know. Who told you to do it this way? Let’s see what the affiants and ADAs say.

    nk (875f57)

  163. “Who told you to do it this way? ”

    Probably whoever told them how to comply with the Privacy Protection Act, if they didn’t already know it.

    nick (7e5f23)

  164. So now you’re adding ad hominem to your repertoire of logical fallacies?

    A fraud is based on what one says, true, but like I said, it wouldn’t be long before someone brushed aside the inconvenient fact that Holder didn’t sign or submit that affidavit to the court.

    For someone accusing others of not being careful readers, you may want to scroll up to where I said I don’t know what documents Holder signed in the Rosen case, whether he did so under penalty of perjury, and whether what Holder did in this instance constitutes perjury. So I’m hardly brushing aside any facts.

    But you’re brushing aside a big fact. No one forced the DoJ to get a secret warrant. Two previous judges were willing to issue a search warrant, but they told the DoJ they had to inform Rosen and his news organizations of the warrant.

    So it matters not if they were only citing the law when mentioning “flight from prosecution.” They only referenced that law to keep Google from telling Rosen of the search warrant. This wasn’t necessary on their part merely to get a search warrant. So it’s laughable to suggest that the DoJ wasn’t trying to convince a judge to issue a secret warrant because Rosen might be subject to prosecution.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  165. “with regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I have ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be a wise policy.”

    This is an outright fabrication, unless he did not participate in the rigorous review of the Court filings that he claims to have participated in. And pursuing thru 3 judges and incredible efforts to keep their investigation secret due to Rosen’s potential flight risk from prosecution and potential criminal liability, a clause they had to pursue to to keep their assault on the first amendment secret.

    JD (b63a52)

  166. Ok, what’s his name? Rhetorical to you. Real to them.

    nk (875f57)

  167. It is extraordinary how incredibly mendoucheous nickie/imdw/etal is every damn time.

    JD (b63a52)

  168. Is he, there are a few over at that Volokh site, who are like him, notably Arthur Kirkland.

    narciso (3fec35)

  169. JD if you knew nick is iamdimwit and you didn’t tell me sooner, you can make it up to me by deleting all my comments to him.

    nk (875f57)

  170. It is, narciso. No doubt.

    JD (b63a52)

  171. “For someone accusing others of not being careful readers, you may want to scroll up to where I said…”

    Oh did I write that in reply to you? I must not have been reading carefully.

    “And pursuing thru 3 judges ”

    Contemporary conservatism has managed to make a scandal out of the DOJ appealing an incorrect magistrate decision. You really can’t beat this. Also I can’t point you to where volokh explains this, because that is a fallacious appeal to authority.

    nick (7e5f23)

  172. I suspected, but didn’t know.

    JD (b63a52)

  173. It did feel like ‘argument clinic’, although the premise in that piece, seems to defy understanding

    narciso (3fec35)

  174. It also gives lie to Holder’s claim to Congress that he wouldn’t participate in, or ever heard of, and would not be wise policy. His own DOJ attempted 3 times to keep their assault on the 1st Amendment secret even after the fact. And imdw approves.

    JD (b63a52)

  175. “This wasn’t necessary on their part merely to get a search warrant.”

    The secrecy was necessary for their investigation, as they explained in the sentence I provided. And as thus they appealed the incorrect decisions and got an correct one. Like you’d expect people to do when they get incorrect decisions that threaten their investigations.

    nick (7e5f23)

  176. That’s fine, you don’t have to believe them because they are authority. Just that I think they’re convincing arguments and know what these things look like, and know why affidavit says what it says, and try to explain all these things, rather than rely on authoritative statements. Now, these things might not matter to you, but then again I think you’ve made pretty clear that there’s a lot that falls in that category.

    By the way, a couple of course corrections.

    1) They are not “authority.” They may be authorities, but they’re not the only ones. A great many other authorities are on the other side of this. Which is why “appeal to authority” is a logical fallacy. One can go authority shopping just as the DoJ went judge shopping in the Rosen case.

    2) They apparently don’t know what the affidavit says and why because they’re basing their speculation on the reporting about the affidavit. The author of the blog post comes out and says that himself.

    Please, carry on.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  177. I’m glad to see you’re carrying on, nick.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  178. “2) They apparently don’t know what the affidavit says and why because they’re basing their speculation on the reporting about the affidavit.”

    Orin knows what the affidavit says.

    nick (7e5f23)

  179. What raised the hackles of an friend of mine, who is a Columbia trained attorney, was the inclusion of ‘the bombings’ and flight risks, in the affidavit.

    narciso (3fec35)

  180. Nick/nickc/imdw/nickie – care to refresh our memories as to all of the various names you have used here?

    JD (b63a52)

  181. Arguing with iamadinglewart is noncupatory. I thought he had been banned here, anyway. Oh well, at least the bagpipers stopped tuning up in the parking lot of the restaurant down the street and went inside for the reception.

    nk (875f57)

  182. 168. That’s fine, you don’t have to believe them because they are authority. Just that I think they’re convincing arguments and know what these things look like, and know why affidavit says what it says, and try to explain all these things, rather than rely on authoritative statements. Now, these things might not matter to you, but then again I think you’ve made pretty clear that there’s a lot that falls in that category.

    Comment by nick (7e5f23) — 5/31/2013 @ 7:00 pm

    “Them” and “they” being Orin Kerr.

    185. Orin knows what the affidavit says.

    Comment by nick (7e5f23) — 5/31/2013 @ 7:27 pm

    And to think nick thinks I’m not a careful reader. Tsk, tsk.

    Then there’s this.

    You know, these things are written carefully, by sharp guys like the ones over at Volokh. The problem is that that careful writing only counts if it is also read carefully. And it seems people don’t really care to do that.

    Well, that doesn’t include Kerr. There’s nothing in his C.V. to indicate he ever worked at DoJ. So what sharp guys are you talking about? It’s almost like you have experience drafting affidavits to fool gullible judges to believe you’re talking about one set of people when you’ve secretly got in mind another set of people. In order to convince judges to issue secret search warrants against people you have no intention of prosecuting.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  183. Whoops. My mistake. Further research proves Kerr did work at DoJ.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  184. That’s why I’m surprised he doesn’t realize this strategem, was designed to get around the PPA.

    narciso (3fec35)

  185. “Whoops. My mistake. Further research proves Kerr did work at DoJ.”

    In fact, he was in charge of reviewing email search warrants for compliance with the Privacy Protection Act. What sharp guys am I talking about indeed?

    nick (aa0e66)

  186. narciso @191, as if that makes it better. “Sure, that’s what Holder had to tell the judge because of this damned law designed to prevent the gub’mint from doing what it did.”

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  187. nick, it doesn’t change the fact that when challenged about “sharp guys” you retreat to “sharp guy.”

    And as I’ve pointed out Orrin Kerr isn’t the only authority on perjury.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  188. ‘shouldn’t have taken that last turn at Albuquerque

    narciso (3fec35)

  189. Imdw does not even know its own tells.

    JD (b63a52)

  190. Yep, I’m sure there was probable cause to monitor the phone of James Rosen’s parents in order to nail Kim for revealing the big ‘secret’ (who knew?) that the Norks were planning additional nuclear weapons tests.

    Icy (e4801a)

  191. The same tests that they had publicly announced — or we’re just about to publicly announce — they were planning to conduct.

    Icy (e4801a)

  192. “were”

    [see you in hell, Jobs!]

    Icy (e4801a)

  193. Now the story is the information wasn’t even classified, so Rosen’s story about it wasn’t even news. I see.

    “Yep, I’m sure there was probable cause to monitor the phone of James Rosen’s parents in order to nail Kim for revealing the big ‘secret’ (who knew?) that the Norks were planning additional nuclear weapons tests.”

    To get phone records you don’t need probable cause. The requirement there is even lower.

    “Sure, that’s what Holder had to tell the judge because of this damned law designed to prevent the gub’mint from doing what it did.”

    The law doesn’t prevent it all. It just says when it can and how it has to happen. And the affidavit follows it.

    nick (aa0e66)

  194. Apparently, I Masticate Donkey Weiners is of the opinion that if its legal then it MUST be morally acceptable.

    Icy (e4801a)

  195. Yes nick. The affidavit used boilerplate language to convince the judge of something that wasn’t true. Exactly the language the DoJ had to use to evade the law.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  196. You know this full spectrum surveillance, is a little like ‘Enemy of the State’

    narciso (3fec35)

  197. it’s also a lot like a totalitarian state for example nazi germany

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  198. What’s the old line, ‘they told me if I voted for Romney,’ reporters and their parents would be surveyed by the DOJ,

    narciso (3fec35)

  199. After a hard day, I’m safe at home
    Foolin’ with my baby on the telephone
    Out of nowhere somebody cuts in and
    Says, “Hmm, you in some trouble boy, we know where you’ve been!”

    Icy (e4801a)

  200. SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge has ruled that Google Inc. must comply with the FBI’s warrantless demands for customer data, rejecting the company’s argument that the government’s practice of issuing so-called national security letters to telecommunication companies, Internet service providers, banks and others was unconstitutional and unnecessary.
    In a ruling written May 20 and obtained Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston* ordered Google to comply with the FBI’s demands.

    — Yeppers! None of us are numbers; we’re all free men.

    [*she was appointed by (all together now!) Bill Clinton.]

    Icy (e4801a)

  201. fascist whore

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  202. oops that was supposed to be a bubble thought not an out loud thought

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  203. I better improve my Google profile, then. Search for … Hot Federal Lesbians in Heat

    nk (875f57)

  204. Err not quite Icy. Read the whole thing. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57587003-38/judge-orders-google-to-comply-with-fbis-secret-nsl-demands/ Holder took lessons from CNet when it comes to doubletalk.

    nk (875f57)

  205. Are you referring to this part?

    These aren’t the first cases to tackle whether NSLs, including gag orders, are constitutional or not. In a 2008 ruling, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a mixed decision.
    A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit took an odd approach: the judges agreed that the “challenged statutes do not comply with the First Amendment” but went on to rewrite the statute on their own to make it more constitutional.

    — Yeah, that makes it better.

    Icy (e73d78)

  206. but went on to rewrite the statute on their own to make it more constitutional.

    Yep, that’s the ticket. Judges re-write an unconstitutional to make it more constitutional by violating the Constitution themselves. I seem to remember that the document they are using doesn’t say what they think it says. According to it Congress is the only branch of government that has the power to legislate.

    peedoffamerican (127915)

  207. No, more that this judge has turned down NSLs and her decision against the government is being reviewed by the Ninth Circuit; and also that this was not a loss for Google, just not a slam dunk, the judge denied a motion for summary dismissal but without prejudice, Google gets a second chance to file a stronger motion, and even then it’s a long way to trial on the merits. CNet is being Chicken Little, and this judge don’t sound like a fascist, she might even like triple chocolate cinammon lattes.

    nk (875f57)

  208. well, um… google is fascist too so maybe it cancels out

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  209. And “rewrite the statute” is just yanking the libertarian chain. What judges are supposed to do is to enforce a statute in a way that is constitutional by refusing to enforce any unconstitutional parts, if possible, without striking down the entire statute if it can be avoided.

    nk (875f57)

  210. The other thread is inactive, so this might fit;

    http://tiny.cc/3f20xw

    narciso (3fec35)

  211. Fun factoid.

    nick insists that anyone who didn’t understand that merely because the DoJ was accusing Rosen of committing a crime and of being a flight risk from prosecution wasn’t reading the affidavit carefully. Because the DoJ never said it actually intended to prosecute Rosen.

    You know, these things are written carefully, by sharp guys like the ones over at Volokh. The problem is that that careful writing only counts if it is also read carefully. And it seems people don’t really care to do that.

    Yet the jurists who read it carefully and didn’t approve the warrant because of the unlikelihood of prosecution ruled wrongly.

    If a court rules wrongly and you go to the supreme court and get it overturned, and you want to call that “judge shopping” well, then, there’s a big market out there for judges, because there’s a lot of people petitioning the supreme court for review.

    It is only the court that didn’t read the warrant application carefully and concluded as Holder intended to mislead it that Rosen was a criminal subject to prosecution and even a flight risk from prosecution that ruled correctly.

    This is nick’s world.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  212. If you read the affidavit carefully enough to determine the subterfuge of Holder’s DoJ in nick’s world you will rule incorrectly. Like the courts that ruled the DoJ couldn’t have a secret warrant because they weren’t buying what Holder was selling.

    It’s only if it’s your own damn fault, judge or Congressman, that you didn’t pay sufficient attention to the deception will you rule correctly.

    Thus sayeth the book of nick.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  213. It’s just been a game of yelling squirrel’

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/bipartisan_tango_and_lawless_justice.html

    narciso (3fec35)

  214. Apparently any judge that doesn’t fall for the “Look, squirrel!” gag will rule incorrectly.

    Only the judges that fall for “Squirrel!” rule correctly.

    Every instance of judge shopping involves seeking out the judge stupid enough to rule “correctly.”

    But the bottom line is the PPA was written to prevent exactly what the DoJ did in the Rosen case. So the Holder’s DoJ wrote the warrant application to mislead the courts to believe this fell into one of the exemptions of the PPA when it did not.

    You know, these things are written carefully, by sharp guys like the ones over at Volokh. The problem is that that careful writing only counts if it is also read carefully. And it seems people don’t really care to do that.

    Two courts read it carefully enough to see through the Holder’s deception. One didn’t. I fail to see how anyone can claim that the court that didn’t ruled “correctly.”

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  215. “It is only the court that didn’t read the warrant application carefully and concluded as Holder intended to mislead it that Rosen was a criminal subject to prosecution and even a flight risk from prosecution that ruled correctly.”

    Look up the law yourself if you’re in doubt.

    nick (9c9354)

  216. I’m mot in doubt. The PPA was intended to overrule the Zurcher v. Stanford Daily decision, and now the DoJ knows exactly what allegations they know aren’t true to include in a warrant application to evade the restrictions of the PPA.

    It’s not complicated.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  217. Here’s a hint, the error that was appealed was not a PPA issue.

    nick (9c9354)

  218. The level of scrutiny was remarkable, if they hadn’t hidden the details of the warrant, some one rightly might have asked why the big deal.

    narciso (3fec35)

  219. Ok, nick, I’ll bite. On what point of law that the Holder’s DoJ fail to mislead the previous courts on did the Holder’s DoJ successfully mislead upon to get its secret warrant?

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  220. 227. The level of scrutiny was remarkable, if they hadn’t hidden the details of the warrant, some one rightly might have asked why the big deal.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 6/2/2013 @ 3:16 pm

    Apparently two courts saw through the deception and asked exactly that. They told the feds they could have their warrant, but not a secret warrant. Which nick concludes led them to rule “incorrectly.”

    He says the warrant application needs to be read carefully. It was when it was denied.

    His follow-on defense of the court that issued the warrant is a variation of the Animal House defense.

    “You f***ed up. You trusted us.”

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  221. “Ok, nick, I’ll bite. On what point of law that the Holder’s DoJ fail to mislead the previous courts on did the Holder’s DoJ successfully mislead upon to get its secret warrant?”

    Mislead? It’s right there plain as day that there’s no notice obligation for email warrants under 2703.

    nick (9c9354)

  222. Yes, got it, nick. First they had to convince a judge that Rosen wouldn’t voluntarily comply with a request for the emails because he faced possible prosecution as a co-conspirator. Then after getting the warrant under false pretenses they argued they didn’t have to notify the target of the warrant under the Stored Communications Act.

    Your point again?

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  223. There are a few basic questions you haven’t answered, nick.

    But let’s start with the most basic. What possible criminal liability does an individual face for a crime when the government says it will not prosecute that individual for that crime?

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  224. “First they had to convince a judge that Rosen wouldn’t voluntarily comply with a request for the emails because he faced possible prosecution as a co-conspirator. Then after getting the warrant under false pretenses they argued they didn’t have to notify the target of the warrant under the Stored Communications Act.”

    So you do or don’t see that notice isn’t required, and that the appeal was correct? I can’t tell because you keep repeating your nonsense but just added some new points.

    “What possible criminal liability does an individual face for a crime when the government says it will not prosecute that individual for that crime?”

    Going back to that again? Let’s put it this way. You can get a speeding ticket for going a mile over the limit. And a cop can say “you can get a speeding ticket for going a mile over the limit” right after they say “I’d never give anyone a ticket for going less than 10″ and you understand this cop is not lying.

    nick (9c9354)

  225. Cutting through your BS, I will take your refusal to answer the question as “none.” An individual can’t have any criminal liability for a crime for which the government says the individual can’t be prosecuted.

    Therefore, Holder was lying to the judge.

    Thanks for playing.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  226. Going back to that again? Let’s put it this way…

    No, nick, let’s not put it another way.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  227. Well it’s of a piece with the Fast and furious memos Holder didn’t see, the released Gitmo detainees like Al Ajmi, who blew themselves up.

    narciso (3fec35)

  228. “An individual can’t have any criminal liability for a crime for which the government says the individual can’t be prosecuted.”

    Just because an official says they won’t prosecute you (after the fact) doesn’t mean that at the time someone can still have a fear of prosecution, and act accordingly. If you read the warrant, that’s what they’re getting at.

    This was explained over at the volokh blog. You read that right? And you also now figured out that this conflict you imagine is not what the appeal was about. So in fact all the judges didn’t have a problem with this part.

    nick (9c9354)

  229. Imdw does not even shelf it’s dishonesty on Sundays.

    JD (b63a52)

  230. narciso @237, let’s not forget the Marc Rich pardon of which the lead DoJ prosecutor in the suit against Marc Rich’s Swiss subsidiary that illegally claimed none of its principals were barred from bidding on federal contracts, Eric Holder, claimed to be unfamiliar with the name Marc Rich after suing the subsidiary precisely because Marc Rich was barred from winning federal contracts due to his criminal history.

    Then of course there was the case of the Black Panthers in Philly. Holder said the decision to drop the case after it was already won was made by career DoJ civil rights attorneys. When in fact the career attorneys were overruled by Obama’s political appointees.

    Perhaps nick can weigh in on this; will the new statutory restrictions on Eric Holder’s authority to spy on the press that he now insists Congress must write be restrictive enough to prevent Eric Holder from abusing Eric Holder’s authority to spy on the press than were the older statutory restrictions to spy on the press that Eric Holder ignored?

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  231. I suspect there will be OUTRAGE that the AG makes court filings that comply with legal requirements and appeals decisions that don’t.

    nick (9c9354)

  232. nick @238, defending the indefensible:

    Just because an official says they won’t prosecute you (after the fact) doesn’t mean that at the time someone can still have a fear of prosecution, and act accordingly. If you read the warrant, that’s what they’re getting at.

    Well, nickie, according to the DoJ Holder had been in extensive conversations about the Rosen search warrant before the fact he approved it.

    Which renders this testimony before Congress perjury:

    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.

    Your feeble “after the fact” defense reveals the lie.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  233. Well, nickie, according to the DoJ Holder had been in extensive conversations about the Rosen search warrant before the fact he approved it.

    I meant to say he personally approved pursuing it through the courts.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  234. “Well, nickie, according to the DoJ Holder had been in extensive conversations about the Rosen search warrant before the fact he approved it.”

    Right but Holder made his statement on the Hill recently, and not back then to Rosen. So Rosen wouldn’t know about what Holder said in his testimony. And even if he did, there’s always the possibility that another AG would exercise their discretion differently. And so for those 2 reasons he might still act as someone who faced potential criminal liability.

    nick (9c9354)

  235. Let me fix your comment at #241, nickie.

    I suspect there will be OUTRAGE that the AG makes court filings that comply with legal requirements and appeals decisions that don’t.

    Comment by nick (9c9354) — 6/2/2013 @ 5:58 pm

    That should read:

    I suspect there will be OUTRAGE that the AG makes false statements in court filings that make their warrant applications appear to comply with legal requirements and appeals decisions that recognize said filings don’t.

    And you’d be right!

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  236. I had forgotten that whopper, Steve,

    narciso (3fec35)

  237. “Clinton thought he was the cunningest of linguists

    Hmm, nice play on words.

    I know the following is getting OT, but one reason why sleazebags like Eric Holder are given greater latitude by more of the public (IOW, imagine what current public sentiment and the mood of the MSM would be like if the Attorney General were a staunch Republican?) is because conservatives are perceived as being boring old party poopers. But since the left is increasingly making “good health(!)” sort of a new quasi-religion, they better start respecting the anti-Monica-Lewinsky-and-Bill crowd a bit more.

    guardian.co.uk: Michael Douglas, the star of Basic Instinct and Fatal Attraction, has revealed that his throat cancer was apparently caused by performing oral sex… Asked whether he now regretted his years of smoking and drinking, usually thought to be the cause of the disease, Douglas replied: “No. Because without wanting to get too specific, this particular cancer is caused by HPV [human papillomavirus], which actually comes about from cunnilingus.”

    HPV, the sexually transmitted virus best known as a cause of cervical and anal cancer and genital warts, is thought to be responsible for an increasing proportion of oral cancers. Some suggest that changes in sexual behaviour – a rise in oral sex in particular – are responsible.

    Mahesh Kumar, a consultant head and neck surgeon in London, confirmed that the last decade has seen a dramatic rise in this form of cancer, particularly among younger sufferers. Recent studies of 1,316 patients with oral cancer found that 57% of them were HPV-16 positive.

    Mark (aa8ab9)

  238. “and appeals decisions that recognize said filings don’t.”

    Oh Steve you disappoint. I held out hope that you at least recognized that the appeal issue wasn’t
    about this ‘potential criminal liability’ nonsense. But it seems that even after I told you it was plain as day from 2703, and you figured out the name of the law, you still don’t see it.

    So how can I make clear to you that this was not the issue that led to the appeal? Does telling you that volokh explains it work? Will you read that?

    nick (9c9354)

  239. 244. Right but Holder made his statement on the Hill recently, and not back then to Rosen. So Rosen wouldn’t know about what Holder said in his testimony. And even if he did, there’s always the possibility that another AG would exercise their discretion differently. And so for those 2 reasons he might still act as someone who faced potential criminal liability.

    Comment by nick (9c9354) — 6/2/2013 @ 6:08 pm

    Exactly. Ergo, Holder had been involved in discussions about the potential prosecution of a reporter for violating the Espionage Act of 1917.

    See? That wasn’t hard to admit, was it?

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  240. Really, nickie, how can you claim Holder wasn’t involved in discussions about the potential prosecution of a reporter for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 while acknowledging that Holder’s successor could have prosecuted Rosen after Holder named him an aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator?

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  241. Steve – iamadimwit is constitutionally incapable of honesty.

    JD (b63a52)

  242. Does telling you that volokh explains it work?

    No. It doesn’t work. The Irish in me compels me to tell you, quit changing the f****king subject.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  243. “Really, nickie, how can you claim Holder wasn’t involved in discussions about the potential prosecution of a reporter for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 while acknowledging that Holder’s successor could have prosecuted Rosen after Holder named him an aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator?”

    Because whether there is probable cause to believe someone is a conspirator is different than whether you’re going to charge them. As has been explained.

    nick (9c9354)

  244. 244. Right but Holder made his statement on the Hill recently, and not back then to Rosen. So Rosen wouldn’t know about what Holder said in his testimony. And even if he did, there’s always the possibility that another AG would exercise their discretion differently. And so for those 2 reasons he might still act as someone who faced potential criminal liability.

    This is absolute gibberish. He claimed to have never been involved in or even heard of doing something that he was in fact previously involved in. Nick/imdw/etal are simply too mendoucheous to admit what is abundantly clear, using the common ordinary meanings of words.

    JD (b63a52)

  245. Is there really a distinction between a Democratic office holder, a so called journalist, or a troll;

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/302945-schumer-believes-holders-going-to-stay

    narciso (3fec35)

  246. “No. It doesn’t work. The Irish in me compels me to tell you, quit changing the f****king subject.”

    Maybe if you read the appeal? And what’s the matter, you’re the one that imagines the appeal was about your misunderstanding of the ‘potential criminal liability’ line. How is that changing the subject? I told you what the appeal was about, you figured out the name of the law. But, alas.

    Maybe explain this, what leads you to believe the appeal was about this ‘potential criminal liability’ nonsense?

    nick (9c9354)

  247. Nickie aka imdw luvs to play “look something shiny” and SQUIRREL

    JD (b63a52)

  248. The concepts are pretty simple, nick. You claim Holder was truthful when he said he was never involved in a discussion about the potential prosecution of a reporter for violating the Espionage Act of 1917. Yet part of your defense is (at comment @244):

    there’s always the possibility that another AG would exercise their discretion differently. And so for those 2 reasons he might still act as someone who faced potential criminal liability.

    Oh, wow! There was a potential prosecution involved in in that discussion. You say so yourself.

    Loosie! You’ve got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do!

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  249. JD, am I correct in concluding that nick has sufficiently discredited himself so that he doesn’t have a leg to stand on?

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  250. “There was a potential prosecution involved in in that discussion. You say so yourself.”

    So your entire point is that when Holder declines to use his discretion, he has necessarily considered prosecuting?

    I really can’t argue with logic this powerful.

    nick (9c9354)

  251. Nick you just had your ass kicked. You hung yourself with your own words. But SURPRISE, like the average LIBTARD, you don’t have the balls, the brains or the honesty to skulk away after being destroyed. What do you do instead. You pretend the ass-kicking never happened. Sad pathetic libtard.

    Gus (694db4)

  252. No, nick, you can’t. You’ve been demonstrating that you can’t over the course of the last couple of days.

    And now you’re going to claim that Rosen faced no potential criminal prosecution because Holder was the AG? Despite what the law says, and given the fact that Holder expressed a desire to step down. Yet you’d have us believe that Rosen wasn’t ever in danger of being prosecuted because of Holder’s word. Are you completely nuts?

    Wait one. You’ve already answered the question.

    The answer to the question, “Just how rabid do you have to be to buy the BS the Obama administration is selling” is contained in one word. “nick.”

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  253. “Nick you just had your ass kicked. You hung yourself with your own words. ”

    I think I see another flaw. Maybe if you spent more time reading the filings and the law, and less time focusing on what I say, you wouldn’t still think the appeal was about that criminal liability nonsense. But then again, I’ve asked you to do just that, but those words haven’t hung me, have they?

    nick (9c9354)

  254. “And now you’re going to claim that Rosen faced no potential criminal prosecution because Holder was the AG”

    Isn’t that what the whole brouhaha is about? Holder not prosecuting reporters? Potential liability as used in that warrant was about how Rosen would see the facts fit with the law. Prosecution is about what the DOJ decides to do. Two separate things.

    nick (9c9354)

  255. I think I see another flaw. Maybe if you spent more time reading the filings and the law, and less time focusing on what I say, you wouldn’t still think the appeal was about that criminal liability nonsense.

    So you admit what you say is absolutely stupid. And you constantly want to rephrase and refocus things. I believe we’ve already had this exchange.

    And the answer remains the same. “No. Let’s not.”

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  256. “And now you’re going to claim that Rosen faced no potential criminal prosecution because Holder was the AG”

    Isn’t that what the whole brouhaha is about?

    No, nickie, it’s not.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  257. I admit it hasn’t convinced you. But neither has you reading the law, nor you reading the appeals, nor you reading what people who used to do this for a living have explained. So I guess I have failed, where others have also tread before.

    nick (9c9354)

  258. nickie, your record of failure is duly acknowledged. Your excuses for failure are not.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  259. Isn’t that what the whole brouhaha is about? Holder not prosecuting reporters?

    Nope. Not even close, imdw.

    Steve – yes, imdw has looooooooooong since discredited himself.

    JD (b63a52)

  260. This tire has been running on flat so long that it’s pretty much totally deflated itself and is going flob flob flob on the pavement.

    elissa (7e0bc5)

  261. Because without wanting to get too specific, …
    Comment by Mark (aa8ab9) — 6/2/2013 @ 6:11 pm

    I think he already did;
    but it is a bit of interesting information I had not heard, though not at all surprising when one thinks of the biology.

    I guess I grew up in a time when people were not so eager to make their STD’s known to the public, if only for your spouse’s sake.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  262. From an editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal:

    Holder’s Odd Defense Justice now says its affidavit against a Fox News reporter wasn’t true. REVIEW & OUTLOOK June 2, 2013, 5:32 p.m. ET

    Prosecutorial dishonesty is more common than it used to be, but Justice officials don’t usually cop to it as a way of defending an Attorney General.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  263. 272. Correction: I could not cut and paste at the time, as the article disappeared, so I copied it over from the newspaper and made an error. The quote should be:

    Prosecutorial dishonesty is more common than it should be, but Justice officials don’t usually cop to it as a way of defending an Attorney General.

    Here’s a fuller excerpt:

    ….Yet now, amid a media uproar, Mr. Holder’s spinners are saying Justice never intended to prosecute Mr. Rosen. But if that’s true, then the Department’s warrant affidavit contained false claims about Mr. Rosen. Prosecutorial dishonesty is more common than it should be, but Justice officials don’t usually cop to it as a way of defending an Attorney General. Should judges assume that the “probable cause” and “co-conspirator” claims in Justice’s next warrant request are also a ruse?

    The other odd assertion is that President Obama and Mr. Holder now suddenly want to revise the Justice Department’s guidelines on dealing with journalists. But the current guidelines already require prosecutors to investigate journalists only as a last resort, inform the media organization of the request to see if a compromise can be worked out, and then narrowly tailor any request in order to limit damage to the First Amendment. (See the excerpt nearby.)

    That’s in Notable and Quotable on the next page:

    Already policy:

    (b) All reasonable attempts should be made to obtain information from alternative sources before considering issuing a subpoena to a member of the news media, and similarly all reasonable alternative investigative steps should be taken before considering issuing a subpoena for telephone toll records of any member of the news media.

    (c) Negotiations with the media shall be pursued in all cases in which a subpoena to a member of the news media is contemplated. These negotiations should attempt to accommodate the interests of the trial or grand jury with the interests of the media. Where the nature of the investigation permits, the government should make clear what its needs are in a particular case as well as its willingness to respond to particular problems of the media.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  264. ….Yet now, amid a media uproar, Mr. Holder’s spinners are saying Justice never intended to prosecute Mr. Rosen. But if that’s true, then the Department’s warrant affidavit contained false claims about Mr. Rosen. Prosecutorial dishonesty is more common than it should be, but Justice officials don’t usually cop to it as a way of defending an Attorney General. Should judges assume that the “probable cause” and “co-conspirator” claims in Justice’s next warrant request are also a ruse?

    nick argues there’s nothing wrong with this. If someone falls for the prosecutorial dishonesty it’s their own damned fault for not reading the DoJ’s affidavits carefully enough. And if a judge sees through the prosecutorial dishonesty the judge has therefore ruled “incorrectly.”

    I realize it’s perfectly legal for a cop to lie to a suspect. Apparently now it’s legal for a federal prosecutor to lie to a judge. At least that’s nick’s read on the law. I also realize that the “sharp guys” at The Volokh Conspiracy have come out on one side of the equation. But on the other hand other “sharp guys,” ethical prosecutors, have come out on the other side of the equation. They’ve said that given the language contained in the documents supporting the Rosen search warrant application the DoJ was most certainly vouching to the judge that Rosen faced potential prosecution if they could prove their allegations.

    Even if ultimately Holder’s lie didn’t meet the legal definition of perjury the default position of any Congress or Court before which the DoJ attests something to be true has to be that it’s lying and it’s up to that body to detect the lie.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  265. The United States Department of Justice (Solicitor general) probably routinely lies in its appellate briefs (as to motives) They’re used to it.

    The trouble is they’ve never been held to account as to the truth or falsity of assertions in briefs when they speak of motives. (which are not usually hard facts)

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  266. steve Hannity said something in a promo about whether Holder could last out the week. I’m not sure what could force him to resign.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  267. Steve Hannity does a good show. I love when he fills in for his vacationing brother, Sean.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  268. Oops. This comes maybe from typing too fast. I’m not even choosing the right words.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  269. Take your time, Sammy.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.3716 secs.