Eric Holder Might Have a Perjury Problem

Holder is in hot water it seems.

He said one thing and somebody exposed a possible lie !!

Holder is a snake oil salesman from way back.

Maybe he needs a dose of his own medicine

Last week, and while under oath, Attorney General Eric Holder testified before a House committee that when it comes to "try[ing] to prosecute the press for the publication of material" he has "never been involved in, heard of" such a thing. Watch below at the five-minute mark:

Thursday, however, we learned that it was Holder who signed off on the application for a warrant to gain access to the private emails and phone records of Fox News reporter James Rosen. In doing so, Holder labeled Rosen a co-conspirator to obtain classified material under the Espionage Act of 1917.

Out of one side of his mouth, and while under oath, Holder says he has never heard of anyone trying to prosecute the press for publishing material. Out of the other side of his mouth, Holder is accusing reporters of espionage on applications for subpoenas.

Eric Holder Might Have a Perjury Problem

1. Trying to gain classified material.
2. Publishing classified material.

1. is an offense under the Espionage Act.
2. is not.

Eric Holder went after this person for trying to obtain classified materials, not for publishing them. There isn't a lie.

Am I saying Holder didn't do anything wrong? No. I am merely suggesting that what you are claiming is perjury simply isn't.

If only they could of gotten him on F&F.
Stick a fork in him!

Originally posted by xuenchen

Out of one side of his mouth, and while under oath, Holder says he has never heard of anyone trying to prosecute the press for publishing material. Out of the other side of his mouth, Holder is accusing reporters of espionage on applications for subpoenas.

"Prosecute" would be an indictment...not "investigate" which is a warrant.

"publishing Material" is different than "co-conspirator" in espionage, which is about "obtaining" classified material.

What the FBI did was investigate a reporter for "co-conspirator/espionage" aka "leaking" calssified material.
Not "prosecute" aka Indict the reporter for "publishing" that same leaked material.

I think folks should burn for the "co-conspirator" tag they used to obtain the warrant, but that was not about "prosecution" for "publishing"...that was about investigating (warrant) for "leaking"...not publishing that leaked material.

If you are going to "charge" "perjury"...a specific illegal activity, then you need to play within "legal" bounds and Holder did not perjur himself with what he said.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


I think the main point is that Holder said he didn't know anything.

He apparently lied to Congress (again).

Why didn't he just say he knew of an ongoing investigation at the time that may be sensitive or even classified ?

All he had to do was not lie openly.

But this is how old con men work.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Said it more concisely than myself

Originally posted by grey580
If only they could of gotten him on F&F.
Stick a fork in him!

Yes.

and how ironic it was that Holder had views in 1995...

He talked about "brainwashing" people about guns of all things !

"Eric Holder 1995 We Must Brainwash People"

Forgive my ignorance, but does the Espionage Act make the AP scandal legal, or was it a violation of privacy?

This clip confused me. I feel it was wrong, but I want to be sure.

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

I think the main point is that Holder said he didn't know anything.

About "of anyone trying to prosecute the press for publishing material." which is accurate.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
1. Trying to gain classified material.
2. Publishing classified material.

1. is an offense under the Espionage Act.
2. is not.

Eric Holder went after this person for trying to obtain classified materials, not for publishing them. There isn't a lie.

reply to post by Indigo5


So maybe you are suggesting that one thing had nothing to do with the other ?

That's possible I suppose.

Maybe Holder was confused by the question.

Maybe Holder had already put the accusations in the back of his mind, and went on with the diversion tactics.

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So maybe you are suggesting that one thing had nothing to do with the other ?

That's possible I suppose.

Maybe Holder was confused by the question.

Maybe Holder had already put the accusations in the back of his mind, and went on with the diversion tactics.

It is not illegal to be under the influence of alcohol on Sunday in Minnesota, however it is illegal to purchase alcohol on Sunday in Minnesota.

The equivalent would be Eric Holder investigating whether or not someone bought alcohol on Sunday and someone accusing him of investigating whether or not they were drunk. He says, "I have no idea if they went after anyone because they were drunk, I was going after them for the sale of alcohol on Sunday."

Does this help illustrate the point further?

Ok, my phone caught up.

Now I understand the Espionage Act a little better.

So one more question, and I'll quit picking ATS's brains (for now) is there or ever was there a scandal?

It seems to me they played by the books wrong or not.

Originally posted by terriblyvexed
Ok, my phone caught up.

Now I understand the Espionage Act a little better.

So one more question, and I'll quit picking ATS's brains (for now) is there or ever was there a scandal?

It seems to me they played by the books wrong or not.

The warrants seem to be legal, the only scandal comes when someone proves Eric Holder reached further than his warrant specified, which hasn't happened.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Dang that answer made me a liar.

One more question.

If he had the right to tap the phone in order to find the leak, then what would constitute going beyond what's legal?

Was there threats or something I haven't heard about? Because I'm only aware of the phone taping.

Seems I had two questions.

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So maybe you are suggesting that one thing had nothing to do with the other ?

They are related to eachother, but not the same. Prosecuting the media for publsihing classified material IS NOT the same as investigating that reporter for conspiring to obtain classified material.

Leaking Illegal
Publishing not

He answered the question accurately and precisely...he is a lawyer.

the claim of perjury makes no sense...And I can say that while disagreeing with the way the Rosen warrant was obtained and hoping someone burns for it.

Just pointing out the factual and obvious in the "perjury" bit...it does not hold water unless you squint and stop thinking.

reply to post by Indigo5


It remains to be seen whether Holder will be held responsible, he has perjured himself,
seemingly.

First, the affidavit (paragraph 45) asserts that DOJ exhausted all means available to get the material from Rosen’s e-mails and phone, and “because of [Rosen's] own potential criminal liability in this matter,” asking for the documents voluntarily would compromise the integrity of the investigation. Moreover, the affidavit asserts that the “targets” of the investigation (including Rosen) were a risk to “mask their identity and activity, flee or otherwise obstruct this investigation.” It is highly questionable whether Holder believed any of that to be true. (Really, he imagined a Fox News reporter would flee the country? He thought Rosen would don a disguise?) Was the affidavit a sort of ruse to get Rosen’s records (or later to pressure his cooperation)? Did Holder intentionally mislead a judge when he signed off on the affidavit?

www.washingtonpost.com...

In any case, judgeing by what Holder says he does not know, (which is everything!)
he may be caught in a snare.

In five years, the Obama administration has prosecuted more leakers under the Espionage Act than all other administrations combined, and virtually all these prosecutions have engulfed journalists one way or another.”

www.washingtonpost.com...

Originally posted by terriblyvexed
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Dang that answer made me a liar.

One more question.

If he had the right to tap the phone in order to find the leak, then what would constitute going beyond what's legal?

Was there threats or something I haven't heard about? Because I'm only aware of the phone taping.

Seems I had two questions.

Any activity not clearly specified in a warrant is an illegal search, in a perfect Pre-Patriot Act world. With the new powers afforded the government because of the Patriot Act, the line gets blurrier and blurrier.

I don't actually know what he might have done that is illegal, all I know is that the evidence presented in this thread isn't grounds for perjury.

One "might" say that Holder has a problem. One "might" also say that Breitbart has come up with yet another piece that is formed on mere speculation. The Kernel leans toward the latter. Unfortunately there are many fools that will listen to anything when blinded by partisan politics.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by terriblyvexed
Ok, my phone caught up.

Now I understand the Espionage Act a little better.

So one more question, and I'll quit picking ATS's brains (for now) is there or ever was there a scandal?

It seems to me they played by the books wrong or not.

The warrants seem to be legal, the only scandal comes when someone proves Eric Holder reached further than his warrant specified, which hasn't happened.

Were the parents of James Rosen on the subpoena? Their phone records were also obtained.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Ok, now I'm clear the Patriot Act is something I'm familiar with, and if they can evoke that unconstitutional garbage into this, then there is no more reason for AP scandal threads.

Like it or not the PA makes crap legal.