• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did Attorney General Eric Holder perjure himself before a Congressional Panel?

Did Attorney General Eric Holder perjured himself before a Congressional Panel?


  • Total voters
    16

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yes
No
I Don't Know
 
Yes
No
I Don't Know

He have to be a hack's hack to vote no in this poll.

He specifically stated he was never involved in the subpoena of news media phone records but we now know that to be false.
 
He have to be a hack's hack to vote no in this poll.

He specifically stated he was never involved in the subpoena of news media phone records but we now know that to be false.

If it is really that clear, where are the charges?
 
If it is really that clear, where are the charges?

Is it possible for a Democrat to do something you won't shamelessly defend?

I would love to hear which part of my statement you dispute but to answer your question:

"It is fair to say we're investigating the conflict in his remarks, those remarks were made under oath, but we also think it's very important that the attorney general be afforded the opportunity to respond, so we will wait to pass judgment on that until we receive his response," the Republican congressman from Virginia said on "Fox News Sunday."

Holder was sent a letter Wednesday asking for him to respond. He has until this Wednesday to do so.

Attorney General Eric Holder could be investigated for perjury
 
He have to be a hack's hack to vote no in this poll.

He specifically stated he was never involved in the subpoena of news media phone records but we now know that to be false.
Holder recused himself before the DOJ seized AP phone records.
 
Is it possible for a Democrat to do something you won't shamelessly defend?

I would love to hear which part of my statement you dispute but to answer your question:

Attorney General Eric Holder could be investigated for perjury

Hey! If you've been on this board any length of time, which you haven't, and if you've interacted with me with any semblance of regulatory, which you haven't, you would know I'm a Republican. Jesus.

You want people to answer with anything other than partisan hackery??

Then quote the question and the answer he gave.

Without that, no one can answer the question.
 
The perjury issue is over the FOX News phone records.
Yeah, he was involved with that but not the AP records. Rosen was described as a "co-conspirator."
 
Holder recused himself before the DOJ seized AP phone records.

This has nothing to do with the AP, it's about shopping for a federal judge which the current administration has a long track record of doing to obtain a search warrant to obtain the e-mails and phone records of a Fox News reporter.

The current administration also has established a long track record of going after Fox News along with the State of Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the United States Marine Corps, the NRA, the Tea Party movement and who knows who else is on "Obama's enemy list" ?
 
This has nothing to do with the AP, it's about shopping for a federal judge which the current administration has a long track record of doing to obtain a search warrant to obtain the e-mails and phone records of a Fox News reporter.

The current administration also has established a long track record of going after Fox News along with the State of Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the United States Marine Corps, the NRA, the Tea Party movement and who knows who else is on "Obama's enemy list" ?

Affidavit for search warrant - The Washington Post

He accused of soliciting information.
 

And your point is ?

How many judges did they (DOJ) have to go through before they found a judge that would sign off on the warrant ?

What evidence was there that a crime was committed by the Fox News reporter? Has the DOJ filed criminal charges against the Fox News reporter ? It seems not because the Fox News reporter didn't commit any crime as the DOJ accused the reporter of to obtain a search warrant.

The perjury charges against Eric Holder was that Holder swore under oath in front of Congress that he had no knowledge of the search warrant when it was discovered that Holder signed off on obtaining the search warrant. Eric Holder lied and committed perjury. Who's going to send Holder to prison ?

Fox News or the AP didn't comit any crime, the crime that was committed was that someone with in the Obama White House and possibly Hillary Clinton's State Department released classified information to the media for Obama's own political gain to help him get reelected.

As one high ranking member of the intelligence community said last week, he thinks the leaks came from high up in the Obama White House. Why not look there ? It seems like a no brainer.
 
He have to be a hack's hack to vote no in this poll.

He specifically stated he was never involved in the subpoena of news media phone records but we now know that to be false.

To be fair, my recollection is that Holder testified that he has never been involved in an attempt to have a journalist charged under the espionage statutes, not that he wasn't involved in the subpoena.

The issue of perjury relates to that statement and the supporting documents that Holder signed to the court in order to get the Rosen warrant that stated that Rosen was suspected of being a party to an attempt to illegally leak classified information. Holder is now in the position of having either lied to congress or having submitted false representations to the court that granted him the Rosen subpoena - he can't have it both ways.
 
As one high ranking member of the intelligence community said last week, he thinks the leaks came from high up in the Obama White House. Why not look there ? It seems like a no brainer.

Who said that?
 
Who said that?

It was a former intelligence advisor for the Obama White House. He was on one of the Sunday talking heads programs two Sunday's ago. The Drudge Report had a link to the story last week.
 
Did Attorney General Eric Holder perjure himself before a Congressional Panel?

Which appearance?
 
To be fair, my recollection is that Holder testified that he has never been involved in an attempt to have a journalist charged under the espionage statutes, not that he wasn't involved in the subpoena.

The issue of perjury relates to that statement and the supporting documents that Holder signed to the court in order to get the Rosen warrant that stated that Rosen was suspected of being a party to an attempt to illegally leak classified information. Holder is now in the position of having either lied to congress or having submitted false representations to the court that granted him the Rosen subpoena - he can't have it both ways.

Here is what Holder said:

The panel is looking at a statement Holder made during a back-and-forth with Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) about whether the DOJ could prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act of 1917, an aide close to the matter told The Hill.

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

However, NBC News reported the following week that Holder personally approved a search warrant that labeled Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen a co-conspirator in a national security leaks case.​


Read more: House Judiciary investigating whether Attorney General Holder lied under oath - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

He didn't go after Rosen for disclosure of material, he went after him for requesting it. So, what Holder said before the panel wasn't inconsistent to what he did with Rosen.
 
Here is what Holder said:

The panel is looking at a statement Holder made during a back-and-forth with Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) about whether the DOJ could prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act of 1917, an aide close to the matter told The Hill.

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

However, NBC News reported the following week that Holder personally approved a search warrant that labeled Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen a co-conspirator in a national security leaks case.​


Read more: House Judiciary investigating whether Attorney General Holder lied under oath - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

He didn't go after Rosen for disclosure of material, he went after him for requesting it. So, what Holder said before the panel wasn't inconsistent to what he did with Rosen.

If you believe that, you're probably still curious about what the "definition of is, is".
 
Believe what???

You said - "He didn't go after Rosen for disclosure of material, he went after him for requesting it. So, what Holder said before the panel wasn't inconsistent to what he did with Rosen."

If you believe that Holder was being truthful with congress as well as being truthful with the court that granted the warrant he sought against Rosen, then, as I said, you're probably still curious about what the "definition of is, is".

Do you believe that if you called up the CIA and asked them for some information, a court would grant the Attorney General a warrant for access to all your phone records?

But then, you probably also think that Obama's is the most honest and transparent administration in the history of America.
 
You said - "He didn't go after Rosen for disclosure of material, he went after him for requesting it. So, what Holder said before the panel wasn't inconsistent to what he did with Rosen."

If you believe that Holder was being truthful with congress as well as being truthful with the court that granted the warrant he sought against Rosen, then, as I said, you're probably still curious about what the "definition of is, is".

Do you believe that if you called up the CIA and asked them for some information, a court would grant the Attorney General a warrant for access to all your phone records?

But then, you probably also think that Obama's is the most honest and transparent administration in the history of America.
The key point you seem to be missing, is that Rosen solicited the information, not that he disclosed it. Holder believes in the freedom of the press.

Affidavit for search warrant - The Washington Post
 
The key point you seem to be missing, is that Rosen solicited the information, not that he disclosed it. Holder believes in the freedom of the press.

Affidavit for search warrant - The Washington Post

Go ahead, tell us why a reporter would solicit information if not to disclose it?

If Rosen was only interested in receiving the information, not sharing it, why would all his home and office, private and business phone records be gathered?

If Holder claimed under the application for a warrant that Rosen was a co-conspirator, what do you think that means? If it means he is suspected of aiding in the disclosure of classified information, isn't that the same, under America law, as having committed the crime yourself? If you and your partner rob a bank and your partner kills someone, aren't you also charged with murder?

I appreciate the political hackery here, but I have a higher opinion of your intelligence than to assume you're falling for the spiel your trying to sell.
 
Maybe we should appoint Scotland Yard to investigate this because clearly we can expect to many partisan theatrics from Americans.
 
Back
Top Bottom