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.
If it is really that clear, where are the charges?
"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.
Holder recused himself before the DOJ seized AP phone records.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.
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
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
Holder recused himself before the DOJ seized AP phone records.
Holder recused himself before the DOJ seized AP phone records.
He have to be a hack's hack to vote no in this poll.
.
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" ?
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.
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?
Did Attorney General Eric Holder perjure himself before a Congressional Panel?
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.
Believe what???
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.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