Holder Calls James Rosen Investigation 'Appropriate'
Thursday, 20 Jun 2013 12:35 PM
Referring to the DOJ investigation of Fox News reporter James Rosen for leaks related to North Korea, Holder said no charges were brought against the journalist and the probe was "appropriate."
"I do not agree that characterizations establishing probable cause for a search warrant for materials from a member of the news media during an ongoing investigation constitute an intent to prosecute that member of the news media," he wrote in the June 19 letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican.
"I do believe that a thorough investigation of the disclosure of classified information that threatened national security was necessary and appropriate," he continued.
Goodlatte and the panel's crime subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, originally wrote to Holder on May 29 asking for clarification of discrepancies between his testimony and an affidavit in support of the search warrant saying there is "probable cause" to believe Rosen was a co-conspirator in the leaks.
But until Wednesday, the committee had not received an on-the-record response from Holder. A letter from one of his deputies was "nonresponsive," the committee said.
Goodlatte and Sensenbrenner later issued a statement on Holder's response, saying that while they were "pleased" Holder had written, "it is perplexing that he found it necessary to dodge our questions for so long."
They also said they found several of his answers "troubling, including his acknowledgement that the Department of Justice regulations do not explicitly cover the procedures for gathering emails belonging to members of the media and the department's interpretation of the Privacy Protection Act of 1980."
"We intend to discuss both of these matters with Mr. Holder when he comes to Capitol Hill in the coming days to meet with us," they added.
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/holder-rosen-investigation-appropriate/2013/06/20/id/510995?s=al&promo_code=13E61-1#ixzz2WnFZfSNT
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
What lie? There are only two quotes from Holder in this article, and neither is a factual claim. He is stating legal opinions. You can disagree with his opinions, but don't call them lies.
ReplyDeleteAlso, these people deliberately misstate what the FBI affidavit says. It does not say Rosen was a "co-conspirator." It says POSSIBLE "aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator." If I say "X,Y, and/or Z", than doesn't mean "Z". Am I the only person who took the trouble to download and read the affidavit? Apparently so.
--David
Using "possible" was the only reason that a judge would give them the warrant. However, "possible" is an adjective effecting the noun "co-conspirator." which means that when you look at the noun, it is modified by the adjective. To drill down, you need to read the sentence without the adjective, which says "co-conspirator" The adjective only weakens the word.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Holder, he denied that he knew anything about the warrant--however, he had signed the damn thing. He is a liar, and a criminal. He lied about fast and furious, and who knows what else. He should be wearing an orange jump suit or if he is Arizona--pink.
No, the word "possible" is used, because the whole purpose of this warrant, or any warrant, is to collect evidence of a possible crime. The judge did not issue the warrant because the word "possible" was used. He issued the warrant because, based on the abundant evidence presented in the affidavit (emails, etc.) which you still have not read, he concluded that there was probable cause to believe that a crime MAY have been committed, and the Rosen's records may reasonable prove it. The purpose of a warrant is not to charge a crime (that's called an "indictment"). It is to seek further evidence.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you did not respond to my other point: the possible crime for which the warrant was sought was "aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator". As you should know, when someone says "possible X,Y, and/or Z", that means "X" or "Y" or "Z" or any combination of X,Y,Z or possibly none of them. When people like David Gregory come on national TV and say the affidavit "named Rosen as a co-conspirator", it tells me he has not read the affidavit, can't understand English, or is lying.
"As far as Holder, he denied that he knew anything about the warrant--however, he had signed the damn thing."
What did he say? Show me a quote from Holder. Like Obama, you rely on critics characterization of his statements instead of looking at his own words. If he is to wear an orange jump suit, the Court will look at HIS words, not other people's representations of his words.
As I already showed you, he was completely exonerated by the IG report as far as knowing anything about fast&furious before 2011. That was just another dead-end Issa wild goose chase.
Okay, so go back to whatever sources you have, and give me a Holder quote.
--David
Here is a law professor saying the same thing I told you…
ReplyDelete“There’s a difference between searching someone — and getting access to their phone records and emails — and prosecuting someone,” said Darryl Brown, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School.
“Holder was saying I haven’t signed off on charging this reporter with a crime, but he left out the fact that he had signed off on a warrant to search this reporter and maybe they were searching for evidence to prosecute someone else.
“There’s nothing necessarily contradictory about the fact that he has approved the warrant to search the reporter and also claimed to have not signed off on a prosecution of the reporter,” Brown said.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/306983-experts-tough-to-stick-perjury-to-holder-
Now I guess you will call him a "stooge" because he doesn't agree with you.
--David