Breaking: Holder to be investigated for Perjury

[Freemason9]

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.

PLEASE. You can't accuse someone of perjury because of a stated opinion.

Jesus, these whackos just don't go away, do they?

 

[ScienceRocks]

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.

PLEASE. You can't accuse someone of perjury because of a stated opinion.

Jesus, these whackos just don't go away, do they?

If he lied under oath you sure as hell can.

 

[Sallow]

He will not be prosecuted. He will claim the "I didn't remember....clause" As well as he can say.."I was referring to actual prosecutions, which there were none.
I am astounded by Obama still propping up this guy. Amazing.

It's getting dicey for Obama over Holder. IMHO that bus is coming down the road for the AG.

I just saw a headline that read " Axelrod: DOJ’s Fox probe ‘disturbing’".

They're playing "gotcha". Along with being on a fishing expedition.

It's not going to work.

 

[Mustang]

Life is getting really hot inside the Beltway.

I'm trying to get a link to the Hill. Here we go.


House Judiciary investigating whether Holder lied under oath
By Jonathan Easley - 05/28/13 12:03 PM ET
Tweet

The House Judiciary Committee is investigating whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied under oath during his May 15 testimony on the Justice Department’s (DOJ) surveillance of reporters, an aide close to the matter told The Hill.

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.




House Judiciary investigating whether Holder lied under oath - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Who put the tribbles in the quadrotriticale, and what was in the grain that killed them?

 

[Yurt]

In addition to performing his normal duties, he's had to make over 10 trips to check in on frivolous "investigations".

I am surprised they aren't going "go fuck yourselves" at this point.

The Bush administration tolerated a lot less before they did that.

cite

George W. Bush administration

The Bush administration invoked executive privilege on six occasions.

President George W. Bush first asserted executive privilege to deny disclosure of sought details regarding former Attorney General Janet Reno,[2] the scandal involving Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) misuse of organized-crime informants James J. Bulger and Stephen Flemmi in Boston, and Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton's fundraising tactics, in December 2001.[8]

Bush invoked executive privilege "in substance" in refusing to disclose the details of Vice President Dick Cheney's meetings with energy executives, which was not appealed by the GAO. In a separate Supreme Court decision in 2004, however, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted "Executive privilege is an extraordinary assertion of power 'not to be lightly invoked.' United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7 (1953).

"Once executive privilege is asserted, coequal branches of the Government are set on a collision course. The Judiciary is forced into the difficult task of balancing the need for information in a judicial proceeding and the Executive’s Article II prerogatives. This inquiry places courts in the awkward position of evaluating the Executive’s claims of confidentiality and autonomy, and pushes to the fore difficult questions of separation of powers and checks and balances. These 'occasion for constitutional confrontation between the two branches' are likely to be avoided whenever possible. United States v. Nixon, supra, at 692."[9]

Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor,[10] citing that:

The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch.

On July 9, 2007, Bush again invoked executive privilege to block a congressional subpoena requiring the testimonies of Taylor and Miers. Furthermore, White House Counsel Fred F. Fielding refused to comply with a deadline set by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain its privilege claim, prove that the president personally invoked it, and provide logs of which documents were being withheld. On July 25, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee voted to cite Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten for contempt of Congress.[11][12]

On July 13, less than a week after claiming executive privilege for Miers and Taylor, Counsel Fielding effectively claimed the privilege once again, this time in relation to documents related to the 2004 death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. In a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Fielding claimed certain papers relating to discussion of the friendly-fire shooting “implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests” and would therefore not be turned over to the committee.[13]

On August 1, 2007, Bush invoked the privilege for the fourth time in little over a month, this time rejecting a subpoena for Karl Rove. The subpoena would have required the President's Senior Advisor to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a probe over fired federal prosecutors. In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Fielding claimed that "Mr. Rove, as an immediate presidential advisor, is immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his tenure and that relate to his official duties in that capacity...."[14]

Leahy claimed that President Bush was not involved with the employment terminations of U.S. attorneys. Furthermore, he asserted that the president's executive privilege claims protecting Josh Bolten, and Karl Rove are illegal. The Senator demanded that Bolten, Rove, Sara Taylor, and J. Scott Jennings comply "immediately" with their subpoenas, presumably to await a further review of these matters. This development paved the way for a Senate panel vote on whether to advance the citations to the full Senate. "It is obvious that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover up and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort", Leahy concluded about these incidents.[15][16][17][18]

As of July 17, 2008, Rove is still claiming executive privilege to avoid a congressional subpoena. Rove's lawyer writes that his client is "constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony."[19]
Executive privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thanks for the cite, however, i don't see how it proves your claim.

care to explain?

 

[ba1614]

Well like Juan Williams said, he can't be held responsible for everything he signs off on!!

lol Poor America

 

[gallantwarrior]

Well, you can't lie under oath....

No, you can't lie under oath. I can't lie under oath. Most mortals cannot lie under oath. Holder, et.al., are an entirely different cat. Oaths are for the little people.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

In addition to performing his normal duties, he's had to make over 10 trips to check in on frivolous "investigations".

I am surprised they aren't going "go fuck yourselves" at this point.

The Bush administration tolerated a lot less before they did that.

cite

George W. Bush administration

The Bush administration invoked executive privilege on six occasions.

President George W. Bush first asserted executive privilege to deny disclosure of sought details regarding former Attorney General Janet Reno,[2] the scandal involving Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) misuse of organized-crime informants James J. Bulger and Stephen Flemmi in Boston, and Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton's fundraising tactics, in December 2001.[8]

Bush invoked executive privilege "in substance" in refusing to disclose the details of Vice President Dick Cheney's meetings with energy executives, which was not appealed by the GAO. In a separate Supreme Court decision in 2004, however, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted "Executive privilege is an extraordinary assertion of power 'not to be lightly invoked.' United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7 (1953).

"Once executive privilege is asserted, coequal branches of the Government are set on a collision course. The Judiciary is forced into the difficult task of balancing the need for information in a judicial proceeding and the Executive’s Article II prerogatives. This inquiry places courts in the awkward position of evaluating the Executive’s claims of confidentiality and autonomy, and pushes to the fore difficult questions of separation of powers and checks and balances. These 'occasion for constitutional confrontation between the two branches' are likely to be avoided whenever possible. United States v. Nixon, supra, at 692."[9]

Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor,[10] citing that:

The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch.

On July 9, 2007, Bush again invoked executive privilege to block a congressional subpoena requiring the testimonies of Taylor and Miers. Furthermore, White House Counsel Fred F. Fielding refused to comply with a deadline set by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain its privilege claim, prove that the president personally invoked it, and provide logs of which documents were being withheld. On July 25, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee voted to cite Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten for contempt of Congress.[11][12]

On July 13, less than a week after claiming executive privilege for Miers and Taylor, Counsel Fielding effectively claimed the privilege once again, this time in relation to documents related to the 2004 death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. In a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Fielding claimed certain papers relating to discussion of the friendly-fire shooting “implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests” and would therefore not be turned over to the committee.[13]

On August 1, 2007, Bush invoked the privilege for the fourth time in little over a month, this time rejecting a subpoena for Karl Rove. The subpoena would have required the President's Senior Advisor to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a probe over fired federal prosecutors. In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Fielding claimed that "Mr. Rove, as an immediate presidential advisor, is immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his tenure and that relate to his official duties in that capacity...."[14]

Leahy claimed that President Bush was not involved with the employment terminations of U.S. attorneys. Furthermore, he asserted that the president's executive privilege claims protecting Josh Bolten, and Karl Rove are illegal. The Senator demanded that Bolten, Rove, Sara Taylor, and J. Scott Jennings comply "immediately" with their subpoenas, presumably to await a further review of these matters. This development paved the way for a Senate panel vote on whether to advance the citations to the full Senate. "It is obvious that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover up and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort", Leahy concluded about these incidents.[15][16][17][18]

As of July 17, 2008, Rove is still claiming executive privilege to avoid a congressional subpoena. Rove's lawyer writes that his client is "constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony."[19]
Executive privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You do know Bush is not President anymore - right?
You also know that the Atty General should be held to higher standards legally than Karl Rove?
You are also aware that two wrongs don't make it right?
So no matter what Obama does - he gets a pass because Bush did something wrong too?

 

[Pete7469]

He will not be prosecuted. He will claim the "I didn't remember....clause" As well as he can say.."I was referring to actual prosecutions, which there were none.
I am astounded by Obama still propping up this guy. Amazing.

In addition to performing his normal duties, he's had to make over 10 trips to check in on frivolous "investigations".

I am surprised they aren't going "go fuck yourselves" at this point.

The Bush administration tolerated a lot less before they did that.

So you're saying all those investigations of the Bush admin were bullshit?

Glad we agree on something.

It doesn't suprise me to have a bed wetter bleating "bush did it" like the mindless sheep he is.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

He will not be prosecuted. He will claim the "I didn't remember....clause" As well as he can say.."I was referring to actual prosecutions, which there were none.
I am astounded by Obama still propping up this guy. Amazing.

In addition to performing his normal duties, he's had to make over 10 trips to check in on frivolous "investigations".

I am surprised they aren't going "go fuck yourselves" at this point.

The Bush administration tolerated a lot less before they did that.

If you can't use the race card, you can always resort to the Bush card!

Also, why do hardcore liberals on this board have demonic looking portraits (Sallow)?

 

[Rocko]

Well, you can't lie under oath....

No, you can't lie under oath. I can't lie under oath. Most mortals cannot lie under oath. Holder, et.al., are an entirely different cat. Oaths are for the little people.

He's an experianced lawyer, he knows the tricks on how to lie under oath without technically perjuring himself.

 

[ScienceRocks]

He will not be prosecuted. He will claim the "I didn't remember....clause" As well as he can say.."I was referring to actual prosecutions, which there were none.
I am astounded by Obama still propping up this guy. Amazing.

In addition to performing his normal duties, he's had to make over 10 trips to check in on frivolous "investigations".

I am surprised they aren't going "go fuck yourselves" at this point.

The Bush administration tolerated a lot less before they did that.

If you can't use the race card, you can always resort to the Bush card!

Also, why do hardcore liberals on this board have demonic looking portraits (Sallow)?

Why use excuses at all? Why not enforce the law.

 

[Sarah G]

I'll be damned, another House Investigation?

113th Congress. Most investigations with fewest convictions, ever. Has to be a record.

Like Dust in the Wind


Kansas - Dust In The Wind - YouTube

They've cried wolf too many times now. I don't know what kind of idiot would take this one seriously.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I'll be damned, another House Investigation?

113th Congress. Most investigations with fewest convictions, ever. Has to be a record.

Like Dust in the Wind


Kansas - Dust In The Wind - YouTube

They've cried wolf too many times now. I don't know what kind of idiot would take this one seriously.

anything like an idiot Atty. General who miss lead congress...on record?
or how about when he said to the press that the Fox Reporter incident was "over-reaching"...except now we know he himself consulted 3 judges to get a warrent.
Like that idiot?
Or the idiot that doesn't think this is a big deal because they voted for the man who has held on to him for 5 years?

 

[Sarah G]

I'll be damned, another House Investigation?

113th Congress. Most investigations with fewest convictions, ever. Has to be a record.

Like Dust in the Wind


Kansas - Dust In The Wind - YouTube

They've cried wolf too many times now. I don't know what kind of idiot would take this one seriously.

anything like an idiot Atty. General who miss lead congress...on record?
or how about when he said to the press that the Fox Reporter incident was "over-reaching"...except now we know he himself consulted 3 judges to get a warrent.
Like that idiot?
Or the idiot that doesn't think this is a big deal because they voted for the man who has held on to him for 5 years?

How could he mislead congress, they weren't letting him get a word in edgewise. This GOP House has done themselves in with their incessant investigations, just hoping one grows legs..

 

[gallantwarrior]

He will not be prosecuted. He will claim the "I didn't remember....clause" As well as he can say.."I was referring to actual prosecutions, which there were none.
I am astounded by Obama still propping up this guy. Amazing.

In addition to performing his normal duties, he's had to make over 10 trips to check in on frivolous "investigations".

I am surprised they aren't going "go fuck yourselves" at this point.

The Bush administration tolerated a lot less before they did that.

OMG! Are we back to that tired old drivel again? "Bush did it, so whatever our guy does is A-OK!" You must have been raised by ill-mannered cockroaches since you apparently never learned that "two wrongs DO NOT make it right". Even f**king wolves know that, fer crissakes. We will never change how this crooked government works until you all realize that.

 

[salem.hills]

Imagine what we may find out years from now smh

 

[Seawytch]

Gee color me surprised that the GOP is going to launch another witch hunt. Anything to keep from legislating...

 

[Mustang]

I'll be damned, another House Investigation?

113th Congress. Most investigations with fewest convictions, ever. Has to be a record.

Like Dust in the Wind


Kansas - Dust In The Wind - YouTube

They've cried wolf too many times now. I don't know what kind of idiot would take this one seriously.

The same kind of people who respond favorably to the products and services advertised on RW talk radio shows because they trust those RW talk radio hosts. That's the job of RW radio hosts...gaining the trust of their audience.

The only thing I can figure is advertisers think that if the RW hosts can bamboozle their listeners into believing every idiotic, nonsensical conspiracy theory that comes across the air waves regarding Obama, then their products and services stand of chance of getting some traction if and when they're advertised on those shows. Cuz I sure don't see them advertised anywhere else.

 

[RoadVirus]

Most corrupt administration in American history.

Makes the crooks in the Nixon administration look like law-abiding citizens.

I think we need to start taking bets as to how long Holder will have a job.