Eric Holder Signed Off On Search Warrant For James Rosen Emails: NBC News

[Oldstyle]

Look, I'm not gonna debate with you on this because I think it would be pointless. I'll just state my opinion on the matter: the most compelling evidence, imo, suggests that it was either an intelligence failure on the part of the CIA or the CIA left out the Al Qaida connection in order to protect state secrets. Susan Rice was just the unfortunate spokesperson that delivered the talking points that Sunday.

With all due respect, Mountain? The talking points being reworked dozens of times until they came to the "approval" of folks in the State Department isn't an "intelligence failure" by the CIA nor was it an effort to protect "state secrets" unless the State secrets you're speaking of are that the Obama White House didn't respond well to a crisis! What you're looking at in Benghazi is a good old fashioned cover-up...something that was done for political reasons in the heat of a campaign and Susan Rice was the dupe that they got to go out on those 5 Sunday morning talk shows in Hilary's place and tell their lies.

The CIA wrote those talking points and none of the 12 rewrites changed the CIA's position that it was a spontaneous uprising. Al Qaida was never part of the CIA's initial report to us. If Rice was the fall guy, why did they try to get her appointed as SoS? There was never any narrative put out by the administration that Al Qaida was defeated or that the war on terror had been won. There had been defeats that Al Qaida suffered, but Obama never said they were defeated.

Let's be honest here, Mountain...you know as well as I do that the State Department kept telling the CIA to rewrite those talking points. Now you can maintain that the changes were made by the CIA but under directions from who? The CIA's initial report was that the attack was made by terrorists affiliated with Al Queda. The Obama Administration adamantly demanded that be taken out of the talking points. They repeatedly told the CIA that they weren't happy with the talking points and to do them again.

You seem to be living in a protective "bubble" somewhere out there in Colorado, my friend! Are you REALLY trying to say that a large part of the Obama re-election campaign wasn't that Barry had killed Osama bin Laden and decimated Al Queda? THAT is the reason they wanted the reference to Al Queda scrubbed from the CIA talking points! THAT is the reason why they blamed the attack on a You Tube video even though they knew the very first day that wasn't the case!

Did they really try to appoint Susan Rice as Secretary of State...or did they just float her name as a trial balloon only to yank it back after the ensuing firestorm of criticism? Susan Rice got USED by Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. I'm not sure how long it took her to figure out that they sent her out there to lie for them but I'm quite sure she knows it now. Her political career has been flushed down the toilet by the very people that she was totally loyal to. Those are the people you are trying so valiantly to protect, Mountain...two people who put their own political futures above all else...even the people most loyal to them.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Eric Holder Signed Off On Search Warrant For James Rosen Emails: NBC News

I guess Eric holder is going to investigate Eric Holder

good, he's doing a great job and I salute his service to our nation

 

[asterism]

The DOJ appealed decisions by low level magistrates to Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Is that OK with you or do we need to re-write the rules of procedure now that Obama is in office? The magistrate judges were in fact in error. Have you actually looked at the relevant law?

Says right here:
18 USC § 2703 - Required disclosure of customer communications or records | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

in this case they didn't need to provide notice to Rosen if they obtain a warrant! Not only did the DOJ make proper use of the appeals process - the plain language of the law is on the DOJ and Chief Judge's side!


Does the law actually matter or does it only matter what Breitbart.com says?

The law matters. Did Holder appeal a decision with a higher court?

He appealed a decision by a magistrate judge on the DC district court to the Chief judge of the DC district court. That's perfectly legal though perhaps Breitbart.com has re-written the law for you.

I haven't read Breitbart in years.

Unless there is a ruling by a judge that is then appealed to a higher court of appeals, this is judge shopping. Perhaps it's valid, perhaps not.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The law matters. Did Holder appeal a decision with a higher court?

He appealed a decision by a magistrate judge on the DC district court to the Chief judge of the DC district court. That's perfectly legal though perhaps Breitbart.com has re-written the law for you.

I haven't read Breitbart in years.

Unless there is a ruling by a judge that is then appealed to a higher court of appeals, this is judge shopping. Perhaps it's valid, perhaps not.

yet you still sound like a whack-a-doodle wingnut?


hmmm, interesting

 

[asterism]

He appealed a decision by a magistrate judge on the DC district court to the Chief judge of the DC district court. That's perfectly legal though perhaps Breitbart.com has re-written the law for you.

I haven't read Breitbart in years.

Unless there is a ruling by a judge that is then appealed to a higher court of appeals, this is judge shopping. Perhaps it's valid, perhaps not.

yet you still sound like a whack-a-doodle wingnut?


hmmm, interesting

According to Dainty.....

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The law matters. Did Holder appeal a decision with a higher court?

He appealed a decision by a magistrate judge on the DC district court to the Chief judge of the DC district court. That's perfectly legal though perhaps Breitbart.com has re-written the law for you.

I haven't read Breitbart in years.

You don't need to, there are enough bloggers and "news" stations out their repeating the opinions posts on Breitbart.com - the phrase "judge shopping" was first applied to this case - guess where?

Unless there is a ruling by a judge that is then appealed to a higher court of appeals, this is judge shopping.

According to who? Is this some kind of new rule that got invented so that Holder can have broken it? How convenient, hey?

Perhaps it's valid, perhaps not.

The law plainly states a magistrates ruling may be appealed to the chief judge, but I'm fully aware that the law is completely irrelevant to you. All that matters is smearing Obama.

 

[Foxfyre]

With all due respect, Mountain? The talking points being reworked dozens of times until they came to the "approval" of folks in the State Department isn't an "intelligence failure" by the CIA nor was it an effort to protect "state secrets" unless the State secrets you're speaking of are that the Obama White House didn't respond well to a crisis! What you're looking at in Benghazi is a good old fashioned cover-up...something that was done for political reasons in the heat of a campaign and Susan Rice was the dupe that they got to go out on those 5 Sunday morning talk shows in Hilary's place and tell their lies.

The CIA wrote those talking points and none of the 12 rewrites changed the CIA's position that it was a spontaneous uprising. Al Qaida was never part of the CIA's initial report to us. If Rice was the fall guy, why did they try to get her appointed as SoS? There was never any narrative put out by the administration that Al Qaida was defeated or that the war on terror had been won. There had been defeats that Al Qaida suffered, but Obama never said they were defeated.

Let's be honest here, Mountain...you know as well as I do that the State Department kept telling the CIA to rewrite those talking points. Now you can maintain that the changes were made by the CIA but under directions from who? The CIA's initial report was that the attack was made by terrorists affiliated with Al Queda. The Obama Administration adamantly demanded that be taken out of the talking points. They repeatedly told the CIA that they weren't happy with the talking points and to do them again.

You seem to be living in a protective "bubble" somewhere out there in Colorado, my friend! Are you REALLY trying to say that a large part of the Obama re-election campaign wasn't that Barry had killed Osama bin Laden and decimated Al Queda? THAT is the reason they wanted the reference to Al Queda scrubbed from the CIA talking points! THAT is the reason why they blamed the attack on a You Tube video even though they knew the very first day that wasn't the case!

Did they really try to appoint Susan Rice as Secretary of State...or did they just float her name as a trial balloon only to yank it back after the ensuing firestorm of criticism? Susan Rice got USED by Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. I'm not sure how long it took her to figure out that they sent her out there to lie for them but I'm quite sure she knows it now. Her political career has been flushed down the toilet by the very people that she was totally loyal to. Those are the people you are trying so valiantly to protect, Mountain...two people who put their own political futures above all else...even the people most loyal to them.

Susan Rice left the al Qaida/terrorist connection out of the talking points because the administration wanted the public to believe that an offensive video was the reason for a spontaneous uprising and something they could not have foreseen. They knew damn well they would look terrible for not responding to repeated requests for extra security. Not only did the circumstances contradict their constant drum beat that al Qaida was on the run and terrorism was in retreat, they didn't want to take the heat for terrible judgment in not providing security that was requested just weeks before the election. It was deliberate dishonesty of the most self serving kind.

And if it had not been for Fox News and one or two other media sources plus us on the internet who stuck to the story like terriers and ferreted out the truth, they would have gotten away with it because the surrogate media had no stomach for reporting something that critical of the President and his top people. Finally the other media sources had to give it some attention or look like clueless, incompetent idiots.

Well again, I hope the worm is now turning and we will have a more responsible and less star struck partisan press who won't be quite so docile and surrogate any more. And maybe just maybe we won't have a star struck, gullible electorate so willing to accept any manufactured story the Administration puts out there. Most especailly they will see the dishonesty in the Administration's propaganda that James Rosen and the Associated Press was investigated for 'violations of security' issues and not in retaliation for reporting honestly on what the Administration is doing.

 

[asterism]

He appealed a decision by a magistrate judge on the DC district court to the Chief judge of the DC district court. That's perfectly legal though perhaps Breitbart.com has re-written the law for you.

I haven't read Breitbart in years.

You don't need to, there are enough bloggers and "news" stations out their repeating the opinions posts on Breitbart.com - the phrase "judge shopping" was first applied to this case - guess where?

Unless there is a ruling by a judge that is then appealed to a higher court of appeals, this is judge shopping.

According to who? Is this some kind of new rule that got invented so that Holder can have broken it? How convenient, hey?

Perhaps it's valid, perhaps not.

The law plainly states a magistrates ruling may be appealed to the chief judge, but I'm fully aware that the law is completely irrelevant to you. All that matters is smearing Obama.

If the law plainly states this, then you should be able to easily find it. Run along now, prove your point.

Breitbart didn't invent the phrase "judge shopping." When I head on HLN that Holder had been turned down by one judge the phrase "judge shopping" is what popped into my head because it seemed similar to an article I read at Indy Media.

 

[Oldstyle]

Eric Holder Signed Off On Search Warrant For James Rosen Emails: NBC News

I guess Eric holder is going to investigate Eric Holder

good, he's doing a great job and I salute his service to our nation

Eric Holder is doing a great job? Really? At "best" he's clueless about what's going on in the Department in which he's supposed to be in charge. (How the man got through Harvard without the ability to remember anything is a mystery to me!) At "worst" he trampled on the Constitutional rights of Americans while lying to Congress about doing so.

How you translate THAT into doing a great job baffles me. Eric Holder is an awful Attorney General.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Eric Holder Signed Off On Search Warrant For James Rosen Emails: NBC News

I guess Eric holder is going to investigate Eric Holder

good, he's doing a great job and I salute his service to our nation

Eric Holder is doing a great job? Really? At "best" he's clueless about what's going on in the Department in which he's supposed to be in charge. (How the man got through Harvard without the ability to remember anything is a mystery to me!) At "worst" he trampled on the Constitutional rights of Americans while lying to Congress about doing so.

How you translate THAT into doing a great job baffles me. Eric Holder is an awful Attorney General.

not one fact in your screed

your opinion (every asshole has one) is duly noted

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I haven't read Breitbart in years.

You don't need to, there are enough bloggers and "news" stations out their repeating the opinions posts on Breitbart.com - the phrase "judge shopping" was first applied to this case - guess where?

According to who? Is this some kind of new rule that got invented so that Holder can have broken it? How convenient, hey?

Perhaps it's valid, perhaps not.

The law plainly states a magistrates ruling may be appealed to the chief judge, but I'm fully aware that the law is completely irrelevant to you. All that matters is smearing Obama.

If the law plainly states this, then you should be able to easily find it. Run along now, prove your point.

Here you go
Rule 59. Matters Before a Magistrate Judge | Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[asterism]

You don't need to, there are enough bloggers and "news" stations out their repeating the opinions posts on Breitbart.com - the phrase "judge shopping" was first applied to this case - guess where?

According to who? Is this some kind of new rule that got invented so that Holder can have broken it? How convenient, hey?

The law plainly states a magistrates ruling may be appealed to the chief judge, but I'm fully aware that the law is completely irrelevant to you. All that matters is smearing Obama.

If the law plainly states this, then you should be able to easily find it. Run along now, prove your point.

Here you go
Rule 59. Matters Before a Magistrate Judge | Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure | LII / Legal Information Institute

I stand corrected.

"(3) De Novo Review of Recommendations. The district judge must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommendation, receive further evidence, or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions."

Why isn't that point all over the non-Fox media?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If the law plainly states this, then you should be able to easily find it. Run along now, prove your point.

Here you go
Rule 59. Matters Before a Magistrate Judge | Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure | LII / Legal Information Institute

I stand corrected.

"(3) De Novo Review of Recommendations. The district judge must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommendation, receive further evidence, or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions."

Why isn't that point all over the non-Fox media?

How the hell do I know and why would I care?

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder how many of those still defending the Obama Administration on this think it is pure coincidence that the Administration went after Rosen, who had also done some outstanding investigative work on both Obamacare and Benghazi--investigation that was not flattering to the Administration? And think that Obama knew absolutely nothing about targeting Rosen for the 'crime' of leaking extremely sensitive national security information?

It is absolutely astounding how much Obama 'doesn't know", was "never told", "never saw", "was not aware of", etc. etc. etc. If by some unimaginable coincidence, he really didn't know about all this stuff, how long will it be before his admiring public begins to wonder if he knows anything about anything or is doing his job anywhere?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I wonder how many of those still defending the Obama Administration on this think it is pure coincidence that the Administration went after Rosen, who had also done some outstanding investigative work on both Obamacare and Benghazi--investigation that was not flattering to the Administration? And think that Obama knew absolutely nothing about targeting Rosen for the 'crime' of leaking extremely sensitive national security information?

So now reporters who write articles critical of the President are immune from legally obtained searched warrants?

It is absolutely astounding how much Obama 'doesn't know", was "never told", "never saw", "was not aware of", etc. etc. etc. If by some unimaginable coincidence, he really didn't know about all this stuff, how long will it be before his admiring public begins to wonder if he knows anything about anything or is doing his job anywhere?

Yes! Its 'astounding'! We can't quantify it, but we know its really bad, because that's what people are saying!

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder how many of those still defending the Obama Administration on this think it is pure coincidence that the Administration went after Rosen, who had also done some outstanding investigative work on both Obamacare and Benghazi--investigation that was not flattering to the Administration? And think that Obama knew absolutely nothing about targeting Rosen for the 'crime' of leaking extremely sensitive national security information?

So now reporters who write articles critical of the President are immune from legally obtained searched warrants?

It is absolutely astounding how much Obama 'doesn't know", was "never told", "never saw", "was not aware of", etc. etc. etc. If by some unimaginable coincidence, he really didn't know about all this stuff, how long will it be before his admiring public begins to wonder if he knows anything about anything or is doing his job anywhere?

Yes! Its 'astounding'! We can't quantify it, but we know its really bad, because that's what people are saying!

We either have a free press, or we do not. If it is 'legal' to harrass, investigate, accuse, smear, malign, or criminalize a reporter who did nothing more than what reporters have been doing since Day One of this nation, then we might as well hang it up because nobody in the media will be able to do their jobs. If you aren't bothered by this, I don't know what to say because you are absolutely clueless on what the First Amendment says or is intended to do.

And if you think it is just fine that Obama is allowed off the hook by his "I didn't know anything about that" defense on EVERYTHING criticizable in his Administration, or that any President should be that clueless, then god bless your little pointed head, because nobody with any sense will do so.

 

[The Rabbi]

The DOJ appealed decisions by low level magistrates to Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Is that OK with you or do we need to re-write the rules of procedure now that Obama is in office? The magistrate judges were in fact in error. Have you actually looked at the relevant law?

Says right here:
18 USC § 2703 - Required disclosure of customer communications or records | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

in this case they didn't need to provide notice to Rosen if they obtain a warrant! Not only did the DOJ make proper use of the appeals process - the plain language of the law is on the DOJ and Chief Judge's side!


Does the law actually matter or does it only matter what Breitbart.com says?

The law matters. Did Holder appeal a decision with a higher court?

He appealed a decision by a magistrate judge on the DC district court to the Chief judge of the DC district court. That's perfectly legal though perhaps Breitbart.com has re-written the law for you.

You are one dishonest piece of flying monkey shit.
Holder went to three judges. Do you want to say he appealed the decision of the first judge to the higher ranking second judge? No. That isn't what happened. He judge shopped, plain and simple.
Holder Scrambled to Find Judge to Approve Rosen Subpoena After Rejected Twice; Only Fox News Reports | NewsBusters

 

[asterism]

Here you go
Rule 59. Matters Before a Magistrate Judge | Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure | LII / Legal Information Institute

I stand corrected.

"(3) De Novo Review of Recommendations. The district judge must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommendation, receive further evidence, or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions."

Why isn't that point all over the non-Fox media?

How the hell do I know and why would I care?

I care, it's a stupid talking point that should be quashed.

 

[Foxfyre]

The law matters. Did Holder appeal a decision with a higher court?

He appealed a decision by a magistrate judge on the DC district court to the Chief judge of the DC district court. That's perfectly legal though perhaps Breitbart.com has re-written the law for you.

You are one dishonest piece of flying monkey shit.
Holder went to three judges. Do you want to say he appealed the decision of the first judge to the higher ranking second judge? No. That isn't what happened. He judge shopped, plain and simple.
Holder Scrambled to Find Judge to Approve Rosen Subpoena After Rejected Twice; Only Fox News Reports | NewsBusters

It's the first line of defense for this Admiistration:

President Obama:
- didn't know about Jeremiah Wright's radicalism despite listening to his sermons for 20 hyears.
- excused not following through on what he promised to do because he didn't know the economy was going to be that bad.
- didn't know about his administration approving relaxing regulations for BP's deep sea drilling in the Gulf
- didn't know anything about Fast and Furious - he wasn't in that loop.
- didn't know anything about IRS targeting political opponents and journalist critical of the administration
- didn't know anything about consulate personnel's repeated requests for security at Benghazi or requests forhelp during the attack - or that it was not a spontaneous uprising due to an offensive video.
- didn't know anything about the DOJ's harrassment of Rosen

Didn'tknow nuthin' despite using "Let me be clear" in more speeches than I can count and despite taking personal credit for EVERYTHING that looks good.

Hillary Clinton 'didn't see, read, or know about' requests for additional security at Benghazi or requests for rescue during the attack or that it was not a spontaneous uprising due to an offensive video.

Eric Holder 'knew nothing' about IRS harrassment of political opponents and journalists or that James Rosen had been targeted by his department for investigation.

From the link Rabbi posted:

BRIAN KILMEADE: It's a lot of work that he said he didn't know or do and didn’t know about. So why not investigate it? So, the person who can makes heads or tails of this, to find out really what happened, is the man that was a part of it, who signed off on it, talked about it but, doesn't remember it? Perfect.

Read more: Holder Scrambled to Find Judge to Approve Rosen Subpoena After Rejected Twice; Only Fox News Reports | NewsBusters

It's absolutely amazing. If it is in any way questionable or critizable, nobody in the Obama Administration knows anything about anything. But they'll all 'look into it" once it happens.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

uh oh

KMOV anchor Larry Conners, who claimed he was targeted by the IRS after he pressed President Obama on government spending during a 2012 interview, walked back his allegation on the St. Louis CBS affiliate’s 5 p.m. newscast Tuesday.

“First, I need to state those were my personal views, not those of KMOV-TV,” Conners said (video above). “Second, to be fair, I should disclose that my issues with the IRS preceded that interview by several years. As a journalist I understand the importance of keeping personal matters separate from my professional work — sometimes you have to do that retain your independence as a newsman. Those lines might have been unintentionally crossed yesterday by my [Facebook] post.”

---------

another right winger caught lying about Obama? who knew? KMOV?s Larry Conners: IRS Issues Began Before 2012 Interview With President Obama - TVSpy