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

[The Rabbi]

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

So? That doesnt even mean he is lying. And even if he is a bold faced liar it does mitigate the actual targeting that the IRS has already admitted to.

 

[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

So? That doesnt even mean he is lying. And even if he is a bold faced liar it does mitigate the actual targeting that the IRS has already admitted to.

I was crucified by the IRS a long time ago. I am no fan. But...

after 2010 too many groups were filing for a non profit status that many think was deceitful and bogus. Run with this and watch all the left wing nuts file

this nation will be ruined by the hate people like you have for our President

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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 hatred from your side and your boy-who-cried-wolf screeds have discredited you all in the eyes of normal America. Don't like it? Leave. get out

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

When the right has spent decades unfairly dissing the media and years unfairly and bizarrely most times, dissing the President who but the media is listening to this latest attack from the right?

not many normal people

 

[The Rabbi]

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

So? That doesnt even mean he is lying. And even if he is a bold faced liar it does mitigate the actual targeting that the IRS has already admitted to.

I was crucified by the IRS a long time ago. I am no fan. But...

after 2010 too many groups were filing for a non profit status that many think was deceitful and bogus. Run with this and watch all the left wing nuts file

this nation will be ruined by the hate people like you have for our President

So how many people do you think ought to have free speech rights?

 

[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!

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.

Does the first amendment say that the press is immune from the law?

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.

What is the "hook" ? Is he going to be impeached for obtaining and executing a legal warrant?

 

[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.

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

He appealed decisions from magistrates to the Chief Judge. Yes.

You can call it whatever you like its perfectly legal.

 

[GWV5903]

When the right has spent decades unfairly dissing the media and years unfairly and bizarrely most times, dissing the President who but the media is listening to this latest attack from the right?

not many normal people

Thanks for clarifying that your not normal...

 

[GWV5903]

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

He appealed decisions from magistrates to the Chief Judge. Yes.

You can call it whatever you like its perfectly legal.

Maybe, but he will be remembered for Fast & Furious...

The Cartels gun supplier...

 

[The Rabbi]

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

He appealed decisions from magistrates to the Chief Judge. Yes.

You can call it whatever you like its perfectly legal.

OK so now we've gone from "it was merely an appeal from a lower court to a higher one" (disproved) to "well it was legal."
It was questionably legal. It violated many standing protocals, which is why 2 federal judges refused to sign off on it. It lacked propriety. It establishes terrible precedents for the future.
But keep telling yourself there's nothing here but GOP anger over a black man in the White House.

 

[Foxfyre]

And public opinion is slowly but surely shfiting to finally be critical of the administration on this issue as more people are being informed. And since most Americans do not watch Fox News or listen to conservative talk radio or participate on message boards like this, that can only be attributed to the mainstream media finally beginning to do its job. Of course it took an attack on THEM to goad them into doing it.

Rasmussen's recent poll:

National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted May 29-30, 2013
By Rasmussen Reports

1* How closely have you followed recent news stories about the U.S. Justice Department’s investigation of news reporters?

2* Do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove or strongly disapprove of the Justice Department’s secret subpoena to obtain the phone records of Associated Press reporters?

3* Do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove or strongly disapprove of the Justice Department’s secret subpoena to obtain the phone records and emails of Fox News reporter James Rosen?

4* Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable impression of Eric Holder?

5* Should Eric Holder resign?

42% now think Holder should resign - only 24% think he should not. That is much more disfavorables for Holder than a poll a week ago. (The rest are probably or probably not or don't know enough about it to say.)
42% Think Holder Should Resign, 24% Disagree - Rasmussen Reports?

A majority (52%) think the media is more quick to react to issues that affects the media, which a lot of us here would agree with. But a large majority of people think the IRS overstepped its authority and 60% believe it is likely other agencies have targeted conservatives too. Obviously what affects THEM personally gets the people's attention more quickly than anything else, and they feel more strongly about it than they do about anything else.

It is anybody's guess tough whether the media will stay angry about this and actually start reporting what the government does or revert to their former adoring advocacy for the Administration.

 

[Jarhead]

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

He appealed decisions from magistrates to the Chief Judge. Yes.

You can call it whatever you like its perfectly legal.

Maybe, but he will be remembered for Fast & Furious...

The Cartels gun supplier...

That is the one to me that is the most incredible...and should be the most damning.

The DOJ allowed for the supplying of arms to the enemy of an ally (Mexican government declared the drug cartels as an enemy several years ago).

Furnishing arms to the enemy of an ally is deemed as an act of war.

Yet....

The AG nor the Presidentr were aware of the operation....and whoever WAS aware of it was not fired for declaring war on an ally.

I just dont get it.

 

[Jarhead]

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

He appealed decisions from magistrates to the Chief Judge. Yes.

You can call it whatever you like its perfectly legal.

OK so now we've gone from "it was merely an appeal from a lower court to a higher one" (disproved) to "well it was legal."
It was questionably legal. It violated many standing protocals, which is why 2 federal judges refused to sign off on it. It lacked propriety. It establishes terrible precedents for the future.
But keep telling yourself there's nothing here but GOP anger over a black man in the White House.

the bottom line are the two following items.

1) he either lied to congress OR he lied to a judge to get the warrant signed

2) He found a way to "get around the law".....exactly what the AG should be trying to prevent...not participate in.

 

[The Rabbi]

He appealed decisions from magistrates to the Chief Judge. Yes.

You can call it whatever you like its perfectly legal.

OK so now we've gone from "it was merely an appeal from a lower court to a higher one" (disproved) to "well it was legal."
It was questionably legal. It violated many standing protocals, which is why 2 federal judges refused to sign off on it. It lacked propriety. It establishes terrible precedents for the future.
But keep telling yourself there's nothing here but GOP anger over a black man in the White House.

the bottom line are the two following items.

1) he either lied to congress OR he lied to a judge to get the warrant signed

2) He found a way to "get around the law".....exactly what the AG should be trying to prevent...not participate in.

He might have lied to both. In fact, he probably did.

 

[Foxfyre]

As for that 'off the record' meeting between Holder and the media, it turned out to be not quite so 'off the record" yesterday. Apparently Holder sincerely apologized to the media and promised to change their operations. Will they acquiesce and go back to their former surrogate tactics because the Administration is 'truly sorry'?

According to Huffpo this morning:

At Obama's direction, Holder is taking 45 days to review the Justice Department's investigative rules. Many date from before email was in common use and the review is to include meetings with journalists, lawyers and law enforcement officials. . . .

Forty Five days!! Really!! How many investigative rules are there? Well that should be plenty of time to get all of this off the media radar as well as plenty of time to get in some extra investigation under the radar.

And then Huffpo ended their piece with this:

Holder personally authorized the searches of Fox News records, while his deputy, Cole, authorized the search of Associated Press records. Justice Department guidelines allow searches under rare circumstances, usually with notice to the news organization affected.

Journalists Meet With Eric Holder, Say He Pledged Change

However, under sworn testimony at the Congressional hearing, Holder said:

Well, I would say this. With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I've ever been involved in, heard of or would think would be a wise policy. In fact, my view is quite the opposite, that what I proposed during my confirmation, what the Obama administration supported during 2009 -- and I understand -- I think Senator Schumer is now introducing a bill that we are going to support as well that the press should be -- have -- should have -- there should be a shield law with regard to the press's ability to gather information and to disseminate it.

But then there is this:

On Thursday, NBC News reported on Holder's involvement in another prominent investigation of a media outlet. Following a 2009 leak of classified information, the Justice Department acquired a search warrant for emails from Fox News reporter James Rosen. In the warrant, the Department indicates that there is "probable cause to believe that the reporter has committed or is committing a violation of section 793(d), as an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator, to which the materials relate." In other words: The Department of Justice considered that there was probable cause Rosen violated the law.

Did Eric Holder Lie Under Oath? An Early Investigation of an Investigation

Holder is enough of a lawyer to parse words in a way that he can claim different intent, but I think this is a problem for him. I think he falsified testimony before Congress and he is likely caught.

But the teflon coating this Administration has been pretty slippery. I'm going to stay tuned. . . .

 

[Jarhead]

OK so now we've gone from "it was merely an appeal from a lower court to a higher one" (disproved) to "well it was legal."
It was questionably legal. It violated many standing protocals, which is why 2 federal judges refused to sign off on it. It lacked propriety. It establishes terrible precedents for the future.
But keep telling yourself there's nothing here but GOP anger over a black man in the White House.

the bottom line are the two following items.

1) he either lied to congress OR he lied to a judge to get the warrant signed

2) He found a way to "get around the law".....exactly what the AG should be trying to prevent...not participate in.

He might have lied to both. In fact, he probably did.

He may have.

However, he most certainly did at least one or the other. And either one is reason to have him released of his responsibilities.

 

[Foxfyre]

Scooter Libby was charged and convicted of perjury and sentenced to prison time because he 'couldn't remember' the events of the Valerie Plame scandal and remembering some stuff 'wrong'. (It was President Bush's own AG who called for the Grand Jury that indicted him. President Bush did not pardon him but did commute the prison sentence.)

And Libby wasn't even the one who 'outed' her and had nothing personally to do with that. Nothing apparently happened to the guy at the CIA who did inadvertently out her.

If Holder gets off after misleading/lying to Congress in a far more egregious manner, there is definitely something rotten in Denmark (i.e. the U.S. government)

 

[paulitician]

This stuff sadly reminds you of how Communist Regimes and brutal Dictatorships deal with the Press. But that could never happen here, right? Well, guess again. It is happening here.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It was questionably legal.

Utter bullshit. I have cited every single relevant law.

It violated many standing protocals

Such as and defined by whom or what document as a "standing protocol" ?

, which is why 2 federal judges refused to sign off on it. It lacked propriety. It establishes terrible precedents for the future.
But keep telling yourself there's nothing here but GOP anger over a black man in the White House.

The Stored Communications Act states rather explicitly that notification of the customer is not required when a warrant is obtained - and the rules of criminal procedure allow notification of a warrant having been served to be left with the person whose property was seized -OR- the person who owns the place the property was seized from-OR- at the place the property was seized from. Note the word OR - they notified google thus they have satisfied they notification requirement. The 2 magistrates were clearly in error which is why the Chief Judge reversed them. Do I need to show you the plain letter of the law again?

 

[paulitician]

Big Brother's Police State grows larger and more bold by the day. Dissension cannot and will not be tolerated.