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

[Coloradomtnman]

Please...you view Mitt Romney as "severely conservative"? Really? Gotta be honest with you, Mountain Man...just that statement alone shows me that you're not viewing things in a rational manner. Name another Republican candidate that was LESS moderate than Mitt Romney was? You can't because he was the most moderate of ALL the GOP candidates...yet somehow all those racist, bible thumping homophobes that you're convinced make up the GOP nominated HIM and before him, John McCain as their candidate? Does that make any sense to you? Think about it "rationally".

Romney SAID that he was SEVERELY CONSERVATIVE. He represented himself that way. I liked Jon Huntsman, despite his Mormonism. He never represented himself as SEVERELY CONSERVATIVE. I go by the evidence. That is rational. Romney had been a moderate but by all of the evidence he had transformed into a severe conservative. There was the video of him actaully saying the 47% comment. That is evidence. He denied evolution on stage. That is evidence. He said he was aginst same-sex marriage. That is evidence. On Mike Huckabee Romney said he was against all abortions. That is evidence. I saw all this with my own eyes. I saw his ad accusing Obama of waiving the work requirements for welfare, when it wasn't an easing of the regulation but empowering the governors who requested the waiver (some of whom were Republicans) to institute new programs that still required the recipients to work. That was a lie. I saw the ads Romney's campaign put out about the Jeep factories moving to China. That was a lie. ALL of that is evidence. I made a rational decision NOT to support Romney. Yes, it was rational - based on evidence.

Let me give you a piece of advice I got from my father who was involved in politics. He always said not to judge people by what they SAY when they are trying to get elected because most of that is simply hot air...but instead judge them by what they have DONE in the past.

If you'd done that in the LAST election you would have elected the person who had a history of getting things done...a person who had a history of working well across the aisle...a person who had been successful in virtually every enterprise he'd undertaken his entire adult life. That person was Mitt Romney.

Instead you fell for campaign promises...something as "real" and "substantive" as a puff of smoke in a strong breeze. You sent someone back to the Oval Office that doesn't have the chops to do the job. You fell for "Hope & Change" repackaged as "Lean Forward"...two slogans that mean NOTHING.

I think you're misunderstanding, partly, my thinking. In his first term Obama signed into law provisions to support greater equality for women, Obamacare (albeit a flawed program but a step in the right direction imo), attempted to close GITMO, appointed positions that would better protect consumers, minorities, and stopped torture. He didn't prosecute the banks, unfortunately, but neither would've the Republicans who have always supported big business and the wealthy. Obama passed the stimulus which I supported. He repealed DADT. These are just some of the things he did that I supported. There were some which I did not, but Obama isn't me and I can't realistically expect him to do all that I want. That was evidence that would encourage me to vote for him again.

Romney may have been moderate in Massachussettes but he represented himself as a severe conservative in the primaries, he denied evolution, he disagreed with same sex marriage, he denied climate change, he lied about the welfare work requirements and the Jeep factories moving to China. Was I supposed to ignore Romney's own words and vote for who he had been years before and but was now hiding from the base of his own party or was I supposed to vote for the Romney as he represented himself during the primaries hoping that he would change back to the moderate he had been as governor of Massachussettes? That doesn't make any sense considering his stances on the issues didn't represent mine. Why would I vote for him?

I didn't so much vote for Obama as I did against Romney. Romney was a worse choice for me than Obama. Does that make sense?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

It was not legal though. He lied to congress about having knowledge or involvement into that investigation. That was false.

Leave it to you though to ignore that fact and try and point to something that was legal to cover it up. This is just to add onto the other things that have been occurring under this admin.

Sorry but your bull is just that, bull. The first bold is ironic as both cannot be true. If these actions truly were unacceptable, then you would not vote for him. The reality is that those actions are fully supported by you and those that are like you. When you vote for someone, you are supporting the actions that they take. Stating that they are acceptable.

The second bold illustrates how partisan you are being. Sorry, there is no party that is filled with ‘primitive, ignorant, credulous, insane, self-centered, bigoted, religious nuts.’ That is your over active imagination making the opponents to your political ideology a despised enemy. That might help you slee3p at night after you vote for the trash that you have but I can assure you that those in the democrat party are no more or less genuine Americans that truly do care for their country and where it is going than you do.

Then again, I don’t feel the need to demonize the other side just to cast my vote.

I'm sorry but McCain/Palin and/or Romney/Ryan would, I believe, based on the record of the Bush/(especially)Cheney Administration and the proposals of the GOP leadership regarding civil rights and freedoms (i.e. profiling, among others) been worse than the Democrats. I don't like Democrats, for the most part, but the Republicans have been even more unacceptable. Its the choice between bad and worse and I didn't choose worse.

I wasn't demonizing the Republican party, I was painting with a broad brush. SOME of them aren't as I described.

What total horse shit!

Name one instance of profiling that you find so objectionable by the conservatives you named? In looking at the Rosen; IRS; and Benghazi scandals there are so many civil rights violations as never seen before! All of these have two things in common: This president and democrats!!!

Rosen was profiled? Was the AP also profiled? No. But I am outraged by this infringement on freedom of the press. Where was your outrage under the Bush administration for similar attacks on the press?

Was the IRS profiling conservative groups? Yes! And I am outraged by it as well, but if you think the IRS under other adminstrations, specifically Republican ones, didn't attack the opposition than you are either naive or blind. It outrages me MORE because I voted for Obama. Its LESS ok because I had hoped that a progressive (or from my POV: moderate) would act more idealistically.

Republicans have openly supported profiling since 9/11. Is this not something you have heard or read about in the last 12 years?

 

[clevergirl]

I'm sorry but McCain/Palin and/or Romney/Ryan would, I believe, based on the record of the Bush/(especially)Cheney Administration and the proposals of the GOP leadership regarding civil rights and freedoms (i.e. profiling, among others) been worse than the Democrats. I don't like Democrats, for the most part, but the Republicans have been even more unacceptable. Its the choice between bad and worse and I didn't choose worse.

I wasn't demonizing the Republican party, I was painting with a broad brush. SOME of them aren't as I described.

What total horse shit!

Name one instance of profiling that you find so objectionable by the conservatives you named? In looking at the Rosen; IRS; and Benghazi scandals there are so many civil rights violations as never seen before! All of these have two things in common: This president and democrats!!!

Rosen was profiled? Was the AP also profiled? No. But I am outraged by this infringement on freedom of the press. Where was your outrage under the Bush administration for similar attacks on the press?

Was the IRS profiling conservative groups? Yes! And I am outraged by it as well, but if you think the IRS under other adminstrations, specifically Republican ones, didn't attack the opposition than you are either naive or blind. It outrages me MORE because I voted for Obama. Its LESS ok because I had hoped that a progressive (or from my POV: moderate) would act more idealistically.

Republicans have openly supported profiling since 9/11. Is this not something you have heard or read about in the last 12 years?

So in other words you just sling horse shit and can't name the instances of like behavior by those you slandered...got it, dick-wad!

This is your way of supporting Obama, all the while attempting to present yourself as some wise and arrived oracle of sound opinion (the other guys are worse)... got news for you- you come off like a sock puppet on Ritalin.

Here's a napkin- wipe that drool off your chin~

 

[Coloradomtnman]

What total horse shit!

Name one instance of profiling that you find so objectionable by the conservatives you named? In looking at the Rosen; IRS; and Benghazi scandals there are so many civil rights violations as never seen before! All of these have two things in common: This president and democrats!!!

Rosen was profiled? Was the AP also profiled? No. But I am outraged by this infringement on freedom of the press. Where was your outrage under the Bush administration for similar attacks on the press?

Was the IRS profiling conservative groups? Yes! And I am outraged by it as well, but if you think the IRS under other adminstrations, specifically Republican ones, didn't attack the opposition than you are either naive or blind. It outrages me MORE because I voted for Obama. Its LESS ok because I had hoped that a progressive (or from my POV: moderate) would act more idealistically.

Republicans have openly supported profiling since 9/11. Is this not something you have heard or read about in the last 12 years?

So in other words you just sling horse shit and can't name the instances of like behavior by those you slandered...got it, dick-wad!

This is your way of supporting Obama, all the while attempting to present yourself as some wise and arrived oracle of sound opinion (the other guys are worse)... got news for you- you come off like a sock puppet on Ritalin.

Here's a napkin- wipe that drool off your chin~

Oh god. How can one even have an exchange with you? Google is your friend. If you would like to learn more about profiling research it. For some reason I doubt you will... Its beside the point: Republican leaders and supporters have wanted to profile middle easterners since 9/11, and minorities since they believed black people and hispanics were primarily responsible for crime.

I voted for Obama but I do not support profiling conservative groups by the IRS. Got it, dickwad? I do not support ANY unreasonable infringement on civil rights and the reason to infringe on those rights must be greater than maintaining those rights i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theater, child porn, revealing government secrets which may result in the deaths of Americans or innocent people or the failure of secret operations, etc. etc.

If I remeber correctly, Bush signed the Patriot Act into law. Those that supported it will not get my vote, Democrat or Republican. Those personally responsible for any profiling or civil rights violations should be prosecuted, whether liberal or conservative. I'm outraged. Where was your outrage when Bush signed the Patriot Act? Where was your outrage when the Bush administration tapped phone lines without warrants at all?

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm sorry but McCain/Palin and/or Romney/Ryan would, I believe, based on the record of the Bush/(especially)Cheney Administration and the proposals of the GOP leadership regarding civil rights and freedoms (i.e. profiling, among others) been worse than the Democrats. I don't like Democrats, for the most part, but the Republicans have been even more unacceptable. Its the choice between bad and worse and I didn't choose worse.

I wasn't demonizing the Republican party, I was painting with a broad brush. SOME of them aren't as I described.

What total horse shit!

Name one instance of profiling that you find so objectionable by the conservatives you named? In looking at the Rosen; IRS; and Benghazi scandals there are so many civil rights violations as never seen before! All of these have two things in common: This president and democrats!!!

Rosen was profiled? Was the AP also profiled? No. But I am outraged by this infringement on freedom of the press. Where was your outrage under the Bush administration for similar attacks on the press?

Was the IRS profiling conservative groups? Yes! And I am outraged by it as well, but if you think the IRS under other adminstrations, specifically Republican ones, didn't attack the opposition than you are either naive or blind. It outrages me MORE because I voted for Obama. Its LESS ok because I had hoped that a progressive (or from my POV: moderate) would act more idealistically.

Republicans have openly supported profiling since 9/11. Is this not something you have heard or read about in the last 12 years?

OK, so you've got Excuse 1 and 2 down pretty well. As a refresher those are:
1) Everyone does it.
2) BOOSH!

But you need to make the trifecta here and declare about any of it that "September was a long time ago". You can make variations on that, like "This is old news." Or "We've heard enough about it already." It boils down to the same thing.

But every time a lib is confronted with evidence of Democrat/Obama wrongdoing it's the same three responses:
1) They all do it.
2) BOOOSH!
3) Sept was a long time ago.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The title is not a lie. Holder had to sign off on the request. He did. After he said he had recused himself. SO he lied. Does that bother you?

Only a federal judge can approve a federal warrant.

Two Judges were asked to approve the warrant, but they refused because Rosen wasn't given notice, as required. A third Judge approved the warrant.

The 'third judge' was an appeals court judge whose opinion overturns those of lower court judges. Are you familiar with the appeals process? Is the DOJ not allowed to appeal decisions by lower court judges?

 

[Meister]

Only a federal judge can approve a federal warrant.

Two Judges were asked to approve the warrant, but they refused because Rosen wasn't given notice, as required. A third Judge approved the warrant.

The 'third judge' was an appeals court judge whose opinion overturns those of lower court judges. Are you familiar with the appeals process? Is the DOJ not allowed to appeal decisions by lower court judges?

With all due respect.....are you serious??????
You know as well as I do that it was an overreach of our government with this issue.
You know as well as I do that it is no more than politics being played by the left.
You know as well as I do that if it was a republican administration trying to pull this off you would be all over the DOJ.

 

[The Rabbi]

Only a federal judge can approve a federal warrant.

Two Judges were asked to approve the warrant, but they refused because Rosen wasn't given notice, as required. A third Judge approved the warrant.

The 'third judge' was an appeals court judge whose opinion overturns those of lower court judges. Are you familiar with the appeals process? Is the DOJ not allowed to appeal decisions by lower court judges?

What was the trial and verdict that was overturned?

Yeah, it's called judge shopping. Not technically illegal but the fact that Holder could not get 2 federal judges to go along with his scheme should ahve told any rational person what he wanted was illegal.

I notice you have backed off your claim that Holder did not sign off on the request.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Two Judges were asked to approve the warrant, but they refused because Rosen wasn't given notice, as required. A third Judge approved the warrant.

The 'third judge' was an appeals court judge whose opinion overturns those of lower court judges. Are you familiar with the appeals process? Is the DOJ not allowed to appeal decisions by lower court judges?

What was the trial and verdict that was overturned?

Yeah, it's called judge shopping. Not technically illegal but the fact that Holder could not get 2 federal judges to go along with his scheme should ahve told any rational person what he wanted was illegal.

So appealing a judges decision is now "judge shopping". OK. Got it. So if no one ever "judge shopped" we could do away with the entire appeals system.

I notice you have backed off your claim that Holder did not sign off on the request.

I've never even made such a "claim".

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Two Judges were asked to approve the warrant, but they refused because Rosen wasn't given notice, as required. A third Judge approved the warrant.

The 'third judge' was an appeals court judge whose opinion overturns those of lower court judges. Are you familiar with the appeals process? Is the DOJ not allowed to appeal decisions by lower court judges?

With all due respect.....are you serious??????
You know as well as I do that it was an overreach of our government with this issue.
You know as well as I do that it is no more than politics being played by the left.

Right, its an overreach. The DOJ isn't supposed to appeal any judge's decisions. Utilizing the appeals system when you disagree with the lower court judge's ruling is tyranny. We all just "know it". Got it.

You know as well as I do that if it was a republican administration trying to pull this off you would be all over the DOJ.

I thought this was about the DOJ breaking the law - now I find out its really about me. OK! Now do you really want me to look up examples of Republican administrations appealing judge's rulings? Do you think I will find any?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Two Judges were asked to approve the warrant, but they refused because Rosen wasn't given notice, as required. A third Judge approved the warrant.

The 'third judge' was an appeals court judge whose opinion overturns those of lower court judges. Are you familiar with the appeals process? Is the DOJ not allowed to appeal decisions by lower court judges?

With all due respect.....are you serious??????
You know as well as I do that it was an overreach of our government with this issue.
You know as well as I do that it is no more than politics being played by the left.
You know as well as I do that if it was a republican administration trying to pull this off you would be all over the DOJ.

This reminds me of people who are addicted to prescriptions. Dr shopping....

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The 'third judge' was an appeals court judge whose opinion overturns those of lower court judges. Are you familiar with the appeals process? Is the DOJ not allowed to appeal decisions by lower court judges?

With all due respect.....are you serious??????
You know as well as I do that it was an overreach of our government with this issue.
You know as well as I do that it is no more than politics being played by the left.
You know as well as I do that if it was a republican administration trying to pull this off you would be all over the DOJ.

This reminds me of people who are addicted to prescriptions. Dr shopping....

So now appealing to a higher court is "judge shopping".

 

[Coloradomtnman]

What total horse shit!

Name one instance of profiling that you find so objectionable by the conservatives you named? In looking at the Rosen; IRS; and Benghazi scandals there are so many civil rights violations as never seen before! All of these have two things in common: This president and democrats!!!

Rosen was profiled? Was the AP also profiled? No. But I am outraged by this infringement on freedom of the press. Where was your outrage under the Bush administration for similar attacks on the press?

Was the IRS profiling conservative groups? Yes! And I am outraged by it as well, but if you think the IRS under other adminstrations, specifically Republican ones, didn't attack the opposition than you are either naive or blind. It outrages me MORE because I voted for Obama. Its LESS ok because I had hoped that a progressive (or from my POV: moderate) would act more idealistically.

Republicans have openly supported profiling since 9/11. Is this not something you have heard or read about in the last 12 years?

OK, so you've got Excuse 1 and 2 down pretty well. As a refresher those are:
1) Everyone does it.
2) BOOSH!

But you need to make the trifecta here and declare about any of it that "September was a long time ago". You can make variations on that, like "This is old news." Or "We've heard enough about it already." It boils down to the same thing.

But every time a lib is confronted with evidence of Democrat/Obama wrongdoing it's the same three responses:
1) They all do it.
2) BOOOSH!
3) Sept was a long time ago.

Jeezus, did you even read what I wrote?!

Yes, they all have done it! That's the problem isn't?! It does not, however, excuse it this time. I offer no excuses. Whomever is responsible needs to be prosecuted and if it goes all the way to Obama then he needs to go. However, until the evidence proves that Obama did this then I will wait to come to a conclusion.

Who signed the Patriot Act into law? Who?! Who authorized warrantless phone taps? Does that not infringe on our civil rights? Where was your outrage then. I was outraged then and I am now. I hold Obama ultimately responsible because the buck stops there and I won't vote for him again.

And I wrote nothing about September being along time ago. I wrote that Republicans have wanted to profile Middle Easterners since 9/11. Is that clear?

 

[Oldstyle]

Rosen was profiled? Was the AP also profiled? No. But I am outraged by this infringement on freedom of the press. Where was your outrage under the Bush administration for similar attacks on the press?

Was the IRS profiling conservative groups? Yes! And I am outraged by it as well, but if you think the IRS under other adminstrations, specifically Republican ones, didn't attack the opposition than you are either naive or blind. It outrages me MORE because I voted for Obama. Its LESS ok because I had hoped that a progressive (or from my POV: moderate) would act more idealistically.

Republicans have openly supported profiling since 9/11. Is this not something you have heard or read about in the last 12 years?

OK, so you've got Excuse 1 and 2 down pretty well. As a refresher those are:
1) Everyone does it.
2) BOOSH!

But you need to make the trifecta here and declare about any of it that "September was a long time ago". You can make variations on that, like "This is old news." Or "We've heard enough about it already." It boils down to the same thing.

But every time a lib is confronted with evidence of Democrat/Obama wrongdoing it's the same three responses:
1) They all do it.
2) BOOOSH!
3) Sept was a long time ago.

Jeezus, did you even read what I wrote?!

Yes, they all have done it! That's the problem isn't?! It does not, however, excuse it this time. I offer no excuses. Whomever is responsible needs to be prosecuted and if it goes all the way to Obama then he needs to go. However, until the evidence proves that Obama did this then I will wait to come to a conclusion.

Who signed the Patriot Act into law? Who?! Who authorized warrantless phone taps? Does that not infringe on our civil rights? Where was your outrage then. I was outraged then and I am now. I hold Obama ultimately responsible because the buck stops there and I won't vote for him again.

And I wrote nothing about September being along time ago. I wrote that Republicans have wanted to profile Middle Easterners since 9/11. Is that clear?

You won't vote for Barry again? That's your "punishment" for his actions? You probably slept through this part of civics class, Mountain...but Presidents can only serve two terms now. You couldn't vote for Barack Obama because he can't run for a third term. The buck stops there? Really? That's pretty pathetic.

 

[Starlight]

With all due respect.....are you serious??????
You know as well as I do that it was an overreach of our government with this issue.
You know as well as I do that it is no more than politics being played by the left.
You know as well as I do that if it was a republican administration trying to pull this off you would be all over the DOJ.

This reminds me of people who are addicted to prescriptions. Dr shopping....

So now appealing to a higher court is "judge shopping".

After going through 2 other judges decisions that would not agree to their warrant, it is judge shopping. We can all rest easy though since Holder realizes the concerns and has initiated a re-evaluation of dept policies and procedures. Whewwwwww!

 

[The Rabbi]

With all due respect.....are you serious??????
You know as well as I do that it was an overreach of our government with this issue.
You know as well as I do that it is no more than politics being played by the left.
You know as well as I do that if it was a republican administration trying to pull this off you would be all over the DOJ.

This reminds me of people who are addicted to prescriptions. Dr shopping....

So now appealing to a higher court is "judge shopping".

What verdict was appealed after which trial?
Yeah, there wasn't one. Going from judge to judge to find one who agrees with you is judge shopping, not appeals.
Yes, you claimed the thread title was a lie. You claimed only a judge could sign off on the order. Are you being disingenuous or are you merely stupid? That's a serious question, btw.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

This reminds me of people who are addicted to prescriptions. Dr shopping....

So now appealing to a higher court is "judge shopping".

After going through 2 other judges decisions that would not agree to their warrant, it is judge shopping. We can all rest easy though since Holder realizes the concerns and has initiated a re-evaluation of dept policies and procedures. Whewwwwww!

So appealing a decision is "judge shopping" if you are appealing the decision of two lower court judges, but not if you are appealing the decision of one? Or is appealing always "judge shopping" ?

 

[Oldstyle]

Only a federal judge can approve a federal warrant.

Two Judges were asked to approve the warrant, but they refused because Rosen wasn't given notice, as required. A third Judge approved the warrant.

The 'third judge' was an appeals court judge whose opinion overturns those of lower court judges. Are you familiar with the appeals process? Is the DOJ not allowed to appeal decisions by lower court judges?

This isn't an "appeal" you moron. When someone refers to "Judge shopping" what they mean is going to various judges trying to find one who will go along with what you're proposing. In this case Holder went to two Federal judges who looked at what he wanted to do with Rosen and they refused to go along with it. So he went to yet another Federal judge and finally found one that would. My guess is they upped the ante by accusing Rosen of being a "co-conspirator" and sold it to this third idiot as a matter of "national security". Which goes to show how many judges we have sitting on benches that have no business being there.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rosen was profiled? Was the AP also profiled? No. But I am outraged by this infringement on freedom of the press. Where was your outrage under the Bush administration for similar attacks on the press?

Was the IRS profiling conservative groups? Yes! And I am outraged by it as well, but if you think the IRS under other adminstrations, specifically Republican ones, didn't attack the opposition than you are either naive or blind. It outrages me MORE because I voted for Obama. Its LESS ok because I had hoped that a progressive (or from my POV: moderate) would act more idealistically.

Republicans have openly supported profiling since 9/11. Is this not something you have heard or read about in the last 12 years?

OK, so you've got Excuse 1 and 2 down pretty well. As a refresher those are:
1) Everyone does it.
2) BOOSH!

But you need to make the trifecta here and declare about any of it that "September was a long time ago". You can make variations on that, like "This is old news." Or "We've heard enough about it already." It boils down to the same thing.

But every time a lib is confronted with evidence of Democrat/Obama wrongdoing it's the same three responses:
1) They all do it.
2) BOOOSH!
3) Sept was a long time ago.

Jeezus, did you even read what I wrote?!

Yes, they all have done it! That's the problem isn't?! It does not, however, excuse it this time. I offer no excuses. Whomever is responsible needs to be prosecuted and if it goes all the way to Obama then he needs to go. However, until the evidence proves that Obama did this then I will wait to come to a conclusion.

Who signed the Patriot Act into law? Who?! Who authorized warrantless phone taps? Does that not infringe on our civil rights? Where was your outrage then. I was outraged then and I am now. I hold Obama ultimately responsible because the buck stops there and I won't vote for him again.

And I wrote nothing about September being along time ago. I wrote that Republicans have wanted to profile Middle Easterners since 9/11. Is that clear?

No. They do not all do it. Even if they did it wouldn't matter nor relevant.
We are dealing with a unique breach of civil rights by the Obama Justice Dept, the Obama Treasury Department, and who knows what else. But these unique offenses were committed all by people ultimately answerable to Obama. Not to George W Bush. Not to Rush Limbaugh. Not to anyone else. And so far Obama has stonewalled and failed to give a convincing performance of a man determined to get to the bottom of what happened and punish the guilty.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

This reminds me of people who are addicted to prescriptions. Dr shopping....

So now appealing to a higher court is "judge shopping".

What verdict was appealed after which trial?z
Yeah, there wasn't one. Going from judge to judge to find one who agrees with you is judge shopping, not appeals.
Yes, you claimed the thread title was a lie. You claimed only a judge could sign off on the order. Are you being disingenuous or are you merely stupid? That's a serious question, btw.

So its "judge shopping" if you appeal any decision other than the verdict of a trial?