Holder's Last Days?

Something the Dog Said wrote: It is not perjury, plus your statement was a lie. Holder never made a statement that Rosen was not being investigated. CBS did not allege that Holder committed perjury, that is yet another lie. CBS reported that the Republicans were pushing an investigation into potential perjury. Since it is well known that Republicans lie, obviously there is no truth to the matter.

Explain to me... what was on the warrant that Holder signed? If the warrant wasn't for the purpose of possibly discovering a crime that could be prosecuted... what was it's purpose?

Something the Dog Said wrote: It is not perjury, plus your statement was a lie. Holder never made a statement that Rosen was not being investigated. CBS did not allege that Holder committed perjury, that is yet another lie. CBS reported that the Republicans were pushing an investigation into potential perjury. Since it is well known that Republicans lie, obviously there is no truth to the matter.

That is funny right there, I don't care who you are. Holder has contradicted himself giving testimony at different times to Congress, so he probably did commit perjury since his story changed, or as Obama would say, his testimony has evolved. You would think EH would have enough education and experience to know to keep his story straight.

Now Dog, go to your Lefty sources, and let them twist the facts for you defending a man that even Keith Olberman says needs to go. HuffPo? Needs to go.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: It is not perjury, plus your statement was a lie. Holder never made a statement that Rosen was not being investigated. CBS did not allege that Holder committed perjury, that is yet another lie. CBS reported that the Republicans were pushing an investigation into potential perjury. Since it is well known that Republicans lie, obviously there is no truth to the matter.

Explain to me... what was on the warrant that Holder signed? If the warrant wasn't for the purpose of possibly discovering a crime that could be prosecuted... what was it's purpose?

The purpose of the warrant, as Holder explained during the course of his answer, which you must have heard since you claimed you were religiously listening to it, was part of an investigation to determine who leaked the classified national security information to Rosen. As Holder also disclosed during the course of his answer, which you must have listened to, it is bad policy to prosecute reporters for disseminating material, and something he is not party to. I could go on and explain to you the difference between investigations and prosecutions, but that appears to be over your head.

FredHayek wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: It is not perjury, plus your statement was a lie. Holder never made a statement that Rosen was not being investigated. CBS did not allege that Holder committed perjury, that is yet another lie. CBS reported that the Republicans were pushing an investigation into potential perjury. Since it is well known that Republicans lie, obviously there is no truth to the matter.

That is funny right there, I don't care who you are. Holder has contradicted himself giving testimony at different times to Congress, so he probably did commit perjury since his story changed, or as Obama would say, his testimony has evolved. You would think EH would have enough education and experience to know to keep his story straight.

Now Dog, go to your Lefty sources, and let them twist the facts for you defending a man that even Keith Olberman says needs to go. HuffPo? Needs to go.

Nope, just more lies from a conservative. His story has been straightforward and consistent. You keep proving the veracity of the study of the other topic, that Republicans lie.

If you had a single fact, you would provide documentation. Instead, you just keep spewing your lies in the hope that no one will challenge them.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: It is not perjury, plus your statement was a lie. Holder never made a statement that Rosen was not being investigated. CBS did not allege that Holder committed perjury, that is yet another lie. CBS reported that the Republicans were pushing an investigation into potential perjury. Since it is well known that Republicans lie, obviously there is no truth to the matter.

Explain to me... what was on the warrant that Holder signed? If the warrant wasn't for the purpose of possibly discovering a crime that could be prosecuted... what was it's purpose?

The purpose of the warrant, as Holder explained during the course of his answer, which you must have heard since you claimed you were religiously listening to it, was part of an investigation to determine who leaked the classified national security information to Rosen. As Holder also disclosed during the course of his answer, which you must have listened to, it is bad policy to prosecute reporters for disseminating material, and something he is not party to. I could go on and explain to you the difference between investigations and prosecutions, but that appears to be over your head.

Where did I say I listened to the Holder testimony? But besides your crappy-assed snark... thanks for the answer.

Something the Dog Said wrote: The purpose of the warrant, as Holder explained during the course of his answer, which you must have heard since you claimed you were religiously listening to it (Note: I never said I listened to the Holder testimony - Walt), was part of an investigation to determine who leaked the classified national security information to Rosen. As Holder also disclosed during the course of his answer, which you must have listened to (Note: I never said I listened to the Holder testimony - Walt), it is bad policy to prosecute reporters for disseminating material, and something he is not party to. I could go on and explain to you the difference between investigations and prosecutions, but that appears to be over your head.

Let's look at the wording of the affidavit submitted to the judge who would approve the warrant...

Mr. Kim’s missing responses to the Reporter’s emails would materially assist the FBI’s investigation as they could be expected to establish further the fact of the disclosures, their content, and Mr. Kim’s and the Reporter’s intent in making them, and could be expected to constitute direct evidence of their guilt or innocence. [/b][/i]

Because of the Reporter’s own potential criminal liability in this matter [/b][/i], we believe that requesting the voluntary production of the materials from Reporter would be futile and would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation and of the evidence we seek to obtain by warrant.

(Holder “With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material," Holder testified on May 16, “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.”)

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... at-way.php

The warrant was issued for "potential criminal liability" to discover "direct evidence of their guilt or innocence" so you can build a case for prosecution if that criminal liability and evidence of guilt is uncovered. Unless you are telling me that the warrant was issued and signed by Holder just for jollies?

Dog good to know EH has one defender left. Even the liberal press didn't want to meet with him today. I guess unlike you they are tired of his coverups and obfuscations.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: The purpose of the warrant, as Holder explained during the course of his answer, which you must have heard since you claimed you were religiously listening to it (Note: I never said I listened to the Holder testimony - Walt), was part of an investigation to determine who leaked the classified national security information to Rosen. As Holder also disclosed during the course of his answer, which you must have listened to (Note: I never said I listened to the Holder testimony - Walt), it is bad policy to prosecute reporters for disseminating material, and something he is not party to. I could go on and explain to you the difference between investigations and prosecutions, but that appears to be over your head.

Let's look at the wording of the affidavit submitted to the judge who would approve the warrant...

Mr. Kim’s missing responses to the Reporter’s emails would materially assist the FBI’s investigation as they could be expected to establish further the fact of the disclosures, their content, and Mr. Kim’s and the Reporter’s intent in making them, and could be expected to constitute direct evidence of their guilt or innocence. [/b][/i]

Because of the Reporter’s own potential criminal liability in this matter [/b][/i], we believe that requesting the voluntary production of the materials from Reporter would be futile and would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation and of the evidence we seek to obtain by warrant.

(Holder “With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material," Holder testified on May 16, “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.”)

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... at-way.php

The warrant was issued for "potential criminal liability" to discover "direct evidence of their guilt or innocence" so you can build a case for prosecution if that criminal liability and evidence of guilt is uncovered. Unless you are telling me that the warrant was issued and signed by Holder just for jollies?

Where in the warrant did it state that the DOJ intended to prosecute Rosen if there were evidence of criminal liability? Under the 1917 Espionage Act, Rosen could have been prosecuted. Rosen was a co-conspirator under that law. However, as Holder has repeatedly stated, it is not the policy of the DOJ to prosecute the press simply for dissemination of information. The subpoena was for investigatory purposes, to uncover the source of the leak of classified national security information. In fact, the DOJ issued a notice and copy of the subpoena to Fox at the time of serving it on the phone companies, and they could have challenged it at that time, 3 years ago had they been concerned. Holder did nothing wrong, just using legal tools to protect the national security of the American public.

Edited to add:
Unindicted conspirators are often used in criminal investigations to further the investigation with no intention of prosecuting the unindicted conspirator.

FredHayek wrote: Dog good to know EH has one defender left. Even the liberal press didn't want to meet with him today. I guess unlike you they are tired of his coverups and obfuscations.

And yet another conservative lie, thanks for proving the veracity of the study of the other topic. While a few members of the press did not attend the meeting, many others did, including representatives from the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Politico, New York Daily News and others.