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.
And what is the point if they can't report on it?
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
To speak freely in order to create a better working environment without Republicans fabricating lies about it.
"As editor in chief, I routinely have off-the-record conversations with people who have questions or grievances about our coverage or our newsgathering practices,” Harris, who was invited to represent POLITICO at the meeting, said in an email. “I feel anyone—whether an official or ordinary reader—should be able to have an unguarded conversation with someone in a position of accountability for a news organization when there is good reason.”
So whatever information is learned, nothing can be repeated to the public. Maybe this friendly meeting is just to get the next talking points straight and get the press on the same page as the DOJ. Makes me trust the DOJ soooooo much more.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Rick wrote: So whatever information is learned, nothing can be repeated to the public. Maybe this friendly meeting is just to get the next talking points straight and get the press on the same page as the DOJ. Makes me trust the DOJ soooooo much more.
If the walls had ears, maybe the conversation went something like this:
EH: "...so when I said that I didn't know and then later on when I said not only did I know, I authorized it, try not to point those kinds of things out anymore when you report. Trust me I'm a good guy who just has a lot of stuff on my plate and sometimes I forget what I said when..."
Translation - You caught me, I lied but I should get a pass because I'm the Attorney General of the United States of America.
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges; When the Republic is at its most corrupt the laws are most numerous. - Publius Cornelius Tacitus
Rick wrote: So whatever information is learned, nothing can be repeated to the public. Maybe this friendly meeting is just to get the next talking points straight and get the press on the same page as the DOJ. Makes me trust the DOJ soooooo much more.
If the walls had ears, maybe the conversation went something like this:
EH: "...so when I said that I didn't know and then later on when I said not only did I know, I authorized it, try not to point those kinds of things out anymore when you report. Trust me I'm a good guy who just has a lot of stuff on my plate and sometimes I forget what I said when..."
Translation - You caught me, I lied but I should get a pass because I'm the Attorney General of the United States of America.
:thumbsup:
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Something the Dog Said wrote: Where in the warrant did it state that the DOJ intended to prosecute Rosen if there were evidence of criminal liability? cuting the unindicted conspirator.
Where did I say it was in the warrant? I'll wait.
But the affidavit presented to the judge to justify the issuance of the warrant stated clearly the DOJ's purpose for the warrant.... which stated... "Because of the Reporter’s own potential criminal liability in this matter" and "could be expected to constitute direct evidence of their guilt or innocence." The motivation of the DOJ in requesting the warrant was rather clear. And Holder signed the warrant after it was issued.
But of course... you know that... you're not so stupid not to understand these simple fact... or maybe you are?
Something the Dog Said wrote: Where in the warrant did it state that the DOJ intended to prosecute Rosen if there were evidence of criminal liability? cuting the unindicted conspirator.
Where did I say it was in the warrant? I'll wait.
But the affidavit presented to the judge to justify the issuance of the warrant stated clearly the DOJ's purpose for the warrant.... which stated... "Because of the Reporter’s own potential criminal liability in this matter" and "could be expected to constitute direct evidence of their guilt or innocence." The motivation of the DOJ in requesting the warrant was rather clear. And Holder signed the warrant after it was issued.
But of course... you know that... you're not so stupid not to understand these simple fact... or maybe you are?
Yet again, do I need to explain the difference between prosecution and investigations? That unindicted co-conspirators are investigated quite often without intent to prosecute? FYI, was Rosen ever charged with a crime (the investigation was 3 years ago)?
Why did Fox not challenge the subpoena 3 years ago when they were notified about it and had the opportunity to have it thrown out?
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Something the Dog Said wrote: Where in the warrant did it state that the DOJ intended to prosecute Rosen if there were evidence of criminal liability? cuting the unindicted conspirator.
Where did I say it was in the warrant? I'll wait.
But the affidavit presented to the judge to justify the issuance of the warrant stated clearly the DOJ's purpose for the warrant.... which stated... "Because of the Reporter’s own potential criminal liability in this matter" and "could be expected to constitute direct evidence of their guilt or innocence." The motivation of the DOJ in requesting the warrant was rather clear. And Holder signed the warrant after it was issued.
But of course... you know that... you're not so stupid not to understand these simple fact... or maybe you are?
Yet again, do I need to explain the difference between prosecution and investigations? That unindicted co-conspirators are investigated quite often without intent to prosecute? FYI, was Rosen ever charged with a crime (the investigation was 3 years ago)?
Why did Fox not challenge the subpoena 3 years ago when they were notified about it and had the opportunity to have it thrown out?
I'm still wondering if you're going to answer this question "Where did I say it was in the warrant?" or at least admit your were wrong (or outright lying).
Here's a more succinct explanation of Holder's lies...
It’s important to remember why Holder named Rosen as a potential co-conspirator in that warrant application, too. Without that argument, a judge would never have allowed the unlimited snooping on Rosen’s communications that Justice sought. They would have had to follow the statutes erected by Congress in the wake of Watergate to protect reporters from executive-branch abuses of power. The naming of Rosen as a prosecution target allowed Justice to get around that statute — and it still took three judges to approve that application even under those circumstances. If the defense now is that Rosen was never a prosecutorial target, then the warrant application is a lie, and Holder has to answer for that perjury, too.
