Possible Impact
Inactive
That’s the question asked by Katie Pavlich and Jim Hoft after the revelation that
Attorney General Eric Holder personally approved the application for a warrant on
Fox News’ James Rosen as a potential co-conspirator in espionage.
posted at 10:01 am on May 24, 2013 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/24/did-eric-holder-lie-in-congressional-testimony-last-week/
That’s the question asked by Katie Pavlich and Jim Hoft after the revelation that
Attorney General Eric Holder personally approved the application for a warrant on
Fox News’ James Rosen as a potential co-conspirator in espionage. Last week,
under relatively friendly questioning from Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) about the
Department of Justice seizure of Associated Press phone records, Johnson asked
about the potential to prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act of 1917.
”You’ve got a long way to go to try to prosecute the press for publication of
material,” Holder responded. Later, though, he returned to the topic unbidden,
emphasis mine (at the 5-minute mark):
As it turns out, Holder not only heard of it, he personally approved it. The
warrant in the Rosen case specified that he was considered a potential suspect in
the leak of classified material, the reason that the DoJ didn’t bother to follow the
existing Watergate-era statute in coordinating the records request with Fox
News. And note that Holder’s testimony in this case wasn’t produced by some
sophisticated perjury trap sprung by a Republican, but as a freely-offered
representation to no particular question during the question period of a Democrat.
There is no other way to view this except as a lie. Even if Holder wasn’t under
oath, that would constitute a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. It
certainly should produce at least a resignation, and almost assuredly would
require the appointment of a special prosecutor, especially since the next person
down in the organization, James Cole, is suspected of doing the same thing with
reporters.
Update: Looks like a wide bipartisan consensus has formed for Holder’s
resignation. The Huffington Post wants him gone, as does Esquire. A resignation
at this point is probably not enough, either, if the House decides that further
action is required after this false representation on a key issue.
Update: According to Guy Benson and Gabriel Malor, Holder was under oath:
@edmorrissey Yes he was.
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) May 24, 2013
@edmorrissey @guypbenson The committee specifically said it was suspending the “no oath” courtesy.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) May 24, 2013
.@gabrielmalor @edmorrissey Here’s a photo of Holder raising his right hand prior to that testimony: timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/rtxznq…
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) May 24, 2013
I couldn’t recall this when I wrote the post, even though I watched most of that
hearing. That, of course, puts a charge of perjury on the table.
Update: Jennifer Rubin independently reached the same conclusion, and notes
the specificity in the warrant application of Rosen’s status as a suspect:
Indeed, along with the question of perjury in Congressional testimony.
Attorney General Eric Holder personally approved the application for a warrant on
Fox News’ James Rosen as a potential co-conspirator in espionage.
posted at 10:01 am on May 24, 2013 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/24/did-eric-holder-lie-in-congressional-testimony-last-week/
That’s the question asked by Katie Pavlich and Jim Hoft after the revelation that
Attorney General Eric Holder personally approved the application for a warrant on
Fox News’ James Rosen as a potential co-conspirator in espionage. Last week,
under relatively friendly questioning from Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) about the
Department of Justice seizure of Associated Press phone records, Johnson asked
about the potential to prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act of 1917.
”You’ve got a long way to go to try to prosecute the press for publication of
material,” Holder responded. Later, though, he returned to the topic unbidden,
emphasis mine (at the 5-minute mark):
As it turns out, Holder not only heard of it, he personally approved it. The
warrant in the Rosen case specified that he was considered a potential suspect in
the leak of classified material, the reason that the DoJ didn’t bother to follow the
existing Watergate-era statute in coordinating the records request with Fox
News. And note that Holder’s testimony in this case wasn’t produced by some
sophisticated perjury trap sprung by a Republican, but as a freely-offered
representation to no particular question during the question period of a Democrat.
There is no other way to view this except as a lie. Even if Holder wasn’t under
oath, that would constitute a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. It
certainly should produce at least a resignation, and almost assuredly would
require the appointment of a special prosecutor, especially since the next person
down in the organization, James Cole, is suspected of doing the same thing with
reporters.
Update: Looks like a wide bipartisan consensus has formed for Holder’s
resignation. The Huffington Post wants him gone, as does Esquire. A resignation
at this point is probably not enough, either, if the House decides that further
action is required after this false representation on a key issue.
Update: According to Guy Benson and Gabriel Malor, Holder was under oath:
@edmorrissey Yes he was.
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) May 24, 2013
@edmorrissey @guypbenson The committee specifically said it was suspending the “no oath” courtesy.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) May 24, 2013
.@gabrielmalor @edmorrissey Here’s a photo of Holder raising his right hand prior to that testimony: timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/rtxznq…
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) May 24, 2013
I couldn’t recall this when I wrote the post, even though I watched most of that
hearing. That, of course, puts a charge of perjury on the table.
Update: Jennifer Rubin independently reached the same conclusion, and notes
the specificity in the warrant application of Rosen’s status as a suspect:
