Illegal wire tapping of the FOX reporter
 

Now we find out that Eric Holder personally signed the affidavit to get this wire tap, not once,


not twice.


but THREE times - because he had to shop his affidavit around before he could find any judge that would accept it as legal.

But under oath in May of this year, he told the Congressional committee , he had NO KNOWLEDGE of it.

Oh SURE, Mr. Holder. We believe you! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

They are calling the Honest ol' Holder back to the Committee, and they are going to tear him up. You skated on Fast and Furious, Mr. Holder, but you won't skate on this lie. :D

Hiya Adak.

I looked around for facts about this story but I didn't find anything that supports your claim that what Holder did was illegal. Could you please post a link to your source?

Thanks in advance.

I don't see the word illegal in Adak's post ( far be it from me to defend him though)
I think if you look a bit BigV, you will find plenty of people from both sides of the aisle who are not at all happy with the way this looks.

*cough*I'dtapthat*cough*

He says illegal right in the title.

As for the optics, they're TERRIBLE. How it looks? It looks like shit. I think Adak is mixing up two stories (wouldn't be the first time). *From what I have read*, the hearing he spoke of had to do with Holder's appearance regarding the wiretaps at the Associated Press. But the Fox reporter "wiretap" was different.

Both were crap in my opinion, but my complaints about each one is very different. The AP one is wrong because it was an overreach, too far, too fast. The Fox one is a problem because it reflects a legal use of a SERIOUSLY out of date law, the same one that was used to gather Petraeus' years of correspondence.

Not the same case, not the same facts not the same subpoenas, not the same. All I found to support Adak's claim was a clip of Karl Rove saying it first.

...

Riiiiiight.

I'm not gonna defend Adak either, I just want to hear his side of it, beyond parroting Karl Rove.

Wait a second, you can't just go around asking liberals to READ!

How could they stay liberals, if they made that a habit? ;)

You're right, I'm not up to speed on this. I broke my eardrum 2 days ago, and now I'm half deaf, with a dull ache and strange low frequency noises accentuated. So I wasn't watching this story very well, and listening to Roger Hedgecock's show (he's the conservative former Mayor of my town, before San Diego became "Enron by the Sea").

I saw a pic on the net with Eric Holders signature on an affidavit, but I didn't think much about it. Why wouldn't Holder sign an affidavit? What's the big deal? With the patriot bill in place, I thought Holder was covered legally.

Well, it seems that under oath previously, Holder gave testimony that he didn't know anything about the wire taps of the Fox reporter. Now, we're being told that he actually signed all three affidavits, because it had to be shopped around to three judges before they found one that would approve it.

So it appears he lied under oath, and THAT is a very big deal indeed. I expect Holder will find a "Clinton" out: "It depends what your definition of is, is.", or maybe use Obama's: "There is no there, there". He better find something, or he's toast.

I stopped listening to Rove a long time ago. I don't believe he cares too much about what's good for America. Given the choice, he would rather that his analysis be correct, and we went down the shitter, imo.

I don't have a side to it yet. I have no idea (and couldn't care less), what Rove said.

You can hear Hedgecock talk about it, by d/l'ing his radio show, for May 28th, from his website.

http://www.rogerhedgecock.com/category/228485/podcasts

You want 5/28, Hour 1. I see this topic listed for 5/24 Hour 1 as well, but I did not catch that show, so that's not what I was referring to here.

It's hard to find what you're talking about when you don't give cites, but I assume you mean this:

From the Washington Times:

"Prosecution" and "wiretaps" are two different things. "Prosecution" means going to court and filing a criminal complaint against someone. That hasn't happened. What did happen is that Holder investigated a journalist to find the source of a leak coming from the government. It's bad enough, in my opinion. No need to make up bogus accusations. There was no perjury.

**I'm** a liberal, and I read habitually. I don't anticipate any change in my political philosophy. Perhaps you know something I don't.

Perhaps you didn't know that our disability rolls have grown by about a factor of 3, since Obama took office.

We can't have these people on the unemployed roster, and clearly we want them to be relying on the gov't for monthly handouts.

Perhaps you didn't know that with Obama's loans and incentives for "Green" jobs program, we now know EACH permanent green job, COST us $11.5 MILLION. :mad:

Perhaps you can explain WHY we should EVER allow illegal immigrants, to be granted US citizenship? When someone breaks into my home, I don't feel like they should be rewarded. I feel the same way about citizenship in my country.

Socialism works fine in a country like Norway or Iceland, or Sweden - as long as the vast majority are hard working, and have similar values, you're OK. But it's NOT a good system when it comes to a multi-cultural country like ours, where we have many hard workers, but also many who give "lazy", a far too industrious description for their lifestyle.

Note what's happening in Sweden now. They've taken in a huge bunch of North Africans/Middle Easterners, (largely Muslim), and they were GIVEN the benefits of one of the best socialized systems, ever created.

And they're trying to burn down whatever they can, night after night.

When people are given a lot for free, they always want more, because they take it for granted. And they want it NOW, thank you very much.

We aren't well set up for socialism. I'd love to see socialized medicine in the US, but not the way Obama has set it up.

Roger Hedgecock (former lawyer and Mayor of San Diego), has found the "out" for Eric Holder.

You'll have to pay close attention, because it's a careful parsing of the words.

He did not sign an affidavit for a wire tap, because he thought the FOX reporter was breaking the law by publishing the info from his whistle-blower source.

He signed the affidavit for a wire tap, because he thought the FOX reporter was a co-conspirator - as someone who probably committed a crime by helping the whistle blower.

And he prefaced his answer to the congress while under oath. Essentially, answering his own carefully parsed question, and not the question that was asked.

So now any reporter who meets or arranges communication with a whistle blower, is a co-conspirator, and thus can be wire tapped and probably prosecuted, as well? Did I mention they also wire tapped his Mom's phone line, as well?

She's another probable co-conspirator, as well? :rolleyes:

He may escape perjury charges, but his sweetheart relationship with the press, is toast.

Holder has set up a meeting "off the record" with the bureau chiefs, to help "clarify the matter", for them.

This is pretty funny from a guy that doesn't read anything, if he did he could cite sources. Adak just listens to some asshole on the radio, believes everything he hears, and spouts off like he knows what he's talking about. :lol2:

Yup.

Citing sources won't matter. Extremists (right or left), have their agenda. Facts don't matter, if they don't support that agenda.

Do you know more about the legal process of obtaining a wire tap than a lawyer does? Do you know what it must contain?

Why wouldn't I listen to an attorney, like Mark Levin for instance? He was the AG's Chief of Staff years ago, and not only is (obviously), a talk show host now, and a lawyer, but also, has been involved with Landmark Legal since last March, on some of these cases now in the news.

Do you believe you know more about these cases than Mark Levin does?

Do you believe that a few hours of Googling will surpass his many years of working for the Justice Department, up to these high levels, and his long familiarity with these cases?

Of course not. It's odd that you somehow believe that you can.

If a reporter can't meet or communicate with his confidential sources, without being wire tapped and or put under surveillance , then very few confidential sources will come forward, since obviously they would be exposed.

Do you understand that fact, at least? Do you understand how completely that cuts out having a free press, and investigative reporting, of any subject that the current administration doesn't like?

I don't think anyone is arguing with you on that point. You said the wiretap was illegal and that Holder committed perjury. You gave no cites to back up those statements. Both assertions are false.

I don't like what Holder has done, but it's not illegal to get a court order to wiretap someone, and it wasn't perjury to say that he wasn't prosecuting members of the press when he wasn't actually prosecuting members of the press.

This is the one scandal that I'm against Obama on, and you've got me defending his administration because you are making shit up. Just stick to the facts. They are bad enough.

The wave-function superposition persists.

Because you didn't hire him and you are not paying him, therefore he has no legal or moral obligation to you. His allegiance is to his wallet, and those that insure his wallet's future.

Why not trust him? DUH, he's a political lawyer. :rolleyes:

I gave my source, and gave a link to it. You just didn't like it.

A reporter is NOT a co-conspirator, because he communicates with confidential (whistle blower) sources.

At the time I started this thread, it appeared that it was illegal, and that Holder had committed perjury.

I'm not a mind reader, and Holder certainly has not been forthcoming with the details in this matter.

This is not a court of law. My opinion was that Holder vastly overstepped his authority in this case, and that he was lying to Congress, but I had not heard his recorded previous testimony, until yesterday.

Despite their assertions to the contrary, Nixon was a crook, Clinton did have sex with Monica, Bush knew there probably was no weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, and Obama lied about Benghazi, through Susan Rice.

You may call it something different, but a very misleading statement from a high public official, should be judged a lie, because of the trust and authority, we have given these people.

I don't believe a jury would see it any differently, in a court of law.

Yes, we need to raise a fuss about this. That's the only way to keep these politicians in line. We can't wait until all the facts have been ascertained, before we start. By the time that happens it's "yesterdays news. Nothing new here to see.", and the opportunity to resist or debate the action, is lost - right along with our rights.

His listeners are his boss. He's now a nationally syndicated talk show host, and if I (and others), stop listening to him, he'll be out of a job.

He's another Beck, if he doesn't keep you pissed off you lose interest, and he loses money. So the job is not to inform, but to piss off, which means doing whatever it takes, even (read especially) if he has to bend/twist the truth, connect dots that don't exist, and make shit up.

IT'S SHOW BIZ!

How short is your memory, Olly ?
Did you deliberately skip that mental giant, Ronald Regan
and Iran-Contra / Lying to Congress

Pardoned before trial
Caspar Weinberger, United States Secretary of Defense,
Duane R. Clarridge (US Republican Party)

Plead guilty / Agreed to cooperate / Pardoned by Bush
Elliott Abrams
Robert C. McFarlane,
Alan D. Fiers
Richard Secord
Albert Hakim

Found Guilty
Richard R. Miller
Oliver North
John Poindexter
Clair George
Thomas G. Clines
Carl R. Channel

Not at all. He's a lot older than Beck, has had a great career in law and especially working in the Justice Department. His talk show is all about the Constitution and it's use and abuse, by either party, today. And he's not just a died in the wool Republican either. His mentor was Hubert Humphrey!

Iran Contra was wrong, but we can look back from our vantage point after all these years, and see that the Communists were a real threat in several Central and South American countries.

Their response was wrong, but their threat assessment was correct.

There were things that should never have been done: like the CIA killing President Allende in Chile.

WTH were they thinking??

What a contrast that is with today's congress and media. Reagan's law-breakers were investigated, brought up on charges, and convicted.

Obama's law-breakers are unknown, (who approved Fast and Furious, who ordered the military responders to Benghazi to "stand down", who ordered the words "attack" removed and "disturbance" inserted into the CIA's report?, who ordered the conservative 501c 4 groups to be harassed by the IRS, FBI, OSHA, and other federal agencies, etc.)

The Congress has not been able to check the power and misdeeds of the President, and the media is largely responsible for that. With elections every few years, not many politicians can afford to attack Obama, when all his cheer-leading media types will immediately cast him or her, in the worst possible light.



BTW, the "half dozen or so" IRS agents that were being investigated for targeting conservative groups, has now been expanded to include records from 88 agents.

They have been informed to secure all "related" communications from their computers. Who decides what is "related"? They do! :D

Reagan may have been impacted by Alzheimers in his second term, but 30 years after his election, what is it that we need very badly? OH! It's a missile defense shield! And before that, he was easily the best communicator we ever had in the Oval Office.

@Adak, It's one thing to express a political position, but it takes some
sort of documentation or reference to support a statement of fact.
I did not, and still do not, know if your statement above is true or not.
Below is a link to a website report that explicitly contradicts your statement.

So, I offer you a challenge...
Provide an authoritative source that supports your statement that
the CIA killed Allende, or acknowledge that your remark is false.
... nothing in between and no diversions on to something else. OK ?

CIA.gov Home > Library > Reports > General Reports > Chile
Central Intelligence Agency
CIA Activities in Chile
Sept 18, 2000
<snip>

Lamplighter, you've fallen for an old trick used by conspiracy wackos. They make wild unsupported claims, and while you spend all afternoon finding evidence to refute their bullshit, they steal your hubcaps.

In this case, it's OK.

Nixon was not one of my favorite presidents,
so I'd be satisfied if Adak was actually correct this one time. :rolleyes:

John Stewart did a great piece on this....