Illegal wire tapping of the FOX reporter

[Adak]

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!

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.

[BigV]

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.

[classicman]

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.

[footfootfoot]

*cough*I'dtapthat*cough*

[BigV]

Originally Posted by classicman

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.

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 The Fox one is a problem because it reflects a legal use of a SERIOUSLY out of date law, the same one that was used to gather Petraeus' years of correspondence.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.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

He says illegal right in the title.

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

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

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.

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.

...
All I found to support Adak's claim was a clip of Karl Rove saying it first.

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

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.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Adak

Well, it seems that under oath previously, Holder gave testimony that he didn't know anything about the wire taps of the Fox reporter.

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:

Aides for the House Judiciary Committee say members have launched an investigation into whether Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. lied under oath during congressional testimony on May 15.

The lawmakers are looking at one statement in particular, The Hill reported. While trading remarks with Rep. Henry C. “Hank” Johnson Jr., Georgia Democrat, Mr. Holder said, “In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material — this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy,” The Hill said.

"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.

[BigV]

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

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

**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.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

**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.

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.

[Adak]

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?

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

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

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

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.

[BigV]

Yup.

[Adak]

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?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Adak

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.

[ZenGum]

The wave-function superposition persists.