Thread: It’s Time To Fire Eric Holder

It’s Time To Fire Eric Holder

May 31, 2013 by Chip Wood

UPI

Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on judicial oversight on May 15.

Did the Attorney General of the United States commit perjury when he appeared before the House Judiciary Committee two weeks ago? It sure looks like it.
Eric Holder was testifying about the growing scandal over the Justice Department’s seizure of telephone records of someAssociated Press reporters and editors. Representative Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), one of the committee members, asked him if the Justice Department thought it could use the Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute reporters.
Holder offered what appeared to be a straightforward reply. He 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.”
Ah, but we later learned that is preciselywhat Holder’s agency had done against James Rosen, a reporter for FOX News. The Justice Department warrant authorizing the seizure of Rosen’s emails declared that there was “probable cause” to believe the reporter violated the Espionage Act “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.”
Based on this extraordinary accusation, a Federal judge agreed to the Justice Department’s request for a secret search warrant for Rosen’s private Gmail account. And guess what? The person who signed the Justice Department affidavit making those allegations was none other than the head man himself, Holder.
And while some of Holder’s defenders claim that he had just scribbled his signature on a whole bunch of papers his staff put in front of him, apparently this isn’t true either. Several reports say that he “carefully vetted” the Rosen paperwork.
It appears that the top boss at Justice knew exactly what he was doing when he ordered the surreptitious search of a reporter’s emails. So much for Holder’s claim that this is “not something I’ve ever been involved in.” As Desi Arnaz used to say to Lucille Ball, the Attorney General has “got some ’splainin’ to do.”
Of course, this was also the case three years ago, when Congress tried to find out what went wrong in Operation Fast and Furious. You’ll recall that this was a botched effort by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to trace how weapons went from the United States to Mexican drug cartels. Some 2,000 firearms went missing from the program. One of those weapons subsequently was used in Arizona to kill U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian A. Terry.
Congressional investigators looking into the fiasco asked Holder to give them certain documents relating to the Fast and Furious program, since ATF is a part of the Justice Department. When he refused, they served him with a subpoena demanding them. President Barack Obama then asserted executive privilege, and the Administration refused to surrender them.
As a result, the House of Representatives voted to hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress. To no one’s surprise, the Justice Department refused to prosecute the case.
The Administration was able to protect its guy back then. But even many Democrats are starting to question Holder’s veracity now. Representative John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, says he is “deeply troubled” by some of the Justice Department’s actions. But he’s willing to give Holder the benefit of the doubt… at least for now.
“Certainly, it is fair to ask additional questions about the Rosen investigation, and any role the attorney general may have played in it,” Conyers said in a statement. Then he added, “[B]ut I do not believe it credible to level charges that he may have intentionally misled the committee on this matter before we know the facts of the case in question.”
So what will the facts ultimately reveal? Did the Attorney General perjure himself this time around? Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.) is one of many people who seem to think so. He said, “There’ve been other people over the years indicted for perjury or tried for perjury on a lot less evidence than that.”
The House Judiciary Committee has sent Holder a letter, asking him to explain the apparent discrepancy between his actions against Rosen and what he told the committee when he testified under oath on May 15. Representative Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), the committee chairman, said, “We will withhold judgment on what the attorney general’s actions constitute until we give an opportunity for him to explain himself.”
Even Obama said a couple of days ago that he is “troubled” about these apparent assaults on the freedom of the press by the Justice Department. But, hey, not to worry: He is going to ask Holder to investigate matters and report back to him.
In other words, the President will ask the fox to look into what’s been happening in the chicken coop. That should make everyone feel better, shouldn’t it?
One liberal law professor has had enough. In a powerful column in USA Today, Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, said that a hallmark of Holder’s service as attorney general has been his unquestioned loyalty to Obama:
“When the president promised CIA employees early in his first term that they would not be investigated for torture, it was the attorney general who shielded officials from prosecution.
“When the Obama Administration decided it would expand secret and warrantless surveillance, it was Holder who justified it.
“When the president wanted the authority to kill any American he deemed a threat without charge or trial, it was Holder who went public to announce the ‘kill list’ policy.”
But now, Turley says, the Justice Department has gone too far. “The attorney general has done little in his tenure to protect civil liberties or the free press,” the law professor wrote. “Rather, Holder has supervised a comprehensive erosion of privacy rights, press freedom and due process.”
Turley says the Justice Department’s sweeping surveillance of journalists represents “the greatest attack on the free press in decades.” And he has had enough. “I am neither a Republican nor conservative,” he declared, “and I believe Holder should be fired.”
Right now, the Attorney General is scrambling to protect himself. While he claims that the Justice Department hasn’t violated any laws or guidelines, he admits that the rules “need to be updated.” And he called the controversy “an opportunity for the department to consider how we strike the right balance between the interests of law enforcement and freedom of the press.”
Nice try, Holder, but it won’t work. Better dust off your resume and start exploring opportunities in the private sector, as the soon-to-be-departed like to say. Looks like we can color you gone. And it’s about time.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.
–Chip Wood

http://personalliberty.com/2013/05/3...e-eric-holder/

The Hypocrisy Of Justice As A System

May 31, 2013 by Ron Lee

Ah, the justice system — a murky, corrupt monstrosity that feeds itself with fines and fees, preying on the very people it is supposed to protect. Growing beyond the protection of the innocent to the pursuit of its own interest, the justice system, along with the Bar (together known as the legal system), generate an exorbitant amount of revenue each year. Do you really think they want to give that up for the of sake justice?

Certainly not, at least not willingly.

The Constitution laid the ground work for our republic to be a land governed by laws, above “men” (humans). Unfortunately, the amount of laws has grown so vast and their content so all-encompassing that it is virtually impossible to count them all, let alone understand each one. Thus, we have relied heavily upon a system of men who dispense, interpret, alter and impose laws, and still more men who defend us when we are faced with having broken the law. The system, now more about the men and less about the law, is so muddled that it could literally say or do anything (and often does), all to the benefit of the system of men involved.

We, as the people, have let all aspects of our justice system grow well beyond its means and are now reaping what we have sown. But when we are faced with incarceration, it’s hard not to buy into this very system with hope in our hearts that justice is what it’s all about.

However, there are other ways to fight the system, to defend yourself against false and/or malicious charges. Like Edward Snook outlined in his article Media in Criminal Cases, the best fight against the system is one fought in a spotlight. Corruption can’t stand the light; corrupted people’s only fear is exposure.

Together, as the people, we need to make a stand. We have to make justice the focus of the system, and perhaps that might just take throwing out all our laws and replacing them with simple, straightforward ones that leave no room for interpretation. Accomplishing this is easier said than done, however. If we don’t unite as a people and get rid of all the victimless crime statutes and abusive administrative rules that are drowning our Nation, we will all pay — many of us personally and all of us financially.

Just as much as any law that violates the Constitution is repugnant, so should be any system that steals justice just to turn a profit by practicing “law” or enforcing “law.”

–Ron Lee

http://personalliberty.com/2013/05/3...e-as-a-system/