The Patriot Post® · Holder's Last Stand

Last Saturday’s New York Times contained a long political insight piece about Eric Holder, now at the center of yet another controversy. The article observed that:

Over the course of four and a half years, no other member of President Obama’s cabinet has been at the center of so many polarizing episodes or the target of so much criticism. While the White House publicly backed Mr. Holder as he tried to smooth over the latest uproar amid new speculation about his future, some in the West Wing privately tell associates they wish he would step down, viewing him as politically maladroit. But the latest attacks may stiffen the administration’s resistance in the near term to a change for fear of emboldening critics.

Notwithstanding the outward appearance of support for Holder, the article noted the frustration that some presidential aides have with him. “The White House is apoplectic about him, and has been for a long time,” said a Democratic former government official who asked not to be identified.

Holder has been caught time and again tripping over the facts of cases involving the Department of Justice. Following the election of Obama in 2008, complaints were filed that the New Black Panther Party had engaged in voter intimidation and vote suppression by appearing in black military-type clothing outside of a Philadelphia polling station. They were recorded on video so there could be no dispute that their appearance and behavior was threatening. One even swung a billy club.

Interference with an election is a civil rights violation, which falls under the responsibility of the DOJ. Imagine what would have happened if a member of the Ku Klux Klan had gathered outside of a southern polling station. Yet Holder’s agency dropped the investigation. Asked why in a hearing before a House Appropriation subcommittee, Holder said the “decisions made in the New Black Panther Party case were made by career attorneys in the department.”

In fact, Obama political appointees, not career attorneys, made the decision. Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, one of Holder’s direct reports, overruled the recommendation for prosecution made by Christian Adams, a former Voting Rights Section career attorney who later testified in the New Black Panther case in a hearing before the US Civil Rights Commission. Perrelli would never have made that decision on his own authority. He would have discussed it with Holder and gotten his approval. Holder knew or should have known of the decision.

Holder lied or he is inept.

Last May I wrote a two part blog on the “Fast and Furious” scandal in which the DOJ allowed guns to cross the Mexican border, ultimately leading to the death of a US Border Patrol agent. Holder’s nemesis, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, called Holder to testify in May 2011.

Asked when he first knew about the botched sting operation, Holder in sworn testimony said, “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”

Yet documents show that ten months before the Congressional hearing, in July 2010, Holder was briefed by the head of the National Drug Intelligence Center specifically informing him that “1,500 firearms were then supplied to the Mexican drug trafficking cartels.” At least six additional briefings of Holder occurred between July and November 1, 2010 about Fast and Furious including briefings from Holder’s Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer.

Defending his statement that he had only recently learned of Fast and Furious, Holder later said that he hadn’t understood Issa’s original question and meant to say a “couple months” instead of “weeks.” Sorry. That dog won’t hunt either. The documents from the National Drug Intelligence Center nail July 2010 unequivocally and it’s unfathomable that a program of this scale wasn’t known when Holder took over in 2009 and would have learned in the transition briefings of the predecessor program – Wide Receiver – which Bush had shut down before his term ended. So a “few weeks” becomes “a few months” which in fact is at least ten months, and probably is a lot more.

Holder lied or is inept.

Two First Amendment cases have now surfaced that have become the latest DOJ scandals. It is indisputable that Holder lied in connection with one of them and it’s likely that he has lied in his testimony about the other.

The first case goes back to the first year of the Obama administration during which Fox News Reporter James Rosen investigated a lead that North Korea was conducting secret nuclear bomb tests. Rosen’s source was a State Department contractor, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. The information Kim gave Rosen was classified and in an effort to discover the source of the leak, Holder personally approved a search warrant of Rosen’s emails, telephone logs, and had Rosen followed.

Before any of this could happen, however, Holder or his associates had to get search warrant approval from a court. This involved judge shopping. Despite a DOJ allegation that there was “probable cause” to believe Rosen “has committed or is committing a violation” of the Espionage Act “as an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator,” the first two judges turned down the search warrant request. Finally a third judge approved a “no notice” warrant that, as the name implies, would not be revealed to Fox News, Rosen, or his parents.

Among the records seized without Rosen’s knowledge were his personal emails, which DOJ read. His comings and goings in the State Department were traced by security badge access records.

Now that journalists on both right and left are in full uproar over the spying and intrusion by the DOJ, Holder’s spinmeisters are saying there was never intent to prosecute Rosen. Really? Why was he named as an unindicted co-conspirator – possibly a flight risk? The DOJ’s warrant affidavit therefore contained false claims about Rosen, deceiving the third judge into granting a warrant. In other words, Holder’s warrant affidavit lied to a judge.

It comes as no surprise then that, appearing before the House Judiciary Committee on May 15, 2013, Holder said in sworn testimony: “In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, this is not something I’ve been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.”

“Not something I’ve been involved with, heard of’? Holder personally signed the warrant request. Here is an online copy of it.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Goodlatte has sent this letter, also online, to Holder asking him to explain the inconsistency and the search warrant affidavit. The time the House allowed Holder to respond has now passed. Holder ignored the House committee request.

Holder lied or is inept.

Representative Darrell Issa, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said on CNN:

He certainly could have been more candid if he remembered, and he should have remembered. It would be kind to say he misled Congress. It would be less kind, and more accurate, to say that would rise to be a lie by most people’s standards. By the American’s people standard, you don’t sign a warrant and then pretend you wouldn’t know about it … that it wouldn’t come to you.

The second case occurred on the heels of the Rosen case. The Associated Press broke a story that Holder’s top aide, Deputy Attorney General James Cole approved the seizure of records of approximately 20 phone lines used by over 100 reporters and editors at the Associated Press early this year. The seizure included the land line to the AP press gallery in the House of Representatives. The DOJ justified its aggressive surveillance of journalists by saying that an investigation is underway to determine who told the AP about an intelligence operation involving a second underwear bomber.

Recall that in 2009 Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up a flight bound for Detroit on Christmas Day with an underwear bomb. The underwear bomb disclosed by the AP was non-metallic in order to get through security. AP reported that a double agent had infiltrated al-Qaeda and learned of the plot. Alerting enforcement authorities with details of the underwear bomber, the plot was foiled.

A May 18, 2012 Reuters report states that AP agreed to delay releasing the story, but at no point did it propose any deals regarding this story. Instead, it says, "The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once government officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot because officials said it no longer endangered national security. The Obama administration, however, continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement.”

According to Reuters, “a final deal on timing of publication fell apart over the AP’s insistence that no US official would respond to the story for one hour after its release.” Obama administration officials rejected the request as “untenable,” at which point the AP said it would go public with the story. Various news organizations began reporting on the story the next day.

In fact James Brennan, then the White House adviser to Obama on terrorism, went public with the story the next day boasting that Obama had foiled an underwear bomb plot. Because the 2012 election loomed, Obama’s men wanted to make their leader appear once again as the defender of America’s security and al-Qaeda’s worst nightmare. Rather than revealing state secrets, AP’s “crime” was to scoop Obama by one day in an election year.

The DOJ retaliated by seizing records of the AP. However, in sworn testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Holder stated that he had recused himself from the AP investigation. His recusal is not backed up by a formal recusal letter, which is required under such circumstances. Absent a dated and witnessed recusal letter, Holder has the ability to distance himself from the affair by claiming something that neither he can prove nor anyone else disprove. Checkmate.

Such is the arrogance of this administration. Existing DOJ guidelines require prosecutors to inform the media organizations of security concerns in publicizing certain information to determine if a compromise can be worked out. Journalists are to be investigated only as a last resort and even then only narrowly in order to protect the First Amendment rights of investigative reporting.

Holder’s credibility has been underwater for the last several weeks as news of the Rosen and AP story occupy the nation’s attention. Much to the chagrin of the White House, the two most loyal Obama allies – the media and the Left – have been only lukewarm in their support as these scandals build. A recent survey conducted by the Rasmussen organization showed that only 25% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Holder, while 47% – almost double – have an unfavorable opinion of him. A substantial number – 42% – believe that he should resign as Attorney General, whereas only 22% believe he should remain in the job.

Moreover, 58% of voters disapprove of the DOJ seizing reporters’ phone records and 52% believe the DOJ is caught in a serious scandal. Even prominent voices on the Left believe reading a reporter’s personal email is beyond the pale.

The mainstream media, normally a loyal water-carrier for the Obama regime, is torqued over the DOJ investigation of reporters. This has put Obama in a position he hasn’t experienced since his 2008 election – being held accountable by the media.

Despite calls for a special prosecutor, Holder has refused to appoint one. Late last month, Obama gave his loyal Attorney General an escape route. He announced at a press conference that:

Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs … [and] I have raised these issues with the Attorney General, who shares my concern. So he has agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and will convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. I have directed the Attorney General to report back to me by July 12th.

Let me see if I’ve got this right. In lieu of an independent investigator outside of the Obama administration, Eric Holder, who violated existing DOJ guidelines, who signed off on a “no notice” warrant to seize the records of James Rosen, including personal emails and his parent’s telephone records, who lied to a judge about Rosen’s culpability in espionage for which he never intended to press charges, and then lied to a House committee that he wasn’t involved in the illegal investigation, this same Eric Holder is going to investigate Eric Holder and his department and Eric Holder is going to report his findings about Eric Holder to Obama on July 12?

Works for me.