jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (81 posts)

*SHOCK* Holder lied!

  1. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    I know, I know, it's hard to believe, but Holder lied under oath. I'm sure some will scream racism, but I think we're still just seeing the tip of the iceberg here.

    “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,” Holder said at the time.

    Media reports later found that Holder personally approved a search warrant that labeled Rosen a co-conspirator in a national security leaks case.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/30233 … lance-case

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
      Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You are the only one who always thinks people will think what you post will be called racist. If it can be proven, it was wrong.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It's a joke, but I have been called racist on this forum alone by several different people for simply criticizing Obama... it's a favorite tactic of some people on the left.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sure is.

        2. Uninvited Writer profile image81
          Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, and you keep repeating it although I have never seen anyone personally call you a racist on Hubpages.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe you should pay closer attention, or stop acting like you have read every post directed at me.

            1. Seth Winter profile image84
              Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Come on give them credit Jaxson. They don't always scream racism...sometimes they just blame Bush.

              1. profile image84
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Don't forget the sequester.

      2. profile image84
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No, I agree with JaxsonRaine.  I expect the liberals to call him a racist too.

    2. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hopefully the house of cards is falling...........

    3. HowardBThiname profile image89
      HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Has anyone heard about the bevy of media outlets refusing to attend Holder's special "off the record" meeting? The AP, HuffPo, CNN and others have all said they would not take part in such secrecy.

      Holder - and by extension, Obama, will be held to answer for these lies. Obama should do the right thing and fire Holder immediately. But he won't. Some strange link betwixt those two, methinks.

    4. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Holder needs to go.  Fast and the Furious, along with the spying on journalists, is enough to get rid of him.

      1. Seth Winter profile image84
        Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Don't forget the 2008 Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case. Bunch of militant blacks beating up folks, going into voting booths with other folks....sounds perfectly innocent.

      2. profile image84
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Liberals will scream that Holder was found innocent by a Department of Justice investigation on the Department of Justice.  Come on, he found himself innocent.  He must be innocent.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah because obviously Internal affairs in the police never catch anyone tongue

          Holder did not investigate himself, investigators whose job it is to find criminal acts within the Justice department investigated the issue.

          1. profile image84
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, this would be like my boss asking me to investigate him.  I'm sure those results are accurate.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well they are not Holder's employees but if your job was to investigate your manager you couldn't do that honestly?

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Not to mention that Holder was also investigate by the Office of the Inspector general and cleared.

    5. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      He has become a big distraction for the administration. He is a perfect lamb to throw to the wolves.

  2. Zelkiiro profile image85
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    But I thought Holder was a white guy...?

  3. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    Search warrant does not equal prosecution.
    More investigations. More faux outrage.

    Note to GOP. Congress' job is to legislate. Maybe you have forgotten why you're there?

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Wait, let me get this straight.

      You think that you can get a search warrant, without having any thought towards potential prosecution?

      Nope. Nope nope nope nope nope. No.

      You can't get a warrant unless you can already show that you have reason to believe that evidence that would prove a person guilty exists, and you have to be able to describe that evidence and where you are going to look for it.

      So nope. There is no such thing as a warrant "just to look but we don't have any thoughts of prosecuting".

      1. Quilligrapher profile image92
        Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this


        Hi Jaxson. I just thought I would jump in here to point out what appears to be a misunderstanding of the law. 

        MM is correct in saying that a request for a warrant to search press records is not an indication of potential prosecution of the press. Hence, the argument in the OP statement fails to prove AG Holder lied and confirms this thread is just more faux outrage.

        In addition, it is wrong to imply as you did in your reply to MM, that it is necessary to establish the people or properties to be searched were involved in a crime. According to the Cornell University Law School web site, law enforcement does not have to show that the persons or places being searched are suspected of committing a crime!

        “To obtain a warrant, law enforcement officers must show that there is probable cause to believe a search is justified.” Furthermore, “The Fourth Amendment does not require officers seeking a warrant to show that the people or places to be searched committed any crime. Rather, they merely need to show probable cause that the sought-after evidence is there. For example, in Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978) {1}, the Supreme Court allowed police to search a student newspaper, where the newspaper was not implicated in any criminal activity but police suspected it had photographic evidence of the identities of demonstrators who assaulted police officers.” {2}

        Requesting a search warrant does not indicate intent to prosecute the people or the owners of the property named in the warrant. I see only a rather desperate attempt to twist facts to make them appear to prove something that they do not prove.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
        {1} http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex-cgi/wexl … me=436:547
        {2} http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_w … ch_Warrant

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          +1
          Perfectly put.

        2. Mighty Mom profile image89
          Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          There seems to be a LOT of that "pretzel" logic going on.smile
          Very similar to the series of investigations launched against Bill and Hillary Clinton,
          including a shooting a melon to "prove" Vince Foster's death was not suicide but
          murder for hire by the Clintons.

          1. Quilligrapher profile image92
            Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "pretzel" logic is a good phrase. May I use it sometime?

          2. Dr Billy Kidd profile image89
            Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I had put the attacks on the Clinton's out of my mind. Now, that you mention it, John Ehrlickman (of Watergate fame) when he got out of prison said on his talk show that Clinton should be shot. Those were wimpy threat times, just like these.

            You know, when you've got no program to move your agenda, try to incite hatred. It's starting to work in Greece, by the way, the beating of immigrants to get them to leave.

    2. profile image84
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If he has nothing to hide, why is he refusing to provide documentation?  In the real world, we'd call that suspect.

    3. Dr Billy Kidd profile image89
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Mighty Mom, I understand that Holder was referring to a 1917 war time law that allowed the government to prosecute and lock up any journalist and publisher for writing anti-war articles during WW I. Holder responded to the question about using that law with the quote: “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."

      That's is why the Fox and AP people are totally off base by saying Holder lied. I believe he started with saying he had never read the 1917 law. The government actually used it, however during the war, calling pacifists communists and putting them in prison. It was a different America then, one that present day people generally don't even believed existed.

  4. LucidDreams profile image81
    LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago

    Just another thread dedicated to finding a way to blame Democrats for something.  Anything that might stick will work, who cares about fixing the country, just find a reason to blame a democrat for something so Republicans do not have to think about their terrible record in office and how much losing once again REALLY HURTS.

    Don't worry,         you can keep your guns. that ought to help you sleep a little better anyway. Got to keep priorities straight right?

    1. profile image84
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I just want honesty and integrity, both from republicans and democrats.  When a republican has lied or obstructed justice, I've had just as much disdain for them.  Our politicians, both republican and democrat, owe more than this to us.  I don't know if Holder is innocent or not.  He won't provide all the evidence.  We deserve better.  I don't whether Benghazi was covered up or not.  We haven't been able to hear from the people who were there.  We deserve better.  I don't know if the AP tappings are serious or not.  We haven't been given complete lists of who was bugged.  We deserve better.  Nobody takes responsibility.  Nobody knows anything.  This isn't the kind of integrity we deserve from our government.

      I propose we vote all incumbents out next election, because frankly, I'm not thrilled with either side right now.

  5. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago

    The only "leaks" the government is investigating are those that do not shine a "Hail to the Chief" light on a particular situation.  If the leak showed Obama in a positive way, no problem.  Disclosing a scandal concerning the administration, INVESTIGATION!

    MSNBC’s Chris Hayes: Where Are Subpoenas Of New York Times For Publishing Pro-Obama Leaks?

    During a panel discussion on MSNBC’s Now on Thursday regarding the Department of Justice’s sweeping subpoenas of Associated Press and Fox News journalists’ communications records, MSNBC host Chris Hayes said that there is another shoe yet to drop in this story relating to the leaks published by the New York Times. The Times, Hayes argued, has received a number of high-profile government leaks framing the actions of this administration in a positive light. He said that those warrants for the Times’ communications records must exist, but the public has just not yet seen them.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-chris … ama-leaks/

    Well to be fair, perhaps there were subpoenas, but revealing them to the public would result in further investigations?  As it stands right now, dissent against the administration will be punished with the full force of the federal government, or so it seems.

  6. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Ok Quill, you're right. It is possible to have a search warrant where you have no intention of even possibly prosecuting the person whose possessions are being searched, but those are lottery-odds situations.

    The warrant that Holder approved listed Rosen as a co-conspirator... the mental gymnastics required to say Holder was telling the truth are unbelievable... it's like saying

    "We think this guy murdered his spouse, and we his friend hid the body in his car, so we are going to get a search warrant to search the friend's car, which would make him a co-conspirator... but there's no way that we are going to even think about prosecuting the friend if we find the body."

    I can't believe anybody would defend this administration, let alone being unaffected by the corruption we are seeing.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So we went from "*SHOCK* Holder lied!"  to "the mental gymnastics required to say Holder was telling the truth are unbelievable" how convincing, how accurate tongue

      1. profile image60
        Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You know, you never get anywhere with this stuff.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Where is this place you think I want to go?

          1. Seth Winter profile image84
            Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "I can't believe anybody would defend this administration, let alone being unaffected by the corruption we are seeing." Josak's black make sense now?

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Right the reason is obviously because I am black and thus obviously too dumb or biased to make a political decision for myself, better let those smart objective white people do it for me. Christ.

              FYI I have never voted for Obama always voted for third party.

              1. Seth Winter profile image84
                Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No I just have you pegged for a liberal (which say's more about your intelligence then being black) who's happens to be racially biased.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Not a liberal and if it were simply about race one would imagine I would be a Herman Cain supporter.

                  As for actual liberals, much better educated and make 7% more so being stupid as a demographic seems unlikely.

                  1. profile image84
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    For somebody who claims not to be a liberal, you sure defend them a lot.

                    Liberals are not better educated.  We had this discussion before.  Oh, I forgot that you never responded.  What is your little study/poll that says liberals are better educated?  I've already provided studies and polls that say republicans are better educated.

                    This mentality of "more educated' is juvenile at best.  It is likely that both sides are equally educated. 

                    By the way, how educated are socialists?

                  2. Seth Winter profile image84
                    Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So your claiming to be conservative now? Yeah right. A quick look at your profile shows that you get a bad taste in your mouth every time you say the word "conservative".

                    As for Herman Cain, he was a Republican bid, not a democat so Obama seems the likely choice for you. Especially since you're clearly a bit infatuated with the guy (Obama)...I believe I read a forum post of yours talking about how much of a success Obama has been...I guess that was before the three scandals.

      2. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No, Holder did lie. He signed a search warrant that listed a reporter as having violated federal law. Unless you think the Department of Justice isn't interested in justice... normally violations of law are prosecuted. Crazy, I know.

        Holder is pathetic, he's a liar, and he has broken the law... I don't know why anyone would defend him.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Wait again is this the same guy who a few months back was telling me how prosecuting crimes is totally voluntary and defending police for not prosecuting and enforcing gun laws?

          Ahhh the endless hypocrisy. Followed up by some insults and abuse to really get across how excellent your point is big_smile

          Sorry you can't have it both ways, by your own statements the DOJ has every right not to prosecute anyone they want.

          So basically there was nothing there at all, how typical.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm really tired of this straw man game. If you don't have reading comprehension, don't try to blame that on me by calling my hypocritical.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              There is no straw man just what you say and the blatant hypocrisy in it I have quoted you on this before do you really want me to chase down the quote again?

              Did you or did you not say it was fine for police to choose not to prosecute a crime (in that instance gun crimes of a certain nature)?
              Hint: You did

              Now you are saying: "normally violations of law are prosecuted. Crazy, I know."

              So which is it, is it fine for the DOJ not to prosecute someone or is it wrong for police not to prosecute someone.

              Sorry but this is very simple and there is not a single straw man involved. You just have no moral compass on issues beyond what suits your ideology at the time. THAT is pathetic.


              Here are the Qoutes btw:

              "and what law enforcement all over the country does. Choosing which laws to enforce and which laws not to enforce.

              Obama mandated not to uphold certain laws. Police often ignore many many crimes(like speeding, and perjury on gun-background checks). They are no worse than the rest of the country in that regard."

              "You should file a suit against any patrol cop who doesn't pull someone over for speeding.

              Good luck."

              http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/110689?page=5

        2. profile image84
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I agree.  How can anybody defend somebody who is so evasive? 

          It sure seems likely he lied.  When you hide behind executive privilege, it has a tendency to make you look guilty.  I'd like to see him come forward, provide all relevant documents in all of the scandals, and stop being evasive.  If he did that, and there was no evidence, I might believe he was innocent.  Until he provides all of the evidence, I have to believe he has something to hide.  That's how it works in the real world, and I can't see why it shouldn't be that way for our politicians.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            People here will just say "The evidence that has been released didn't make him look guilty, and the evidence he refuses to release probably isn't incriminating at all..."

            When you are investigating the man in charge of justice in the country... and he won't release all the evidence relating to himself... there's a slight conflict of interest...

            Then of course, some people will actually claim that the evidence protected by Obama doesn't even exist sad

            1. profile image84
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "When you are investigating the man in charge of justice in the country... and he won't release all the evidence relating to himself... there's a slight conflict of interest..."


              Absolutely!  +1

          2. LucidDreams profile image81
            LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't usually agree with you on most points from what I have noticed. In this scenario, get an independent investigator, bring out all of the facts and move on. Nobody wants a attorney general who does not make real justice his main priority.

            Besides, this is keeping the country from doing what it needs to do. Let's get this over with and move forward.

    2. Quilligrapher profile image92
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      G’day Jaxson.

      Whoa! It takes a lot of chutzpah to say “You are right and I was wrong but I am going to continue to argue that I was right! In addition, I am going to construct a strawman scenario involving a fictitious guy that “ murdered his spouse and his friend hid the body in his car.”

      Thank you for another example of MM’s “pretzel logic”: “It is possible to have a search warrant where you have no intention of even possibly prosecuting the person whose possessions are being searched, but those are lottery-odds situations.”

      I can not argue with vague, meaningless, unsupportable, non-specific, hypothetical, imaginary, and, dare I say, desperate logic like “lottery-odds situations.” To say it is possible is to say ALL that needs to be said.

      I agree with MM’s appraisal of the thread as “faux rage” because it focuses on alleged lying before a congressional tribunal. Your accusation is miniscule when compared to the possibility that this DOJ surveillance might be a covert attack against the free press. I can not understand passing up the really huge issue just to accuse the AG of lying.

      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

  7. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    lol

    "You said X, and I'll prove it by quoting where you said Y"

    lol

    It's not even worth the effort anymore, it's the favorite game of many here... like I said, reading comprehension.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Still never answering the Question big_smile how surprising tongue

      Is it OK for people not to prosecute and if so why is it not OK that the DOJ did not prosecute in this instance?

      Just as your quotes demonstrate, total hypocrisy and when confronted on it just run away instead of admitting to it.

      You started this thread claiming proof positive that Holder lied, you have admitted that is false, so the real title is "Jaxson lied" or at the very least doesn't know enough about the law to be commenting on the issue.

      When did you go from being interesting and factual to just this regurgitated, partisan, false nonsense? I used to enjoy reading your stuff.

      BTW same issue on your other DOJ thread, no sources, a quick google search proves the DOJ said no such thing.
      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/113289

  8. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    I said it was no worse for a sheriff to selectively enforce laws that for another agency to selectively enforce laws. There, happy? Does that make you understand the difference between what I said and what you keep claiming I said?

    You quoted it, but still didn't understand it. There can be no conversation if you don't understand basic English.

    And no, I didn't admit that it is false, there you go again. You're almost as bad as John, Ralph, and Cody, who instead of just not understanding, sit there and pretend that something I quote and link to was never said at all.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So it's fine for Sheriffs not to prosecute and then you said:

      "Unless you think the Department of Justice isn't interested in justice... normally violations of law are prosecuted. Crazy, I know."

      Right, so because the DOJ didn't prosecute they are not interested in justice but Sheriffs not prosecuting that is fine and dandy.

      Really you can't be struggling to understand this, it's not a linguistic issue or an interpretive one you praised and defended one group for not prosecuting then lambasted another for not prosecuting. Thus unequivocally and demonstrably in quotation you are a hypocrite.

      Yup you did If you don't understand the difference between "*SHOCK* Holder lied!" and ""the mental gymnastics required to say Holder was telling the truth are unbelievable" then you don't understand English.

      Let me explain in case you still don't understand. The first is an absolute statement "Holder lied!" the second is an admission that actually that isn't necessarily true. Got it yet?

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Like I said, reading comprehension. I don't know how to make it any more clear. What you are quoting me as saying, and what you are saying I said, aren't the same thing.

        If you try a little harder, you can enter the realm of Ralph, John, and Cody... just try a little harder, you're at the step of insisting on a straw man, the next step is refusing to accept that something was said at all.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yup you keep saying that to avoid the truth without even addressing the actual issue, it really is flat out clear and obvious and you pretending to not see that isn't convincing anyone tongue

          Let's see one more time if you can grasp this simple concept.

          Both groups (Sheriffs and DOJ) commit the same act (not prosecuting someone) on one (Sheriffs) it's fine and you defended it, on the second (DOJ) it's an indication that "The Department of Justice isn't interested in justice...".

          Hypocrisy.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Keep digging Josak. Read what I said. Read what you claim I said. They aren't the same.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Same false line again tongue obstinately refusing to acknowledge your own words. Very dishonest of you.

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Did you read them? Doesn't sound like you did. Or are you just using the wrong words again?

                I don't know how you guys can be so dishonest as to look at X and say, with a straight face, that it's Y...

  9. Seth Winter profile image84
    Seth Winterposted 3 years ago

    Should rename the forum post to did Eric Holder commit perjury for a second time during his career?

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/08 … documents/

  10. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    I'm amazed at people's outrage about Obama's administration. I am not. What one administration can do (referring to Bush's) another can. By giving a pass to the Bush's administration, we implicitely accepted to be abused. Today's result is the consequence of our silence and inaction. Whose fault is it, if not ours? Enough of this hypocritical outrage. We are the only responsible Either we assume our mistake and act upon it, either we shut up and keep on being abused!

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ooh, ooh, ooh. I have an idea. Pick me! Pick me!

      How about, and this is just off the top of my head, we don't stand for corruption from any administration? I mean, if you are an R kind of person, and the R administration does something wrong, how about being upset about that too?(and vice versa for Ds)

      1. profile image84
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I couldn't agree more.  I'd be just as unhappy if it were a republican.

    2. Seth Winter profile image84
      Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So how exactly did our silence and inaction cause Eric Holder to lie? Why are you owning up to the mistakes of other people?

    3. profile image84
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What did Bush's administration do?  Let's hear it.  Please tell me this isn't more of the "Bush lied" lies.

 
working