Eric Holder Could Get Subpoenaed by House Judiciary Committee Over Testimony on Press Targeting

holder? i hardly know 'erReason 24/7Who doesn’t seem like a “paid liar”* in Washington these days? Answers on the various scandals engulfing the Obama Administration are hard to come by.

From Fox News:

Republican lawmakers are considering whether to haul Attorney General Eric Holder back before a House committee over questionable testimony he provided on the Justice Department's surveillance of reporters, threatening to subpoena the nation's top law enforcement officer if necessary. 

Leaders of the House Judiciary Committee have given Holder until Wednesday to answer questions about his May 15 testimony. At the time, he said under oath he knew nothing of the "potential prosecution" of the press. Days later, it emerged that Holder was involved in his department's successful effort to obtain Fox News reporter James Rosen's personal emails -- the DOJ sought access to the documents by arguing Rosen was a likely criminal "co-conspirator" in a leak case. 

It seems words mean just what Holder chooses them to mean.

*Robert Gibbs believes an apology is in order.

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us at @reason247.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Leaders of the House Judiciary Committee have given Holder until Wednesday to answer questions about his May 15 testimony.

    We can look forward to Holder calling their bluff.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    We can look forward to Holder calling their bluff.

    I hope that he does and that they haul his ass back in. Under pressure of questioning, he's more likely to slip up and say something stupid. If he responds in a prepared statement, he can have his words expertly crafted to weasel his way out of perjury easier.

  • Bobarian||

    "If he responds in a prepared statement..."

    Can he? It wasn't like he was caught unaware of what they were going to ask him about last time. Everyone knew what the questions were going to be. The hubris of the Ones's administration is such that they basically answer everything as "Meh, whatever".

  • Pro Libertate||

    We so need interbranch warfare right now. And a nice little constitutional crisis.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    We so need interbranch warfare right now.

    We need interbranch warfare all of the time.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I agree completely. So let the warfare commence!

  • kinnath||

    What do we want?

    Special Prosecutor

    When do we want it?

    NOW!!!!!!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Patrick Fitzgerald was a good SP but the Bush regime stiff-armed him on the Plame outing.

    This one would be easy to skate.

  • John||

    He obtained a single conviction on a bullshit lying to investigators charge and nothing else. Yeah, he did a hell of a job. Millions of dollars wasted to convict some guy no one had heard of of disagreeing with a reporter's memory. Meanwhile, the guy who actually leaked the information was never so much as charged.

  • kinnath||

    please don't feed the troll under my sub-thread.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Obstruction of justice.

    Fitzgerald wanted the real villain - Dickless Cheney.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's clear one will have to be named. Not like anyone trusts Justice right now.

  • kinnath||

    It will be a wonderful footnote in the history books that the first black president was just as corrupt at Nixon.

  • John||

    More corrupt actually. Nixon went after specific political people he didn't like. But Obama has used the FBI, IRS and so forth to go after ordinary Americans. Even Nixon never did that.

  • kinnath||

    Thanks for the opportunity to once more say:

    Barack Obama: Dumber than Carter; Dirtier than Nixon

  • ||

    Other than violently stomping a baby to death on live television there's nothing that will prevent Obama from going down in history as a visionary hero.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Not at all. Whatever idiocy people believe now won't likely hold true in history. Especially if the U.S. continues downhill.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    It seems words mean just what Holder chooses them to mean.

    Is this somehow new? The government has chosen, since the beginning really, to see interpretive room in "Congress shall make no law." This isn't some revelation. It's key to the way they do things.

  • Let Me Ride||

    reason afternoon Fun-Quiz: who's more contemptible; Holder or Bloomberg?

  • GILMORE||

    At the time, he said under oath he knew nothing of the "potential prosecution" of the press.

    Days later, it emerged that Holder was involved in his department's successful effort to obtain Fox News reporter James Rosen's personal emails -- the DOJ sought access to the documents by arguing Rosen was a likely criminal "co-conspirator" in a leak case.

    I'd say he's going to get "thrown under the bus", but that would suggest it is undeserved or unfair.

    He's just a lying prick like Obama, Clinton, et al.... only perhaps not as clever in making it seem less obvious. In fact, he seems to do it with a sort of petulant frustration with the people demanding answers from him. He's the worst sort of bureaucrat = in love with power over others, but absolutely resentful of anyone pointing out his own responsibilities.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    He's just a lying prick like Obama, Clinton

    You missed the Big Liar in between them. How partisan can you get?

  • Generic Stranger||

    Not quite as partisan as you, that's for sure.

  • GILMORE||

    I was referring to the hilinator....although I suppose you have a point about bill.

    and when boosh was in charge, it wasn't like this place was a cheerleading section. So eat a dick and die in a fire.

  • GILMORE||

    "Robert Gibbs believes an apology is in order."

    Paid Liar resents other Paid Liars being labeled Paid Liars by "Politicians".... who are basically 'Rented Liars'.

  • Sevo||

    Yawn.
    The lap-dog press will call it a 'so-called' scandal, Holder will lie through his teeth, and dems everywhere will say BOOOOOOOSH!
    Next week, it'l be gone.

  • Pro Libertate||

    They're almost right. It's a so-called government.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Next week, it'l be gone.

    But the Iraq War deaths and costs live on forever.

  • Goldwyn Smith||

    BOOSH!!!

  • Ted S.||

    Needz moar Bushfag and Christpig.

  • John||

    You mean that war that huge numbers of Demcorats voted to authorize and was continued for five more years after the Dems took Congress? You mean that war? You mean Obama's war, the one that he voted to fund and continued to prosecute after he was President?

    You are right shreek, there is a lot of blood on the hands of the Dems over that. It surprises me you would admit it. It is almost like someone hijacked your screenname or something.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I'll give you one thing, the Dems are a lousy opposition party. The GOP is superb.

    That is a major reason budgets move toward balances when a Dem POTUS and GOP House exist.

    Democrats only figured out the Iraq War was a sham when it was too late (2004).

    Obama did campaign against it though - give him that.

  • John||

    Iraq was one of the most bipartisan and Wilsonian wars this country has ever fought.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Stupid Dems thought Bush would knock off Saddam and quickly leave. But Bush wanted to nation-build.

    Obama did it right in Libya. Get NATO behind you and don't deploy ground troops.

  • John||

    Yeah because Dems never engage in nation building. And the Dems were the very ones who wanted the nation rebuilt you moron.

    Forget it dipshit. The Dems own Iraq just as much as the Republicans do. Hell Biden called it Obama's greatest accomplishment.

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    Obama did it right in Libya. Get NATO behind you and don't deploy ground troops.

    Yep, he sure did.

    For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress NATO shall have power to ... declare War".
  • Loki||

    Obama did it right in Libya. Get NATO behind you and don't deploy ground troops.

    And didn't get authorization from Congress first. Because apparently the constitution leaves the war making powers with NATO, an organization that didn't even exist at the time, not with Congress.

  • Bobarian||

    This^^

    Let's see, bomb Libya, foment the deaths of untold numbers of bystanders, destabilize country and region, then brush hands and pretend everything is hunky-dory.

    Stand around while press and Shreek and his counter-parts put a high shine onto your knob.

  • Whahappan?||

    Yep, had more support than Gulf War I.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Obummer dick won't suck itself, John. That's why there are Shreeks in this world.

  • Harvard||

    [Obama did campaign against it though - give him that.]

    And pledged to protect and uphold the Constitution even though he doesn't. Give him that too.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Starting with Andrew Jackson every POTUS ignores the Constitution.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug| 6.3.13 @ 4:08PM |#
    "Starting with Andrew Jackson every POTUS ignores the Constitution."

    Parsed from dipshit:
    "Obama's almost as good as Bush".

  • Goldwyn Smith||

    And to close Gitmo. Give him that as well.

  • tarran||

    ... and to end torture too. :D

  • Loki||

    Obama did campaign against it though - give him that.

    And then he followed the timetable that the BOOOOSHHH admin had already agreed to with the Iraqi government. And tried to get the deadline for withdrawal extended.

    But hey, as long he said some nice sounding things during the campaign, that's all that matters.

  • Bobarian||

    But the Afghan war deaths and costs under BO are completely justified and won't live on forever?

  • Sevo||

    "But the Iraq War deaths and costs live on forever."

    Yep, your main squeeze is a real prize, isn't he?

  • ||

    I whole heatedly agree with Gibbs, it is well past time for Carney, Holder and Obama to apologize to the American people.

  • Goldwyn Smith||

    Gibbs should definitely apologize for being so meanz to DiNozzo and McGee.

  • Goldwyn Smith||

    And Palmer too.

  • John||

    This is one time the crooked culture of DOJ came back to bite an AG. I think Holder was probably being a weasel but was telling the truth when he said he knew nothing of a potential prosecution. What he didn't count on was people actually reading DOJ's own briefs.

    Back in the 70s, the government got in the habit of subpenaing reporters. So in response Congress passed a law that you couldn't do that unless you had reason to believe the reporter was an aider, abetter or co-conspirator. So DOJ, being the crooked shit bags they are, just started putting in boiler plate language about every reporter they want a warrant for being such, even though they never actually thought so.

    So here comes dumb ass up before Congress and for once in his career tells the truth, that he hadn't considered ever prosecuting a journalist. What he forgot was that he people all lie like rugs to get warrants. And now he is screwed. He either has to admit he lied or he is allowing his people to lie to courts to get warrants.

  • ||

    As scumbags go, Holder is a real standout.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    As scumbags go, Holder is a real standout.

    Agreed.

    Even if the political fallout is Holder being fired while Obama continues to smell like a rose, I will consider that a big win. Holder is the truly evil one right now.

  • Sevo||

    "Even if the political fallout is Holder being fired while Obama continues to smell like a rose, I will consider that a big win."

    Not to worry.
    Obozo could murder kids on national TV, while claiming he was helping them and shreek (and party) would applaud and mention how handsome he is!

  • Loki||

    Eric Holder Could Get Subpoenaed by House Judiciary Committee Over Testimony on Press Targeting

    I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of things this time. Just because he's already lied under oath once is no reason to believe that he'll lie, obfuscate, and lie some more a second time...

    BWUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!11!!!!!! I couldn't even type that with a straight face!

  • John||

    It is worth it to bring him up. He will no doubt tell the most ridiculous lie imaginable forcing Obama's defenders to pretend he cleared the whole thing up. And that will be entertaining.

    I think these scandals are having a real effect. Not on the brain dead fanatics. Nothing will effect them. But on the large numbers of low information soft liberals. These people are not partisan fanatics but are liberal because it makes them feel good and it is a way for them to signal how tolerant and smart they are. I know a lot of liberals. And many of the ones I know increasingly just won't talk about politics. And it is not just me. MSNBC's ratings are way down. Traffic at lefty blogs is way down. I think a lot of these people are just checking out of politics over this. And that means the electorate will look more like 04 and 10 and less like 08 and 12. And that is very bad for the Dems.

  • Matrix||

    never underestimate the power of the stupid party to anger the 'soft liberal's enough to get out and vote against them in 16.

  • John||

    Maybe. But they are pretty embarrassed by this. This is really a moral killer.

  • Sevo||

    "But they are pretty embarrassed by this."
    Who's embarrassed? See shreek just upthread telling us how wonderful Obama is?
    Ever see shithead even flinch at Obama's lies before explaining he's not quite as bad as Bush?
    Nope, no embarrassment. Not while the lap-dog press continues to ignore the 'so-called scandals'.

  • mr lizard||

    Unless your name is Oli North it's gonna be a shit show in hearings

  • Ken Shultz||

    Out of curiosity, does Congress need a warrant to wiretap Eric Holder's phone?

    Because I don't think Eric Holder needs a warrant to wiretap Congress' phones.

    Somebody should ask him about that. I'm just sayin'.

  • WomSom||

    Eric Holder is a real schmuck! Period.

    www.WorldPrivacy.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement