BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER RANTED, GRUNTED AND SPEWED YESTERDAY AT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
HOLDER APPEARED TO THINK HE HAD BEEN ELECTED TO SOME OFFICE AND NOT GRASP THAT AS AN APPOINTED OFFICIAL, HE HAS A DUTY TO ANSWER EACH AND EVERY QUESTION THE PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS PUT BEFORE HIM. HE SEEMED TO THINK HE WAS ABOVE THE PROCESS AND ABOVE ACCOUNTABILITY.
AND HE NEVER KNEW AN ANSWER AS EVEN THE WASHINGTON POST POINTS OUT:
On and on Holder went: “I don’t know. I don’t know. . . . I would not want to reveal what I know. . . . I don’t know why that didn’t happen. . . . I know nothing, so I’m not in a position really to answer.”
DID NO ONE EVER TELL HOLDER THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS A FULL TIME JOB? THAT IT REQUIRED ATTENTION TO DETAIL?
REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS THIS MORNING, HOLDER REPLIED, "YOU MOTHERF**KERS BETTER GET OFF MY DAMN PORCH BEFORE I SICK THE IRS ON YOUR S**TY ASSES!"
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
This afternoon, House Judiciary Committee Chair Bob Goodlatte noted
that "just two days ago, it was revealed that the Justice Dept obtained
telephone records for more than 20 Associated Press reporters and
editors over a two month period. These requests appear to be very broad
and intersect important First Amendment protections. Any abridgment of
the First Amendment right to the Freedom of the Press is very concerning
and members of the Committee want to hear an explanation today."
Ranking Member John Conyers noted, "I'm bothered by that our government
would pursue such a broad range of media phone records over such a long
period of time." Conyers used the occasion to call for the passage of his Federal Press Shield bill.
Appearing before the Commitee today, Attorney General Eric Holder
stated he supported such a law ("I continue to think that it should be
passed") in response to questions from US House Rep Sheila Jackson Lee.
Monday
came the shocking news that the Associated Press had been targeting the
AP, secretly obtaining phone records for the months of April and May
2012. Lynn Oberlander (The New Yorker) observed:
The cowardly move by the Justice Department to subpoena two months of
the A.P.’s phone records, both of its office lines and of the home
phones of individual reporters, is potentially a breach of the Justice
Department’s own guidelines.
Even more important, it prevented the A.P. from seeking a judicial
review of the action. Some months ago, apparently, the government sent a
subpoena (or subpoenas) for the records to the phone companies that
serve those offices and individuals, and the companies provided the
records without any notice to the A.P. If subpoenas had been served
directly on the A.P. or its individual reporters, they would have had an
opportunity to go to court to file a motion to quash the subpoenas.
What would have happened in court is anybody’s guess—there is no federal
shield law that would protect reporters from having to testify before a
criminal grand jury—but the Justice Department avoided the issue
altogether by not notifying the A.P. that it even wanted this
information. Even beyond the outrageous and overreaching action against
the journalists, this is a blatant attempt to avoid the oversight
function of the courts.
From this afternoon's hearing, we'll note this section.
Committee Chair Bob Goodlatte: It was recently reported that the
Justice Dept obtained more than two months of phone records of more than
20 reporters and editors with the Associated Press -- including both
work and personal phone lines. There's been a lot of criticism raised
about the scope of this investigation. Including why the Dept needed to
subpoena records for 20 different people over a lengthy two month
period? Why was such a broad scope approved?
Attorney General Eric Holder: Yeah, I mean, there's been a lot of
criticism, the staff of the RNC called for my resignation in spite of
the fact that I was not the person who was involved in that decision.
But be that as it may. I was recused in that matter as I described in a
press conference that I held yesterday, the decision to issue this
subpoena was made by the people who are presently involved in the case,
the matter is being supervised by the Deputy Attorney General. I am not
familiar with the ca[se] -- with the way the subpoena was constructed
in the way that it was because I'm simply not a part of the, uh, of the
case.
Committee Chair Bob Goodlatte: It's my understanding that one of the
requirements before compelling process from the media outlet is to give
the media outlet notice. Do you know why that was not done?
Attorney General Eric Holder: There are exceptions to that rule. I
do not know, however, with regard to that particular case, why that was
or was not done. I simply don't have a factual basis to answer that
question.
Committee Chair Bob Goodlatte: And it's also been reported that the
Associated Press refrained from releasing this story for a week until
the department confirmed that doing so would not jeopardize national
security interests. That indicates that the AP was amenable to working
with you on this matter. If that is the case, why was it necessary to
subpoena the telephone records? Did you seek the AP's assistance in the
first place? And, if not, why not?
Attorney General Eric Holder: Again, Mr. Chairman, I-I don't know
what happened there with the, uh, interaction between the AP and the
Justice Dept, I was recused from the case.
Committee Chair Bob Goodlatte: I take it that you or others in the
Justice Dept will be forthcoming with those answers to those questions
as you explore why this was handled in what appears to be contrary to
the law and standard procedure.
Attorney General Eric Holder: Uh, well, again, there are exceptions
to some of the rules that you pointed out. And I have faith in the
people who actually were responsible for this case that they were
responsible for the rules and that they followed them. But I don't have
a factual basis to answer the questions that you have asked because I
was recused. I don't know what has happened in this matter.
As disclosed before, I know Eric Holder. I like Eric. That doesn't mean
he gets a pass here. We didn't cover Fast and Furious -- it didn't
strike me as story nor was it part of our scope, sorry. Rebecca
did cover it and when it was tossed out -- I believe by one of her
readers -- that it was probably making me mad, she asked me for a
comment and I told her she needed to cover what she believed was
important and that there was no problem. (Rebecca and I are friends
from college, nothing will harm that friendship.)
With that out of the way, on the above, not acceptable. Holder isn't
there to be cute or funny or political or angry. He had no reason to
bring up the RNC. His job is to sit there, shut his mouth until he's
asked to speak and then answer the question. That is his job. And it
is Congress' time, not his. So if they ask a question in the midst of a
reply, he needs to be silent. He is not elected to office and he is
before Congress -- before The People's House, in fact. These are the
people citizens elected to represent them. So when he's insulting or
silly or anything but professional, it's unacceptable. If he were a
private citizen, fine and dandy. But he's unelected official appearing
before Congress to answer questions. His behavior was unacceptable. (Marcia
will cover more of this at her site tonight.) I don't care for Condi
Rice. I don't believe half of what she told Congress at hearings that
I've attended. But she's the one to hold up as the example of an
official in front of Congress for the way she carried herself. No
member of that administration was treated as hostilely as Rice was.
That's in part because she's a woman and in part because people like
Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft only served one term while Condi was
there the full 8 years. But while I rarely felt she was fully honest, I
never faulted her for the way she conducted herself before the
Committee. And she was treated rudely. I have no problem saying that.
What Senator Barbara Boxer did to her in a hearing was the rudest thing
I've ever seen.
Holder's behavior also includes his press conference that he noted. But, more importantly, the interview he did with Carrie Johnson (Morning Edition, NPR) that aired this morning.
Carrie Johnson: And Holder only raised more questions when he told
reporters he had seen a draft of Cole's letter beforehand. And is that
normal practice when you're recused from a case?
Eric Holder: Well, no. I just wanted to see the letter. I saw the
draft letter this morning and I just wanted to have an opportunity to
see what it looked like so I'd have at least some sense of the case, in
case there were things in the letter that [I] could talk about with the
press.
Regardless, once you're recused, you stay out of it. That means you
don't read a letter because, in your kind, beautiful heart, you want to
help the press. I don't care. You recused yourself, you stay out of
it. Recusing means you wall yourself off. You don't get to choose
which parts you have access to and which parts your review. If you are
recused from the matter, you are out of it.
The wall is not porous. Out of it means out of it. That also means you
don't make statements of 'faith' about employees. You are out of it.
You cannot offer judgments, you can offer facts. You are out of it.
Eric Holder's actions are appalling because he is over executing the
laws for the Executive Branch and he fails to follow the recusal.
He did clear up that when the Attorney General is recused from a case,
the Deputy Attorney General becomes Acting Attorney General on that
case. This goes to the issue of the law requiring Holder to sign off on
the subpoena. As he explained it to US House Rep Jim Sensebrenner,
Deputy Attorney General James Cole would have signed off. (There's more
on that which Kat will cover at her site tonight.)
As Attorney General, he is over the Justice Dept and that means he needs
to know what's going on. So when he explains that he was recused
because he had been interviewed on this case, that's allowed. [Holder
knew the information leaked. He was interviewed to determine whether or
not he was the leak. For this reason he recused himself.] That's
expected. When he's asked by Sensebrenner if Cole was also interviewed
in the investigation that caused your recusal" and Holder responds, "Uh,
I don't know. I don't know. I assume he was, but I don't know," you've
got a problem.
He is the Attorney General. Part of recusing himself was ensuring that
whomever took over also had no appearance of a conflict of interest. I
have no idea whether Cole was interviewed or not. But I'm not Attorney
General. That is something Holder should know. If the answer was
"yes," Cole shouldn't have been put in charge? Correct. But Cole
shouldn't have been put in charge -- yes or no -- before it was
determined whether or not he too was questioned for the investigation.
It was Holder's job to not only ensure that he had no appearance of
conflicted interests but that the person who the case was handed off to
did not have a conflict of interest. Eric Holder didn't do that part of
his job.
Nor did he put his recusal in writing. This is an issue. It's not
minor. Holder is under the opinion that all he needs to do is say,
"Tag, you're it." No. He cannot just tell his Deputy AG that he is
recusing himself and the Deputy AG is in charge. It needs to be
formal. It wasn't. Under questioning from US House Rep Spencer Bachus,
he admitted that it was not done in writing. Did he inform the White
House? No, he said because it was an ongoing investigation. I'm sorry
but the White House nominated Holder for the post. He reports directly
to the White House, he should have informed the White House that he was
recusing himself and he should have done so in writing. Holder
disagrees. He does allow that it might have been helpful to have put it
in writing. Bachus pointed out, "Well it would be in this case becuase
you don't know when you recused yourself." To which, he replied, "Well
I don't know precisely but I have said that it was at the beginning of
the investigation." He also testified that he put two people in charge
of the investigation as part of his recusal. Why is he staffing the
investigation if he's recused? If he turned power over to the Deputy
Attorney General than the DAG should be the one appointing people to
lead the investigation.
We'll note more of the hearing throughout the snapshot. Wally's tackling an issue the hearing raises about Congress (he'll be writing at Rebecca's site tonight) and, at Trina's site, Ava's covering nonsense from a member and the member's failure to redeem himself.
Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"Why is Gen Lloyd Austin in Iraq today?"
"Tom Dispatch and Other Iraq Liars"
"Diane Rehm can't stop insulting Chris Stevens (and..."
"Scott Neuman doesn't even listen to NPR"
"The old and tired in the Cult of St. Barack"
"The so-called 'recovery'"
"revenge: trust pt.2"
"BBC shows the new way to cover news"
"The IRS wants you stupid"
"Revolution"
"Julian Bond disgraces his own name"
"Eleanor Clift attacks the internet"
"The scandals continue to swirl"
"There's a reason why he attacks the press and whistle blowers"
"THIS JUST IN! WHY BARRY O ATTACKS THE PRESS AND WHISTLE-BLOWERS!"
