Top Cop Totally Corrupt
Tom Fitton’s publication, Judicial Watch, recently posted an article on Attorney General Eric Holder and the myriad of acquisitions out against him. You can read the article for yourself below to see the reasons why Fitton says we should “Dump Holder”:
Holder’s Seat Burning Hot Following Press Revolt, Perjury Accusations
When Barack Obama first nominated Eric Holder for the position of Attorney General, Judicial Watch was outspoken in its criticism. In fact, take a look at a letter we sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee opposing the nomination at the time.Mr. Holder’s record demonstrates a willingness to bend the law in order to protect his political patrons. On his watch at the Clinton Justice Department, the pardon process was upended and corrupted by a “pay to play” mentality. This undermined, in the least, the appearance of the fair administration of justice by the Justice Department. Mr. Holder is the wrong person to head the Department of Justice.
|
|
|
Last week you will recall that President Obama directed Eric Holder to meet with the Washington, D.C., bureau chiefs of major news outlets to discuss the administration’s subpoena policies. The move was a clear attempt by Obama to change a narrative that had done significant damage to the White House.
But when the administration announced those discussions would be “off the record,” the wheels came off the wagon. Per CNN: Attorney General Eric Holder’s plans to sit down with media representatives to discuss guidelines for handling investigations into leaks to the news media have run into trouble.
The Associated Press issued a statement Wednesday objecting to plans for the meetings to be off the record. “If it is not on the record, AP will not attend and instead will offer our views on how the regulations should be updated in an open letter,” said Erin Madigan White, The AP’s media relations manager. The New York Times is taking the same position. “It isn’t appropriate for us to attend an off-the-record meeting with the attorney general,” executive editor Jill Abramson said in a statement.
Making matters worse for Holder, news of the press revolt came at a time when House Republicans sent a letter to the attorney general “expressing ‘great concern’ about the possibility that Holder lied under oath during his testimony earlier this month on the DOJ’s seizing of journalists’ records.” According to CBS News: On May 15, Holder told the committee he wasn’t involved in “the potential prosecution” of a member of the press under the Espionage Act for disclosing classified information. “This is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy,” he said.
Shortly thereafter, reports began to surface that the Justice Department, in addition to seizing telephone and email records of Associated Press reporters, had seized the emails and phone records of Fox News correspondent James Rosen. While Holder had recused himself from the AP proceedings, the Washington Post reported that the attorney general had personally signed off on the search warrant for Rosen’s records.
The Daily Caller reported this week that Attorney General Eric Holder felt “a creeping sense of personal remorse,” aides say, after it was revealed that the DOJ had seized Rosen’s emails. I wonder if Barack Obama has experienced a “creeping sense of personal remorse” for installing Holder in office. As I say, this is not the first time Holder has been accused of lying, or best case scenario, “artfully testifying” before Congress. On March 1, 2011, Holder testified to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies: “The decisions made in the New Black Panther Party case were made by career attorneys in the department. And beyond that, you know, if we’re going to look at the record, let’s look at it in its totality.” Not true. In a July 23 ruling, Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in response to Judicial Watch’s effort to obtain attorneys’ fees from the DOJ for stonewalling the release of documents pertaining to the NBPP scandal: The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decisionmaking.
These are troubled times for the country. With approximately one-third of congressional committees investigating scandals inside the Obama administration, Judicial Watch’s work is more important now than ever. And that is why I am pleased to report a bit of good news as we seek to expose the truth about Washington corruption – which did not begin (and will not end) with the Obama administration. |
Comments are closed.