Accused of "misleading congress"
Accused of “misleading congress”

A letter was sent from House Republicans to the White House asking for Holder’s ouster, after a report was released by the republicans today, which claims that Eric Holder misled (Lied) in his testimony that he would never try to prosecute a reporter and that was something he had never even heard of. It was then revealed that he had personally signed off on action against Fox Newsreporter, James Rosen.

“With regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material that is not something that I have ever been involved, heard of, or would think would be a wise policy”

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Powdered Wig Society updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Swelling to 10,000 in number, the Honduran caravan continues north through Mexico, en route to the United States

That seems diametrically opposed to his actions. In fact, in the Rosen case, even Rosen’s parent’s phone was tapped. And while, DOJ spokesperson, Brian Fallon, insisted that the report :

“was produced on a purely partisan basis” and said its findings “are contrary to the record and strongly disputed by many of the committee’s own members.”

The warrant request that Mr Holder filed, called Rosen, a criminal suspect. The DOJ does not dispute the fact that Mr Holder signed the warrant and that the warrant calls Rosen a criminal suspect, therefore Fallon’s statement needs further explanation.

Either Holder “misled” the House or he “misled” the judge who issued the warrant. No further explanation was given and no specific point in the report was challenged.

The report, however disputed Fallon’s statement:

“We take little comfort in Mr. Holder’s assurances to us now that the Department never intended to prosecute Mr. Rosen when it labeled him a criminal suspect in 2010. Tarnishing a journalist as a suspect in a national security investigation is not something that should be taken lightly. Espionage is a serious federal crime, punishable by up to a decade in prison. In essence, the Justice Department dangled Mr. Rosen over a cliff. But the American people were then assured by Mr. Holder that this was appropriate because there was never a potential of him falling to his doom.”

The DOJ conducted their own study of the situation and offered changes in their policies.

This is not the first time Mr Holder has been accused of lying to congress. He had previously testified on the Fast and Furious scandal. On May 3rd, 2013, he was asked by Rep. Darrell Issa, “When did you first know about the program officially I believe called Fast and Furious? To the best of your knowledge, what date?”

Holder answered, “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.”

But a memo from July 2010 from Michael Walther, head of the National Drug Intelligence Center informed Mr Holder that 1500 guns had been been purchased through the Fast and Furious program by straw buyers had reached drug cartels in Mexico.

Another instance was the case against the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia in an obvious case of voter intimidation. Mr Holder testified under oath that the decision not to prosecute had been made by career lawyers in the DOJ. However, one of those career lawyers, J Christian Adams, testified that the career lawyers did indeed recommend prosecution, but they were overruled by political appointee, Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli.

Documents obtained by Judicial Watch and a ruling by Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia showed 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.”

The White House has not responded as of the writing of this article.