Did the Attorney General of the United States commit perjury when he appeared before the House Judiciary Committee two weeks ago? It sure looks like it.<\/p>\n
Eric Holder was testifying about the growing scandal over the Justice Department\u2019s seizure of telephone records of some Associated Press reporters and editors. Representative Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), one of the committee members, asked him if the Justice Department thought it could use the Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute reporters.<\/p>\n
Holder offered what appeared to be a straightforward reply. He said, \u201cIn regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material \u2013 this is not something I\u2019ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ah, but we later learned that is precisely<\/em> what Holder\u2019s agency had done against James Rosen, a reporter for FOX News. The Justice Department warrant authorizing the seizure of Rosen\u2019s emails declared that there was \u201cprobable cause\u201d to believe the reporter violated the Espionage Act \u201cat the very least, either as an aider, abettor and\/or co-conspirator.\u201d<\/p>\n Based on this extraordinary accusation, a Federal judge agreed to the Justice Department\u2019s request for a secret search warrant for Rosen\u2019s private Gmail account. And guess what? The person who signed the Justice Department affidavit making those allegations was none other than the head man himself, Holder.<\/p>\n And while some of Holder\u2019s defenders claim that he had just scribbled his signature on a whole bunch of papers his staff put in front of him, apparently this isn\u2019t true either. Several reports say that he \u201ccarefully vetted\u201d the Rosen paperwork.<\/p>\n It appears that the top boss at Justice knew exactly<\/em> what he was doing when he ordered the surreptitious search of a reporter\u2019s emails. So much for Holder\u2019s claim that this is \u201cnot something I\u2019ve ever been involved in.\u201d As Desi Arnaz used to say to Lucille Ball, the Attorney General has \u201cgot some \u2019splainin\u2019 to do.\u201d<\/p>\n Of course, this was also the case three years ago, when Congress tried to find out what went wrong in Operation Fast and Furious. You\u2019ll recall that this was a botched effort by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to trace how weapons went from the United States to Mexican drug cartels. Some 2,000 firearms went missing from the program. One of those weapons subsequently was used in Arizona to kill U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian A. Terry.<\/p>\n Congressional investigators looking into the fiasco asked Holder to give them certain documents relating to the Fast and Furious program, since ATF is a part of the Justice Department. When he refused, they served him with a subpoena demanding them. President Barack Obama then asserted executive privilege, and the Administration refused to surrender them.<\/p>\n As a result, the House of Representatives voted to hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress. To no one\u2019s surprise, the Justice Department refused to prosecute the case.<\/p>\n The Administration was able to protect its guy back then. But even many Democrats are starting to question Holder\u2019s veracity now. Representative John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, says he is \u201cdeeply troubled\u201d by some of the Justice Department\u2019s actions. But he\u2019s willing to give Holder the benefit of the doubt\u2026 at least for now.<\/p>\n \u201cCertainly, it is fair to ask additional questions about the Rosen investigation, and any role the attorney general may have played in it,\u201d Conyers said in a statement. Then he added, \u201c[B]ut I do not believe it credible to level charges that he may have intentionally misled the committee on this matter before we know the facts of the case in question.\u201d<\/p>\n So what will the facts ultimately reveal? Did the Attorney General perjure himself this time around? Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.) is one of many people who seem to think so. He said, \u201cThere\u2019ve been other people over the years indicted for perjury or tried for perjury on a lot less evidence than that.\u201d<\/p>\n The House Judiciary Committee has sent Holder a letter, asking him to explain the apparent discrepancy between his actions against Rosen and what he told the committee when he testified under oath on May 15. Representative Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), the committee chairman, said, \u201cWe will withhold judgment on what the attorney general\u2019s actions constitute until we give an opportunity for him to explain himself.\u201d<\/p>\n Even Obama said a couple of days ago that he is \u201ctroubled\u201d about these apparent assaults on the freedom of the press by the Justice Department. But, hey, not to worry: He is going to ask Holder to investigate matters and report back to him.<\/p>\n In other words, the President will ask the fox to look into what\u2019s been happening in the chicken coop. That should make everyone feel better, shouldn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n One liberal law professor has had enough. In a powerful column in USA Today,<\/em> Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, said that a hallmark of Holder\u2019s service as attorney general has been his unquestioned loyalty to Obama:<\/p>\n When the president promised CIA employees early in his first term that they would not be investigated for torture, it was the attorney general who shielded officials from prosecution.<\/p>\n When the Obama Administration decided it would expand secret and warrantless surveillance, it was Holder who justified it.<\/p>\n When the president wanted the authority to kill any American he deemed a threat without charge or trial, it was Holder who went public to announce the \u201ckill list\u201d policy.<\/p>\n But now, Turley says, the Justice Department has gone too far. \u201cThe attorney general has done little in his tenure to protect civil liberties or the free press,\u201d the law professor wrote. \u201cRather, Holder has supervised a comprehensive erosion of privacy rights, press freedom and due process.\u201d<\/p>\n Turley says the Justice Department\u2019s sweeping surveillance of journalists represents \u201cthe greatest attack on the free press in decades.\u201d And he has had enough. \u201cI am neither a Republican nor conservative,\u201d he declared, \u201cand I believe Holder should be fired.\u201d<\/p>\n Right now, the Attorney General is scrambling to protect himself. While he claims that the Justice Department hasn\u2019t violated any laws or guidelines, he admits that the rules \u201cneed to be updated.\u201d And he called the controversy \u201can opportunity for the department to consider how we strike the right balance between the interests of law enforcement and freedom of the press.\u201d<\/p>\n Nice try, Holder, but it won\u2019t work. Better dust off your r\u00c3\u00a9sum\u00c3\u00a9 and start exploring opportunities in the private sector, as the soon-to-be-departed like to say. Looks like we can color you gone. And it\u2019s about time.<\/p>\n Until next time, keep some powder dry.<\/p>\n Chip Wood<\/strong> was the first news editor of<\/em> The Review of the News\u00a0and also wrote for <\/em>American Opinion, our two predecessor publications. He is now the geopolitical editor of<\/em> Personal Liberty Digest,\u00a0where his Straight Talk column appears weekly. This article first appeared in <\/em>PersonalLiberty.com<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/em><\/span><\/a> and has been reprinted with permission.<\/em><\/p>\n