We’ve been informed that this is one of the most significant matters to damage American security since the mid-Seventies, or even longer. When it arose it immediately went to the person in charge of the government’s agency that had to respond. He considered it. He then said he’d let someone else decide what the right response would be. He thought it best that he walk away from being involved in this most important decision. The man took a walk and old man buck just kept on rolling along.
On May 7, 2012, AP ran a story of how a CIA operation in Yemen unraveled an Al-Qaeda plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate an explosive on a US-bound jet airliner.
On May 13, 2013, Gary Pruitt, of AP wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder. Pruitt said AP was notified by the Department of Justice (DOJ) that “at some unidentified time earlier this year” the DOJ had “obtained telephone toll records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to the AP and its journalists” which “cover a full two-month period in early 2012.”
(I have been unable to find a copy of the letter to AP.)
Eric Holder as is his wont leaving some escape room for himself said he wasn’t in on the decision to issue the subpoena for the AP records. Then he went on to say the leak was a “very serious leak, a very, very serious leak.” He said he’d been a prosecutor since 1976 and this is the “most serious” or “in the top two or three most serious leaks he’s ever seen, it put the American people at risk, and that is not hyperbole, it put the American people at risk.”
I listened to the head of the Justice Department speak amazed at his chutzpah. If what happened was as bad as he is now portraying isn’t that the time you put everything else aside and become involved in deciding what to do about it? Isnt’ that the type of matter that the leader wants to be on top of and to keep abreast of on a daily basis? The American people were put at risk by what happened so for the guy appointed to lead the troops to take a Dixie there must have been an enormously significant reason.
Holder tried to explain why he wasn’t around when the heat in the kitchen rose. He said he recused himself from the decision “because he had been questioned by FBI agents as part of the leak probe and wanted to make sure “that the investigation was seen as independent.” “
He was pressed, well not really pressed but questioned, on when he recused himself. He said he didn’t really know but it was around the beginning of the investigation. Asked if he had anything in writing establishing this, he said no. It’s not his habit to put those things in writing. I suppose the last thing Holder would want is a paper trail.
Nothing here makes sense and I hope there’s some type of follow-up. Remember this could be the worst leak in the last 40 years that really truly endangered us. These are Holder’s words not mine. He knew about it and was in on the initial decision making. Then at some unknown time the FBI questions him about the leak.
Why is the FBI looking at him? Was he a suspect in the leak? What evidence did it have that he would have been involved in a leak of a CIA operation that wasn’t part of the DOJ? That’s something that is important to know.
If he wasn’t, then what is there to recuse himself over. What was it as Attorney General that he did that would make people think his involvement in the investigation would have been wrong? You don’t recuse yourself just because your questioned. There has to more to this.
None of this makes sense to me. The FBI is part of the Justice Department. Holder is its boss. If the FBI’s involved it seems the decision been made to look into this important matter and Holder’s must be knee-deep into it. Rather than continuing on overseeing what might be the most important matter the DOJ will investigate during his leadership the Attorney General takes a hike.
Perhaps because the boss isn’t home is the reason we see some of the strange happenings in the DOJ. When the cat’s away, the mice will play. Shouldn’t we have a cat that’ll stick around when it’s needed. Did the president fire the wrong man?
AG Holder has problems. The Federal investigation of CFC, a telecom company based in the Virgin Islands, has led to allegations of bribery and selective prosecution (Prosser case). See the Daily Caller for additional info.
Khalid:
Holder is an example of the problems that come with the revolving door. He’s worked for the justice department, then went into law firms working against the justice department, and now is back in the justice department but he has to keep the door open to go back to the law firms. It really can’t be done well by anyone – man can only serve one master.
thanks
How is it that in this day and age that this procedure (302 FBI law enforcement tactic)still flies ? What if one is interviewed in their own home and wants to record the interview ?
Hopalong:
If you want to record an interview at home the FBI won’t let you do it. You’ll be told to talk to them or go to the grand jury. The reason this is done is so that it is their memory of your conversation that is written down and not what you said. In other words, the FBI likes to have the worst evidence possible. I’ve written before that in wiretaps the FBI is required by Congress to record all the words spoken. It should likewise be required to do it in every interview. That it is not done shows the FBI continues to abide by its rule, “if it’s not in writing it doesn’t exist.” The FBI is capable of creating a second reality; one that it wants it to be rather than what it is. It is a national disgrace that the FBI still doesn’t record all interviews and interrogations but since it has no one to tell it what to do it will continue with the practice instituted by J.Edgar Hoover in the 1930s.
Don’t ever speak to a federal agent.
A reminder this is not the country we grew up in.
Protect Yourself from FBI Manipulation (w/attorney Harvey Silverglate)
Henry:
I never knew anyone who helped herself by speaking with an FBI agent, or for that matter any law enforcement person. As a defense lawyer I used to say to my clients even if had absolutely nothing to do with the matter don’t talk without a lawyer being present. Even then it can be dangerous.