PDA

View Full Version : Attorney General Eric Holder assigns two U.S. attorneys to lead investigations ...



SarasotaRepub
06-08-2012, 07:39 PM
Breaking on CNN.


I wonder what they will find????:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Gina
06-08-2012, 08:01 PM
Breaking on CNN.


I wonder what they will find????:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I wonder what took so long!

Here's an AP Link (http://http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AG_HOLDER_LEAK_PROBES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-08-18-57-40)

Apocalypse
06-08-2012, 10:02 PM
But here's the question. Are they really independent. Or just loyal partisan hacks who will find nothing or some rouge sectary.

Rockntractor
06-08-2012, 10:08 PM
I wonder what took so long!

Here's an AP Link (http://http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AG_HOLDER_LEAK_PROBES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-08-18-57-40)

I couldn't get your link to work, here is another.http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AG_HOLDER_LEAK_PROBES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-08-18-57-40

Gina
06-09-2012, 11:52 AM
I couldn't get your link to work, here is another.http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AG_HOLDER_LEAK_PROBES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-08-18-57-40

That one doesn't work either!

That's really weird. There were 2 AP links yesterday and now neither one works.

DUN DUN DUN

AmPat
06-09-2012, 12:23 PM
But here's the question. Are they really independent. Or just loyal partisan hacks who will find nothing or some rouge sectary.Duh! Partisan butt kissers.


I wonder what took so long!

Here's an AP Link (http://http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AG_HOLDER_LEAK_PROBES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-08-18-57-40)Shredding documents and dissapearing evidence takes a long time.

ThinkingBig
06-09-2012, 01:39 PM
I wonder what took so long!

Here's an AP Link (http://http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AG_HOLDER_LEAK_PROBES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-08-18-57-40)


Please, Sheriff Joe has been breaking federal law for years and they're just getting around to him.

This DOJ lacks teeth.

Scooter Libby set a bad precedent. People at the WH think they're immune.

Articulate_Ape
06-09-2012, 01:51 PM
Please, Sheriff Joe has been breaking federal law for years and they're just getting around to him.

Care to cite an example? If not, then shut your pie hole.

Rockntractor
06-09-2012, 01:54 PM
Please, Sheriff Joe has been breaking federal law for years and they're just getting around to him.

This DOJ lacks teeth.

Scooter Libby set a bad precedent. People at the WH think they're immune.

They have not "just gotten around" to Sheriff Joe, they have pressed bogus charges against him for years which he has met and beat.
Ever since the DOJ merged with the Black Panther Party 3 years ago it has made them a joke, the Black Panthers are losing all of their credibility associating with Obama's DOJ.

Janice
06-09-2012, 02:05 PM
Another source ...

http://i.imgur.com/E16vv.jpg

Holder appoints 2 US attorneys to lead leaks probe

Two U.S. attorneys are taking over separate FBI investigations into leaks of national security information that critics have accused the White House of orchestrating to improve President Barack Obama's re-election chances, a claim Obama calls "offensive" and "wrong."

Recent news articles contained details of U.S. involvement in a partially successful computer virus attack on Iran's nuclear program and on the selection of targets for counterterrorism assassination plots. The leaked information generally painted Obama as a decisive and hands-on commander in chief. >>>

Three weeks ago, FBI Director Robert Mueller said the bureau had launched an investigation into who leaked information about an al-Qaida plot to place an explosive device aboard a U.S.-bound airline flight. Separately, calls from Capitol Hill have mounted urging a leak probe into a New York Times story a week ago about U.S. involvement in cyberattacks on Iran. >>>

Lawmakers have pointed to recent stories by The New York Times, The Associated Press and other news organizations that contain previously secret information and cite anonymous U.S. officials.

The strongest claims came Tuesday from Obama's 2008 election opponent, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

"They're intentionally leaking information to enhance President Obama's image as a tough guy for the elections," McCain said after taking to the Senate floor to list some of the alleged breaches. "That is unconscionable." >>>

The House Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said his committee would formally investigate the leaks but that he was concerned about the level of cooperation he would get from two government agencies.

"Just today, the CIA informed the (committee) that it cannot respond to our request for information regarding the leaks, a very troubling event indeed," Rogers said.

The CIA has come under fire for allegedly sharing with Hollywood filmmakers classified details of last year's U.S. raid into Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden.

KansasCityStar‎ (http://www.kansascity.com/2012/06/09/3649575/holder-appoints-2-us-attorneys.html)

Read it today as it may be gone tomorrow ... just ask the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick (Leaky) Leahy, D-Vt.

Gina
06-09-2012, 04:07 PM
Link (http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2012/06/09/latest-in-leak-farce-the-special-counsel-folly/)
Latest in Leak Farce: the ‘Special Counsel’ Folly

Looking out at the dreadful but lovable 1962 Mets, Casey Stengel used to wail, “Can’t anybody here play this game?” Were he here to watch today’s not so lovable Republican leadership in action, “the Ol’ Perfessor” would be making the same observation.

As reported by PJM’s Bridget Johnson, with Beltway fixtures John McCain and Lindsey Graham pointing the way, the GOP has loudly demanded that Attorney General Eric Holder name a “special counsel” to investigate Obama administration leaks of national defense information to the New York Times. Seeing his opportunity to bury this embarrassing episode until after the November election, Holder is naturally accommodating them — or at least doing enough to appear to accommodate them that the media will applaud as the story goes dark.

The whole thing is a farce. You don’t need a special prosecutor to know who talked to the Times. All you need to do is read the two stories — the first on Obama’s assassination list and the follow-up on cyber-warfare. The Times tells you who its sources are. At the very beginning of the 6300-word kill-list epic, it says: “In interviews with The New York Times, three dozen of [Obama's] current and former advisers described Mr. Obama’s evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda.” The account goes on to quote, for example, former White House chief-of-staff Bill Daley, who not only confirms the existence of a kill-list but describes the considerations behind adding names to it. Current and former national security officials are quoted, in many instances by name (e.g., national security adviser Thomas Donilon and former national intelligence director Dennis Blair). And when names are not given, the Times quotes, for example, “one participant” in the approximately weekly meetings — videoconferences run by the Pentagon but involving national security officials across the administration — who describes some of the criteria for adding or removing terrorists from the kill-list.

Furthermore, at the very beginning of the cyber-war article, the Times describes “a tense meeting in the White House Situation Room” in which the president, vice-president and CIA director deliberated over whether the “Stuxnet” worm that had so vexed Iran’s nuclear efforts had been compromised. The report elaborates: “‘Should we shut this thing down?’ Mr. Obama asked, according to members of the president’s national security team who were in the room.” There is no mystery here. The report goes on to say that current and former American officials involved in the program provided information to the Times — and that “none would allow their names to be used because the effort remains highly classified.” In other words, they knew full well that they were disclosing information that should not be disclosed and they demanded the cover of anonymity before doing so (and the Times, for its part, is protecting them because the paper, too, knows that what is being published should never have been shared with its reporters).

President Obama’s mock outrage at yesterday’s press conference — “The notion that my White House would purposely release classified national security information is offensive!” — was laughable, albeit with an Alinskyesque flair. Notice he referred to “my White House” not “my administration.” This allows him to feign indignation while later saying he was referring only to current (not former) members of his White House staff. But if you know how these things work, the information the Times got is almost certainly not coming directly from the current White House staff; it comes (just as the stories themselves expressly indicate) from intelligence agencies, other administration officials, and former White House staffers who no doubt got the green-light to speak. And note that the Times reporters — who would ordinarily refuse to discuss their sources at all, but make an exception when it comes to covering for The One — are careful to deny, as the Daily Beast put it, that “the information was spoon fed to them from the White House.” Well, no — it was fork-lift fed to them by executive branch agencies and former administration officials.

So we know where the leaks came from. Now we’re down to putting a particular name on particular leaked information. Relatively speaking, that is a matter of close to zero importance. The lesson here — of far more political than legal significance — is that President Obama is a reckless custodian of the nation’s secrets. That is yet another good reason why it is so important to defeat him come November. The rest — who said what — is details. It’s the guy in the Oval Office who sets the tone. And that guy, by the way, is fully empowered to declassify whatever information he chooses to declassify, no matter how sensitive, no matter how damaging its disclosure. So if it turns out that Obama effectively approved the leaks, they are probably not actionable disclosures of classified information anyway.
continued on page 2

AmPat
06-10-2012, 12:04 PM
Care to cite an example? If not, then shut your pie hole.
He heard it from his handlers. No original thoughts as expected.

They have not "just gotten around" to Sheriff Joe, they have pressed bogus charges against him for years which he has met and beat.
Ever since the DOJ merged with the Black Panther Party 3 years ago it has made them a joke, the Black Panthers are losing all of their credibility associating with Obama's DOJ.
LOL!
Holder is the Grand Poobah Panther now. They just don't wear the hoods like their favorite boogiemen do, they opt for combat boots and Do-rags. Oh, and surly "scary" contenance.:rolleyes: