The Corner

The one and only.

Not Whether Holder Lied, But When


The House judiciary committee is investigating whether Eric Holder lied under oath to Congress. Actually, they are investigating whether Holder lied to Congress or lied to a federal judge, since it sure seems like he did one or the other. Jennifer Rubin explains:

The panel is looking at a statement Holder made during a back and forth with Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) about whether the DOJ could prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act of 1917.

“In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material — this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy,” Holder said during the hearing.

As I and some other right-leaning journalists pointed out last week, this cannot be squared with the revelation that Holder signed off on the James Rosen search warrant.

The catch is this: If Holder never considered prosecution of journalists including Rosen, then the affidavit laying out a purported criminal case against Rosen was a ruse, a false statement under oath, directed to the court to conduct a wide-ranging dragnet. If, on the other hand, the affidavit which Holder signed off on is true in laying out the case against Rosen, then he didn’t level with Congress. In either event, he needs to come back and explain himself. If he refuses or takes the Fifth, there is no alternative but to name a special prosecutor.

Obviously, either possibility is bad for the AG. And, of course: Holder could have named Rosen as a coconspirator pro forma, just to get his court orders, and misled congress. 



Sign up for free NR e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review