Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Holder Defends AP Probe: 'Aggressive' Action Necessary, 'Very Serious Leak'
Breitbart ^ | 5/13/13 | breitbart

Posted on 05/14/2013 5:11:49 PM PDT by Nachum

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-79 last
To: jazusamo

“Holder lies, as does his boss.”

After watching the press conference, I googled “lying facial cues.” I rewatched Holder and noted the following tell tale signs.

1. Looking to the left often if the person is right-handed (he is). Check.
2. Furrowing the brow and lifting eyebrows. Check.
3. Shaking the head as he is affirming something. Check.
4. (And in Holder’s case), Moving his lips. Check.


51 posted on 05/14/2013 8:12:25 PM PDT by BelleAl (Proud to be a member of the party of NO! NO more deficit spending and government control!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BelleAl
4. (And in Holder’s case), Moving his lips. Check.

Absolutely...That also applies to his boss.

52 posted on 05/14/2013 8:31:24 PM PDT by jazusamo ("Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." -- Adam Smith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Nachum; All

53 posted on 05/14/2013 8:34:37 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (I don't have 'Hobbies.' I'm developing a robust Post-Apocalyptic skill set...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Democrat_media

And the IRS Scandal and the AP scandal are to draw fire away from the Benghazi scandal.....


54 posted on 05/14/2013 8:41:31 PM PDT by free-n-TX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

What’s frustrating is that people are really missing the point of what happened here. They are defending this as necessary to go after Obama national security leakers. I agree that they shouldn’t be leaking this stuff, but that’s not why DOJ took this action.

They did this because the AP wrote articles unfavorable to them. Articles that disagreed with their statements. This was punishment. And it dried up their sources, who are now afraid to talk to them. It sends a message to the press. Disagree with us and we will make you pay.


55 posted on 05/14/2013 9:35:15 PM PDT by Wendy44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

The White House sold out that doctor in Pakistan the helped get Osama Bin Laden, but you know, national secrets are very important when it comes to our friends on foreign soil.

And then you have our Ambassador and his staff on foreign soil.

But boy, Obama and company sure are national security sticklers aren’t they.

AP: If you’re buying their excuses, you deserve to wither and die on the vine.


56 posted on 05/14/2013 10:07:40 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Leftist, Progressive, Socialist, Communist, fundamentalist Islamic policies, the death of a nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spunky

My take is the AP was hot on a story and the White House wanted to know what the reporters knew and who they were talking to.

It was information gathering with the intent of being ready with advance notice of the story to address it.

In other words, find out what the reporters know by finding out who they are talkin to, then see what that person is capable of delivering to the press.


57 posted on 05/14/2013 10:55:51 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Spunky

A thwarted terrorist attack.


58 posted on 05/15/2013 12:17:50 AM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Democrat_media

Welcome to the Obamugabe Regime...a Reich that thinks it will never end.

59 posted on 05/15/2013 12:31:55 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Those Bin Laden raid leaks that landed that Pakistani doctor in prison were pretty serious too. But that was a long time ago. What difference does it make at this point?


60 posted on 05/15/2013 1:00:31 AM PDT by kevao (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spunky
Can someone tell me what that leak was?

The AP upstaged der Bamma:

CIA 'foiled al-Qaida bomb plot' around anniversary of Bin Laden death

Since O'bammy trademarked 'I killed bin Laden', this was obviously a gross breach of copyright.

61 posted on 05/15/2013 1:08:53 AM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wendy44

I think the other thing that Obama and his minions didn’t like was that the story showed the CIA in a favorable light and showed that Obama’s darling Muslims were still trying to come up with ways to kill us.

Obama hates the CIA and it wouldn’t surprise me if this was “leaked” by someone there. It’s certainly no surprise to Muslim nutcases everywhere that the CIA is trying to keep tabs on them, and I don’t see that enough information was given to have any effect on the CIA or national security. Obama was simply angry that the story of more Muslim attempted terrorist attacks came out, particularly since he was trying to claim that there was no such thing now that “he” had killed bin Laden. The attack was timed to coincide with the anniversary of bin Laden’s death, so that would certainly undermine his narrative.

As for why these are all coming at once, it’s because some people have been emboldened by the Benghazi testimony and realize that there is safety in numbers and they should come forward NOW while they still can. This is not a distraction from Bengahzi but makes it all the more complicated and plausible and reveals that Obama has a pattern of acting like this and also of punishing anyone who opposes or even questions him. Even the US and perhaps now the British left doesn’t like that.


62 posted on 05/15/2013 2:14:44 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: kevao

We did absolutely nothing to protect or help that doctor, either. It’s a scandal, as far as I’m concerned.


63 posted on 05/15/2013 2:16:55 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Benghazi is now bye bye?

I don’t think so, in fact I am quite sure we will be seeing this investigated right through the elections next year and beyond


64 posted on 05/15/2013 3:37:12 AM PDT by billyboy15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: livius

I don’t think Holder will be forced to resign anytime soon. He serves a purpose for Obama, which is to be Obama’s scapegoat. It reminds me of a time I worked for a corrupt government agency. Don’t ask for any names or details, but we faced a new crisis every day, but I had some serious job security while my colleagues were not so safe. So when we had crisis meetings, it was my job to say, “oops, I’m sorry that was my fault, I’ll make sure it never happens again.” Then everybody was happy and I won employee of the year for that agency. But we had so many crises that I thought there’s no way I could even keep my job, so when I submitted my letter of resignation, the boss was shocked and asked, why did you quit? We were going to name you ‘employee of the year’ But I had a guilty conscience for basically doing nothing but pretending to work. So I handed in my letter of resignation.


65 posted on 05/15/2013 3:37:12 AM PDT by TexGrill (Don't mess with Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: TexGrill

Well , a guilty conscience is certainly not something that is ever going to afflict the likes of Holder - or Obama! They simply don’t have one to begin with. It’s all about power to them.

But I think the difference is that there are possible legal implications for them. It is just emerging, for example, that in addition to being meant simply as harassment of conservative groups in general, the IRS’s activities may have been meant to influence the election. The Cincinnati office, which was the immediate source of the harassment of conservative groups, is also the office responsible for ALL of the “battleground states” and thus it is possible that this attack, started about the time that Obama’s thoughts were turning towards 2012 in a major way, was meant to prevent conservative groups from having their voices heard or being able to have any political influence in these states.

I think all of them, if this goes much further, could be looking at jail time. And they know it. That’s why Hillary was so adamant about refusing to be sworn in her so-called testimony on Benghazi: she knows she’s lying and that she’s covering up a lot more than just incompetence. I think they are really sweating right now and the question is whether our system can work and call them to account or if they’ll be able to tough it out and override the system - once again.


66 posted on 05/15/2013 3:52:22 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I don’t condone the leaking, but the messenger is hardly the problem. Same was true when leaks were made during the Bush Administration to the NYT. The problem here is the JustUs Department attempted to right the first wrong by infringing on the 1A right of the press. Their solution to a crime was to commit a crime. They put themselves above the law. That’s tyranny. That’s why we have a 2A and a perfect example of why we need to defend the 2A.


67 posted on 05/15/2013 3:57:52 AM PDT by IamConservative (The soul of my lifes journey is Liberty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

“We had to do it, but I don’t know anything about it.” Nobody in the obonbo administration is ever around or in charge of anything. All important decisions are made by underlings, so why do we have to pay for know-nothings like holder and obongo?


68 posted on 05/15/2013 4:03:43 AM PDT by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

isn’t tapping your phone with out your
consent against the Constitution?


69 posted on 05/15/2013 5:00:59 AM PDT by GailA (THOSE WHO DON'T KEEP PROMISES TO THE MILITARY, WON'T KEEP THEM TO U!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tilted Irish Kilt
I have a issue with any news org reporting my legal ownership of my CCW weapon. My child's killer could then find me. And he has made threats, still they let him go free after a bad plea bargain, I eked out 14.5 years of the 20 he got. I learned to shoot to protect myself. I lived in the cesspit of Memphis, no more, moved 2 months ago. There is a fine line in what the press needs to know and what it can print, this was a violation of my privacy rights, but they don't see it that way, they want the criminals to know who is armed so we can't eliminate them. I was taught by former LEO's, and they made sure you knew you would be sued, and to empty the clip into the prep, and then reload.

Now we have a study going on that black kids are disciplined more in school than any other race...duh, they make up 90% of the city school system they looked at.

70 posted on 05/15/2013 5:08:42 AM PDT by GailA (THOSE WHO DON'T KEEP PROMISES TO THE MILITARY, WON'T KEEP THEM TO U!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I wonder how it looks for the Senate in 2014...


71 posted on 05/15/2013 6:27:03 AM PDT by HomeAtLast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: keats5

“I’ve read this sentence over and over and still can’t figure out what it means.”

I’m thinking perhaps translation of Holder’s ebonics with a poor grammar correction?

Change one word for another that sounds a bit like that word and then incorrectly apply “without” instead of “with”?

“Today at a Department Of Justice press conference Attorney General Eric Holder said he has no problem about (corrected to “with” but instead corrected to “without”) letting the Associate Press answer the charges of a leak endangering national security.”


72 posted on 05/15/2013 7:40:00 AM PDT by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I think DOJ was searching for Benghazi leakers myself.


73 posted on 05/15/2013 8:02:02 AM PDT by austinaero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lwoodham

I smell a rat on the AP story. I think it’s made up between AP and the administration to deflect from Benghazi.

I agree. I think Dear Leader and AP have an understanding and are just putting on a big act.


74 posted on 05/15/2013 8:05:02 AM PDT by austinaero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

There would be no “leaks” that could be utilized this way,
(strictly for the political advantage of the WH, as if they were rushing to control something that might put the nation in jeopardy), if they were even remotely forthcoming about what they were doing, enough to “trust” the Press with any information they might give THEM, and US.Instead, the Press has gone ahead and done what it is their duty to do, with little or no “guidance” from the WH. That constitutes a
“leak”.


75 posted on 05/15/2013 9:15:38 AM PDT by supremedoctrine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius

Agree that the CIA has reached their limit. I grew up as an agency brat (both parents) and worked there myself for a number of years, so I understand the “culture”. They will put up with a lot, accept the blame, let false perceptions ride, etc. They are used to that.

What’s different about this is that they know they’re not being protected. There were many people deeply scarred by what happened to William Buckley in Beirut and they have never gotten over it. I have friends who are supposed to go to Mali (with their children!) and after Benghazi they freaked out. They’re terrified and I’ve never seen that before. I think this is why we’re starting to see them push back. They know they’re being sent out with no protection and no back up and that they won’t stand for.


76 posted on 05/15/2013 9:22:14 AM PDT by Wendy44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Wendy44

“What’s different about this is that they know they’re not being protected.”

That’s exactly the problem. Everybody knows that in certain jobs, your function is to be the fall guy, but that’s simply to cover up after the fact. But now there are real human lives in play.

Somebody posted a great article by Daniel (?) Jonescu this morning that I will try to find and ping you to - I’ve sent it to friends.


77 posted on 05/15/2013 9:38:02 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: livius

Thanks, that would be great.

I’m so not a conspiracy theorist, but I have to admit the CIA officer outed in Russia made me pause. When is the last time something like that has happened? If there is someone in this administration outing our foreign officers to send a message, they truly do not know the war they have started.


78 posted on 05/15/2013 10:19:57 AM PDT by Wendy44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: HomeAtLast
I wonder how it looks for the Senate in 2014...

A good question. Wonder what dirty tricks are going on in the contested election states.

79 posted on 05/17/2013 12:20:33 AM PDT by Nachum (The Obama "List" at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-79 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson