Holder lashes out at Issa during tense hearing, calls conduct 'shameful'

• 

WASHINGTON –  Eric Holder lashed out at his chief antagonist Wednesday at a congressional hearing where the attorney general was questioned on recent administration scandals, telling Republican Rep. Darrell Issa at the end of a tense exchange that his conduct is "shameful." 

Holder’s comments came after Issa accused him of purposely and repeatedly keeping information from Congress. 

“No, that’s what you typically do,” Holder responded. Following crosstalk, Holder added, “That is inappropriate and is too consistent with the way in which you conduct yourself as a member of Congress. It’s unacceptable and it’s shameful.” 

The heated exchange with the lawmaker who led the charge against Holder regarding the botched Operation Fast and Furious came during a House Judiciary Committee hearing that examined a new set of scandals. Holder was grilled on a series of allegations, including the way the agency tried to find out who was behind a government leak to The Associated Press. 

The AP, along with several lawmakers, say the Justice Department infringed on the constitutional rights of the press when it secretly obtained two months' worth of phone records. Lawmakers tried to get answers out of Holder Wednesday but voiced frustration after Holder repeatedly rebuffed questions by claiming he wasn’t involved in the decision-making process. 

Wisconsin Rep. James Sensenbrenner was among the group of bipartisan lawmakers who pressed Holder on why the Justice Department secretly collected telephone records. 

Holder said he had recused himself from the case because "I am a possessor of information eventually leaked." 

He also said he was unable to answer any questions on why the department he oversees failed to negotiate with the AP prior to obtaining subpoenas -- something which is standard practice in these cases.

Holder testified that all the decisions made in the case fell on Deputy Attorney General James Cole’s shoulders. Sensenbrenner then suggested having Cole testify before the House Judiciary Committee. While Congress could call Cole to testify, he would be prohibited from discussing any ongoing case. His testimony would likely yield few answers.

"There doesn't appear to be any acceptance of responsibility for things that have gone wrong," Sensenbrenner said, after suggesting administration officials travel to the Harry Truman Presidential Library and take a photo of the famous sign, "the buck stops here."

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said he was "troubled by the notion that our government would pursue a broad array of phone records over a period of time." But like Sensenbrenner, he was unable to pull any new information about the AP case from Holder.

On Monday, AP President and CEO Gary Pruitt disclosed the government’s action in a letter to Holder that was made public.

In it, Pruitt called the collection of phone records at four AP bureaus a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” of the news agency’s freedom of press rights granted under the U.S. Constitution.

The AP case immediately sparked bipartisan outrage, leading members of both parties to publicly question the government’s actions.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said the attorney general should resign over the issue, adding: "Freedom of the press is an essential right in a free society."

Holder acknowledged Priebus’s calls for his resignation during his opening remarks, though again noted that he was not behind the subpoena. 

On Wednesday, New York Sen. Charles Schumer said he plans to reintroduce legislation that would protect journalists from revealing their sources. The bill, which was brought up in 2009, has since stalled in Congress.

The Obama administration has been very aggressive in going after government workers leaking classified information. To date, the White House has brought indictments against five workers. The Defense Department is pursuing a sixth case against the U.S. Army soldier accused of sending classified documents to the anti-secrecy online group WikiLeaks.

Under Holder’s command, the Justice Department has prosecuted more government officials for alleged leaks under the World War I-era Espionage Act than all of the AGs who came before him – combined.

View the original article here

Holder says AP probe handled by deputy after he recused himself

Published May 14, 2013

FoxNews.com

• 

  FILE - In this April 18, 2013 file photo, Attorney General Eric Holder testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington. The Justice Department has secretly obtained two months of telephone records of journalists for The Associated Press in what AP's top executive says is an unprecedented intrusion into newsgathering. (AP Photo/Molly Riley, File)

DEVELOPING: Attorney General Eric Holder is recusing himself from the investigation into leaks made to The Associated Press, Fox News has learned. 

Holder is scheduled to comment on the matter during a press conference scheduled for 1:30 p.m.

The Associated Press reported Monday evening that the Department of Justice had secretly obtained phone records involving as many as 20 reporters and editors in an effort to find out who leaked confidential information to it.

It was not known if Holder authorized or even knew about the investigation.

The White House said Tuesday that it had no knowledge of the investigation and referred all inquiries to the Justice Department.

"The president is a strong defender of the First Amendment," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said during a press conference. "He also of course recognizes the need for the Justice Department to investigate alleged criminal activity without undue influence."

"I cannot and he [President Obama] cannot comment specifically on an ongoing criminal investigation," Carney said. 

Republicans, meanwhile, are calling on Holder to resign following news of the probe.

"Freedom of the press is an essential right in a free society," RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement.

"The First Amendment doesn’t request the federal government to respect it; it demands it," Priebus said. "Attorney General Eric Holder, in permitting the Justice Department to issue secret subpoenas to spy on Associated Press reporters, has trampled on the First Amendment and failed in his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution."

Mike Levine contributed to this report. 

View the original article here

Kansas governor, Attorney General Holder spar over new state gun-rights law

• 

  Dec. 21, 2010: Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback is shown before taking office talking with a reporter in Topeka.AP

TOPEKA, Kan. –  U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has told Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback that a new state law attempting to block federal regulation of some guns is unconstitutional and that the federal government is willing to go to court over the issue.

But Brownback replied in a letter Thursday that Kansans hold dear their right to bear arms and are protecting the state's sovereignty. Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a former law professor who helped draft the law, accused the nation's top law enforcement official of "blustering" over the issue.

"The people of Kansas have clearly expressed their sovereign will," Brownback said at the conclusion of his letter. "It is my hope that upon further review, you will see their right to do so."

Kansas' law declares that the federal government has no authority to regulate guns, ammunition and accessories manufactured, sold and kept only in Kansas. The law also makes it a felony for a federal agent to enforce any law, regulation, order or treaty covering those items.

The new statute says that Kansas-only guns, ammunition and accessories aren't a part of interstate commerce, which the federal government regulates under the U.S. Constitution. But in a letter to Brownback, Holder said the Constitution prohibits states from pre-empting federal laws.

Holder sent his letter April 26, the day after the Kansas law took effect, and the U.S. attorney's office for Kansas released it Thursday.

"Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities," Holder wrote in his letter. "And a state certainly may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities."

Patricia Stoneking, president of the Kansas State Rifle Association, said gun rights supporters were prepared for such a response from President Barack Obama's administration. The president has sought new gun control measures since December's deadly mass elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

The Republican governor is a gun rights supporter, and the measure passed the GOP-dominated Legislature by wide margins. Kobach also is a Republican.

"I think the people of Kansas are going to back this up," Stoneking said. "Probably thousands of grass-roots citizens are all in."

Brownback said in his letter to Holder: "The right to keep and bear arms is a right that Kansans hold dear."

The governor added, "The people of Kansas have repeatedly and overwhelmingly reaffirmed their commitment to protecting this fundamental right."

The Kansas law is modeled on a 2009 Montana law that is being reviewed by a federal appeals court, and Alaska lawmakers approved a similar measure last month. Alabama, Missouri and Oklahoma lawmakers are considering similar legislation.

Supporters of the Kansas law softened it — to say that federal agents wouldn't be arrested or detained while trials were pending — and insist that it will withstand court scrutiny. A federal agent convicted for the first time under the Kansas law could face six months in prison, though probation would be the presumed sentence.

"These hard-working federal employees cannot be forced to choose between the risk of a criminal prosecution and the continued performance of their federal duties," Barry Grissom, the U.S. attorney for Kansas, said in a statement Thursday.

But Kobach called Holder's analysis "simplistic and incorrect" and said the Kansas law is valid to protect the state's residents against unconstitutional measures enacted by Congress.

"We are very, very confident of our position," Kobach said in an interview. "The state of Kansas is not in any way afraid of a legal challenge."

The office of Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt has already anticipated a potential legal challenge from the federal government, and has asked legislators to increase its budget by $225,000 over the next two years to cover litigation costs.

Stoneking said a dispute could arise after a local gunsmith sells a firearm manufactured in Kansas to a state resident without complying with federal requirements for a background check on the buyer or registering the gun. Kobach agreed.

"Until that actually happens, there won't be any litigation," Stoneking said. "The federal government will have to have some way of finding out."

Supporters of the Kansas law have said they worry about attempts by the federal government to restrict or ban the sale of some weapons — or even confiscate them.

Holder said in his letter that federal law enforcement agencies will "continue to execute their duties to enforce all federal firearms laws and regulations.

"Moreover, the United States will take all appropriate action, including litigation if necessary, to prevent the State of Kansas from interfering with the activities of federal officials enforcing federal law," Holder wrote.

View the original article here

Eric Holder and the Obama administration's omerta on Islam and terrorism

By Michael Goodwin

Published May 01, 2013

New York Post

• 

It is a sad sight to watch a man grapple with a world that fails to meet his expectations. Unless that man is Eric Holder. Then it is simply infuriating.

The attorney general, warped by his own prejudice, is confused because his fellow citizens are better people than he imagines.

Holder sees white bigots around every corner, and can’t handle the truth that very few Americans actually hate Muslims. So, like Elmer Fudd hunting “wascally wabbits,” Holder’s shots usually backfire.

Eric Holder sees white bigots around every corner, and can’t handle the truth that very few Americans actually hate Muslims.

His Monday speech to the Anti-Defamation League was a classic case of twisted thinking. With his FBI fumbling a chance to stop the Boston bombers, he bizarrely stressed his determination to punish anyone who discriminates against Muslims.

Of course, he didn’t admit that the bombers were Islamists. That would violate the Obama administration’s omerta on linking Islam to terrorism.

To continue reading Michael Goodwin's op-ed in the New York Post, click here.

Michael Goodwin is a Fox News contributor and New York Post columnist.

Michael Goodwin

Related Stories

Obama to Oust Group of U.S. Attorneys

View the original article here

Sen. Paul declares victory after Holder offers assurance on drones

It's one of the few remaining issues that can bring Democrats and Republicans together -- fear of unchecked government drones. 

Sen. Rand Paul's historic 13-hour filibuster has drawn renewed attention to a technological expansion that would have been unthinkable a decade ago, and new legislation that's meant to rein it in. 

While the Obama administration increasingly employs armed drones as a pivotal counterterrorism tool overseas, domestic law enforcement agencies are also moving to broaden the use of surveillance mini-drones over the next several years. The Federal Aviation Administration projects as many as 10,000 licensed systems by 2017. 

The lethal drones used in Pakistan are a far cry from the unarmed eyes in the sky used in America. But Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and a host of other lawmakers see constitutional pitfalls across the board -- namely focusing on how armed, and unarmed, drones might someday be used against American citizens. 

Paul and the senators from both sides of the aisle who joined him on the floor Wednesday described a bleak future where an unscrupulous government might use drones against its own population if left unchecked. 

"Your notification is the buzz of propellers on the drone as it flies overhead in the seconds before you're killed. Is that what we really want from our government?" Paul asked. 

Despite the filibuster, a vote on the nomination of John Brennan for CIA director -- whom Paul was technically holding up with his speech -- is expected to proceed as early as Thursday. 

But lawmakers have already started pushing legislation to rein in the drone program -- legislation that might get a second look after Paul's dramatic performance Wednesday, and into early Thursday morning. 

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Ted Poe, R-Texas, last month introduced a bill to regulate domestic drones much like the government regulates wiretaps. 

It would require officials to obtain a warrant in order to perform many kinds of surveillance with those drones. Further, it would prohibit law enforcement drones from being equipped with firearms or explosives in U.S. airspace. 

"As we enter this uncharted world of drone technology, Congress must be proactive and establish boundaries for drone use that safeguard the constitutional rights of Americans," Poe said in a statement last month. 

The use of armed drones in U.S. airspace fueled Paul's lengthy filibuster Wednesday. Before he took the floor, Paul announced that he had received a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder which opened the door, in extremely rare circumstances, to using a drone to kill someone within U.S. territory. Holder said "catastrophic" attacks such as the Sept. 11 attacks or the attack on Pearl Harbor are examples of circumstances where the president could conceivably feel such an action is necessary. 

Testifying on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Holder agreed that it would be unconstitutional to use a drone on American soil against a U.S. citizen and suspected terrorist who did not pose an imminent threat. 

Paul, during his filibuster, said he wanted a formal assurance from the administration that it would not use drones to kill noncombatant Americans. 

Aside from the legislation in the House, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have floated the idea of establishing a sort of drone court to screen potential targets -- much like a court screens surveillance of foreign targets in the U.S.

View the original article here