nowhere does the law recognize the protection of “national security” to be a defense to a charge of perjury --- The Justice Department has issued a new defense of Attorney General Eric Holder's Congressional testimony last month on investigations of journalists, sending a letter to two House leaders who complained that Holder appeared to have misled lawmakers at a May 15 hearing. The letter from Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik doesn't add much to the sum total of knowledge about why prosecutors named Fox News reporter James Rosen as a co-conspirator in order to get a search warrant for his email in a leak investigation. It also reflects statements DOJ made last week arguing that labeling Rosen that way was not at odds with Holder's statement to the House Judiciary Committee that he'd never even "heard of" the possibility of prosecuting a journalist. "Seeking a search warrant is part of an investigation of criminal activity, which typically comes before any final decision about prosecution," Kadzik wrote in the letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman James Sensenbrenner Jr. "We are unaware of an instance in when the Department has prosecuted a journalist for the mere publication of classified information.....At no time during the pendency of this matter--before or after seeking the search warrant--have prosecutors sought approval to bring criminal charges against the reporter."
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/06/doj_sends_letter_defending_holder_on_perjury_charge.html#ixzz2W8CCse00 Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook On Jun 13, 3:10 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Why No Perjury Indictment for Clapper?byJacob G. HornbergerJune 13, 2013 > The feds indicted and prosecuted Martha Stewart for lying to federal > investigators about a stock trade. They also indicted baseball star Roger > Clemens for supposedly lying to Congress about drug abuse. > So, the obvious question arises: Why no perjury indictment against Director > of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, Jr. > Consider the following testimony that Clapper gave to Congress last March: > Senator Ron Wyden: Does the N.S.A. collect any type of data at all on > millions or hundreds of millions of Americans? > Clapper: No, sir. Not wittingly. > In light of the revelations regarding the super-secret NSA surveillance > scheme on the American people, which is no longer super-secret, what other > conclusion can be drawn than that Clapper knowingly, deliberately, and > intentionally lied to Congress? > In fact, he’s even pretty much confessed that he lied. According to the New > York Times, “In an interview on Sunday with NBC News, Mr. Clapper > acknowledged that his answer had been problematic, calling it ‘the least > untruthful answer he could give.’” > So, why no perjury indictment? Why no indictment for lying to Congress in an > official hearing? Why no indictment for obstruction of justice? Why not the > same treatment for Clapper that the feds meted out to private American > citizens Martha Stewart and Roger Clemens? > After all, let’s not forget the words of David Kelley, the U.S. Attorney who > prosecuted Martha Stewart for lying to federal investigators about a stock > trade: “The word is beware and don’t engage in this type of conduct because > it won’t be tolerated.” > Really? Why then is such conduct being tolerated in the case of Director of > National Intelligence James R. Clapper, Jr.? > Or recall the words of federal prosecutor Courtney Saleski in the Roger > Clemens trial: “He did that at the expense of our Congress. He threw sand in > their eyes. He stole the truth from them.” > Isn’t that what Clapper did to Congress when he knowingly lied to them about > whether the NSA was collecting data on millions of American citizens? > One might say, “But Jacob, he was lying to protect ‘national security.’” > My answer: So what? Since when is that a defense to a perjury charge? Sure, > it might work to reduce his sentence after he’s convicted but nowhere does > the law recognize the protection of “national security” to be a defense to a > charge of perjury for, for that matter, murder, robbery, burglary, or any > other crime. > I’ll tell you why they’re not indicting James R. Clapper, Jr. It’s because he > is a high official in what has effectively become the national-security > branch of the U.S. government, a branch that consists of the Pentagon, the > CIA, and the NSA. For all practical purposes, officials in the executive, > legislative, and judicial branches aren’t about to enforce their perjury laws > against what they know has grown into the most powerful of the four branches > of the federal > government.http://fff.org/2013/06/13/why-no-perjury-indictment-for-clapper/ -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
