Tweet
Attorney General Eric Holder
Missing every lesson from Richard Nixon’s behavior during the Watergate investigation, Attorney General Eric Holder has appointed two sitting United States Attorneys (one from Maryland, one from DC) to investigate the national security leaks that resulted in disclosures in the Paper of Record of America’s drone and assassination programs overseas.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has appointed the two U.S. attorneys from the District and Maryland to lead investigations into the possible leak of classified information by the White House to reporters, even as President Obama defended his administration against claims that it was complicit.
In a statement issued late Friday, Holder said that he has notified members of Congress that he has assigned the U.S. attorney for the District, Ronald C. Machen Jr., and his counterpart for Maryland, Rod J. Rosenstein, to lead criminal investigations into “possible unauthorized” leaks to reporters for several recent news articles and books.
As Karl Rove made very clear during the previous administration, United States Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. It is impossible for them to conduct an investigation that might involve direct White House subordinates or even the President himself. This is a sham investigation from the outset and it’s a shame who stands alone saying so:
Prominent members of Congress, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), have pressured the White House to appoint a special counsel to investigate the matter. Late Friday, McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in a joint statement that Holder’s move didn’t go far enough.
“This investigation involves some of the most serious breaches of national security in recent memory and any investigation must be done in a manner free and clear of political considerations,” they said. “The recent decision of the Attorney General falls far short of what is needed and is not an adequate substitute for an outside special counsel.”
There needs to be serious bipartisan legislative pushback against Holder’s action. As long as only Gluehorse and his trusty sidekick speak out, this will appear to be partisan sniping. And it’s far from that — these leaks are serious and have gone on for a long time in order to burnish the president’s image as a resolute warrior for peace.
Nothing less than a special prosecutor will do. And Congress is feeling just rebellious enough to pass a new special prosecutor law: after all, the president is a Democrat. Time to bring back that creaky Whitewater artifact!
38 Comments
You’re right on target here Teddy. This is a sham from the get-go.
However, I do see one benefit to the administration. Undoubtedly these Special Prosecutors will prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jullian Assange and Bradley Manning were responsible for these latest links, and secretly co-authored the NYT story.
ha!
They can certainly be ordered by the President to draw any conclusions he wishes them to draw, as they serve at the pleasure of the President.
Bring back Archibald Cox! ;o)
Rec’d.
Forgot to add: “It’s not a crime to leak Top Secrets when your President does it!”
Jeebus, what idiots:
And Rosenstein owes Holder and Obama his job in a very special way:
OT: 15 more than yesterday but way behind schedule.</a?
ONT: did you really expect anything better?
Stay between the lines, fellahs:
This is outrageous.
Obviously, in such a case, the only appropriate Due Process, is for the president and his political advisors conduct “internal deliberations”, “nominate” a convenient party to be the perpetrator of the leaks, and then shoot him/her with a drone.
It’s in the Constitution, People! Go read it!
The question I have is weather embracing the idea of attacking “leaks” and “leakers” on the basis of not appreciating the politics behind their disclosures doesn’t just bolster the intellectual basis under which Obama is conducting his unprecedented war on whistle-blowers.
My problem isn’t with the disclosures made by his team per se. My problem is with this administration’s attacks on people who make important disclosures in the public interest. The fact that he is so obviously using leaks when it suits him while attacking anyone who’s disclosures cause him political headaches is rank hypocrisy of the most obnoxious sort.
So I’m torn. On the one hand, it seems absolutely important to highlight the absurdity of this particular investigation. On the other – not sure that the proper activist end-game should be to promote having an independent investigator bring charges against people. I can’t advocate doubling down and essentially trying to out-Obama Obama on this. I want to see his attacks on others ridiculed and discredited, not solidified into acceptance as we adopt the same tactics.
I have typed several times that Holder’s DoJ is where embarrassing stuff goes to be disappeared.
However, new hypothesis, that O has outlived his usefulness to PTB, makes me wonder if Holder has gotten that message already.
Hillary has, in being so ‘Assad has to go”ish, while O is trying to avoid the issue by hiding out in the WH.
Watch for Ds leaving the veal pen.
OMG, dirt on the White House was leaked. Who would have known he was such an evil prick sitting in judgement over everyone on this planet?
Whoever it is that leaked this, must be stopped? The last thing we want is the truth to come out. The last thing we want is the government to be held accountable to the people! *lol*
Nothing to see here. The rich or powerful get screwed over, swift and immediate action by the MOTU. The common man get screwed for decades, who cares.. move along.
Stand operating procedure in play.
Don’t be surprised when nothing meaningful comes out of it and we waste a few million dollars and give the media months (if not years) of content with the horse race. Fuck this country.
Sure seems to me to be another fishing expedition to impeach a President for exactly the wrong reasons.
And given the administration, you might see a re-institution of the legendary “plumbers”.
*heh* Some of that old Cheney insta-declassification Pixie Dust must’ve been left lying around the West Wing…! ;-)
The way it is set up it looks like Obama is planning on blaming Congress while not investigating Axeleak:
“follow all appropriate investigative leads within the executive and legislative branches of government”
The key word being “appropriate” and what’s missing is that the likes of Axelrod are outright excluded from this investigation.
Speaking of ‘leaks’, this has my blood boiling today…
Why Obama Will Free Jonathan Pollard…
President accepts Israel infallibility doctrine
Delicious irony on so many levels.
Axelrod, with Obama’s blessings, releases the story to the awestruck stenographers at the NY Times to portray Obama as a courageous hero and now the Republicans want to know who leaked classified information.
So Holder appoints two US Attorneys to investigate, presumably by interviewing the WH janitor who doesn’t know anything, and then they’ll close the case.
Hey, why not appoint Schneiderman instead? He’s a real fierce prosecutor, right?
This is rich.
Love it.
Boil on the news, not on the rumor. Safer for your health.
There are so many other ways that Obama can appease Israel, you know.
Nice. Gonna be like Gore and the Buddhist temple.
You’re perfectly right, of course. This is all just such a quintessentially absurd mix of political theater on both sides it’s hard to take it seriously.
Kinda like: Lucy and Ethel v. The Unknown Comic.
Gimme a “K”; Gimme an “A”; Gimme a “B”; Gimme a “U”; Gimme another “K”; Gimme an “I”. What does that spell? All together now: “KABUKI” !!!
More puppet theatre brought to you courtesy of the Obama administration and your taxpayer dollars. Enjoy!
Yeah, but OBomba can’t manage the sneer that comes with it; sounds like ‘nnmgrrrrr’.
(A wee bit off-topic, and yes, I posted this somewhere else before, but isn’t Eric Holder a dead-ringer for Larry Tate? I ask you?)
Dangerous investigation and issue for Obama, IMHO.
Well, we shall see on June 18th, Tarheel…! I fervently hope Obummer isn’t that craven…!
Because the worst thing most deserving of prosecution in this country is telling the truth about Obama. Ask Tim DeChristopher or Bradley Manning or Julian Assange. For many more examples see Whistleblowers – http://newprogs.org/blog/2011/11/09/whistleblowers-under-democraticrepublican-uni-party
Eric Holder = “Banana” Holder
He holds O’s banana AND he defended Chiquita Banana against it’s workers (which it had either/or poisoned with DDT or gunned down and murdered directly).
We knew Banana Holder would hold 0′s banana.
Speaking of which, as I’d just noted on Fatster’s latest Round-up…
*heh* I like stirring up the Natives…
Will Obama pardon the traitor Pollard?
The Col. is pissed…!
Banana Republic, hackworth, lol!
100%
Aka: Give me the answers I want to hear.
Holder will have these US Attorneys go after the White House leakers just as vigorously as they are prosecuting Bradley Manning; and of course, they will go after the news sources and the reporters responsible for the disclosures as vigorously as the Obama administration is going after James Risen.
More seriously, one has to wonder why Obama decided to go through this charade. There is no possible way that this will resolve anything to anyone’s satisfaction. It will only keep the issue alive across the political spectrum.
You are so right Teddy. Our constitutional law professor lecturer in-chief should have spent his time studying history.
You’re right. We shouldn’t give credence to Obama’s war on those who want to expose government wrongdoing. Yet the absurdity of Obama “investigating” his own leaks is tempting. It’s a fine line, but I think it’s more important to condemn all of Obama’s attacks on whistleblowers.
I received the initial impression that the Obama administration leaked this information to the NYT for the purpose of bolstering Obama’s national security creds in an election year. What, I wonder, made them have second thoughts about exposing Obama’s Terror Tuesdays?
For one thing, it’s not like Obama needs to *establish* a norm of going after leakers. He’s already doing that with alacrity. For another, I have no sympathy for whoever leaked in this particular case, as it’s one of those panel judges in Obama’s terror reality show ‘nominating’ candidates for drone strikes. And lastly, I like to think that it will raise the issue of why the hell this information was classified in the first place. I don’t see any *legitimate* national security threat in the public knowing what they now know. And it might be worthwhile to have that debate.
Oh, pshaw, indeed!
People here here talk about wanting to debate…well, I think debate is a great idea! But, most of those who espouse that idea are, in my opinion based on what I’ve read in many fdldiaries, just want to fight or share favorite tunes. Or, copy and paste someone else’s work.
That’s how I see it.
This whole “leak investigation” is nothing more than a sham to divert attention from the real illegality – the actual illegal acts that resulted in the leaks. As Thom Hartman asked on his radio show, shouldn’t we be ivestigating those acts with as much ferver as the leaks?
I agree wholeheartedly. So, you think that the best framework under which to have that debate would be a proceeding where we’ve demanded a special prosecutor put people in jail for disclosing information that shouldn’t be classified in the first place? That’s the part where this tactic loses me.
It seems more accurate to say, for me, it’s a re-enforcement of the “Obama wouldn’t even be able to serve as president if he was subjected to the same penalties he enforces on others.” meme … and I think that would be far a more effective rhetorical approach from those who’s goal it is to back-off Obama’s war on transparency.
Throwing up our hands in mock-horror at the “Security Implications” sort of seems to be cutting off the nose to spite the face. Obviously, the norm Obama has established for himself sucks. I was more concerned with what this says for the norms of we who aren’t Obama.
Ha. well, not the *best* framework obviously.
Not sure what my exact theory was, something along the lines of
1. either someone gets indicted or the investigation is a whitewash
2. if its a whitewash, that establishes that no crime was committed, i.e. nothing classified divulged.
3. if someone gets indicted, there will – unlike in the Plame case – be a media debate about what the hell the person is guilty of. Because I don’t think anyone read that article thinking, OMG Government secrets! It was more seen as harmless (or campaign-related) insidery gossip.
But I’m sure you’re right that there is a better framework within which to have the discussion. I’m less sure what your suggestion amounted to. Not snarking, btw. I just don’t see what you had in mind with the “Obama wouldn’t even be able …” meme thingy.