Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Really good point here.

If the Obama admin cares so much about prosecuting leak s cause it hurts national security, why haven't they gone after the high level o fficial(s) who leaked the info about the stuxnet virus that damaged one of Iran' s nuclear reactors? Also, why haven't they subpoenaed the phone and email recor ds of the new york times reporter who published the information he obtained from his source in the obama admin? The stuxnet story had much bigger national secu rity implications than the n. korea story did. Could it be that this admin view s any person or org. who disagrees with them and criticizes them as an enemy tha t must be silenced or at least intimidated? Could it be that they thought Rosen would use his platform at fox to publish his story using the leak info in order to depict the admin in a bad light, and that's why they went after him and not the NY times reporter? I'm guessing the answer is yes. That's the whole point behind all of this, that they're probably . only going after the leaks that mak e them look bad, not the ones that hurt national security, and don't go after th e ones that make them look good, even if those do harm our national security. W ith this White House it's all politics all the time, governing is subordinated t o politics, which always comes first, even if lives are on the line. It's all p art of the liberal philosophy that the ends justify the means when it comes to t ransforming america into a liberal country . . . http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnb cs-chris-hayes-where-are-subpoenas-of-new-york-times-for-publishing-pro-obama-le aks/ Update(3:10:46 AM) Chris Antenucci: i was totally wrong about the gop not having a cas e against holder and perjury (3:10:55 AM) Chris Antenucci: they have a strong case (3:11:11 AM) Chris Antenucci: i didn't read the whole subpoena document and all of holder's remarks (3:11:16 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: i wondered why you thought that (3:11:57 AM) Chris Antenucci: cause i didnt know exactly what holder said (3:11:59 AM) Chris Antenucci: Because of the Reporter s ownpotential criminal liabi lity in this matter, we believe that requesting the voluntary production of the materials from Reporter would be futile and would pose a substantial threat to t he integrity of the investigation and of the evidence we seek to obtain by warra nt.Emphasis added. Paragraph 46 sums up:Based on the above, there is probable ca use to believe that the Reporter (along with Mr. Kim) has committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. 793(d) either as Mr. Kim s co-conspirator and/or aider and abettor, a nd that evidence of that crime is likely contained within the _______@gmail.com account. (3:12:08 AM) Chris Antenucci: that's the DOJ subpoena (3:12:28 AM) Chris Antenucci: So the issue is rather squarely posed: Holder test ified that he had never been involved in or even heard of any potential prosecutionof the press for the disclosure of material. (3:12:38 AM) Chris Antenucci: i read an article that just said prosecution (3:12:47 AM) Chris Antenucci: the actual remark was "potential prosecution" (3:13:00 AM) Chris Antenucci: in that case it's an obvious flat out lie (3:14:12 AM) Chris Antenucci: he was both involved and def heard of that cause h e signed off on it. They didn't prosecute Rosen, but there was a potential pros ecution involved, namely, they told the judge they needed his emails cause they might contain evidence that he committed a crime and would be prosecuted for it (3:14:22 AM) Chris Antenucci: so this is very clear cut (3:14:31 AM) Chris Antenucci: that one word makes all the diff (3:15:06 AM) Chris Antenucci: cause they didn't prosecute rosen, but holder said he didn't even know about a potential prosecution, which is what the entire Ros en deal was centered around (3:15:17 AM) Jonathan Antenucci: yeah (3:15:30 AM) Chris Antenucci: so he absolutely committed perjury there (3:16:07 AM) Chris Antenucci: this sums it up

(3:16:08 AM) Chris Antenucci: So the issue is rather squarely posed: Holder test ified that he had never been involved in or even heard of any potential prosecutionof the press for the disclosure of material. And yet, he participated in extensive de liberations, discussed and approved of the filing of an application for a search wa rrant that specifically represented to the court that a reporter has potential cr iminal liabilityin this matter. It is hard to imagine a more direct contradiction. (3:17:19 AM) Chris Antenucci: note the phrase potential prosecution is the same as potential criminal liability, so what holder said he wasn't aware of matches what the DOJ said it actually did