It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eric Holder Might Have a Perjury Problem

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
What amazes me is how people like Obama, Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder can avoid jailtime whereas people like you or me would have been locked up a long time ago. Must be nice having dozens of people willing to fall on their swords for them.

Havent heard much about Eric Holder and his Fast and Furious scandal since he was about to get slapped with contempt of Congress.

There are so many scandals going on that the Obama administration is involved in, it's hard to keep all the lies seperate which raises my question of why we even have these people who lie and coverup and are unable to admit to wrong doing and incapable of telling the truth running our nation? Can't even trust your government to do right by you these days.


Or if you're some baseball player who shoots steroids in your ass you get put under oath and can face jail time for any tiny inconsistency in your testimony.

But if you're a person in authority who abuses their power, violates people's civil rights, or wilfully does their duties with incompetence resulting in 4 dead Americans you get a free pass for outright multiple direct lies.

It's high time for an armed revolution. If the founding fathers were to resurrect today they would immediately ask us, "What the hell? Where are your muskets and rifles? Why are you allowing this?"




posted on May, 25 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 

I don't feel that Holder said anything that would constitute perjury, or even a lie, in that video. For me, the most interesting part started at the 5:10 mark. Those comments are extremely hypocritical considering some of the actions taken by The US Justice Department, while under his leadership (?).

See ya buddy,
Milt



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


1. Trying to gain classified material.
2. Publishing classified material.

1. is an offense under the Espionage Act.
2. is not.

That's not quite accurate:
It IS ILLEGAL to publish "classified defense material", even if one is a member of the press.

See ya,
Milt



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by grey580
If only they could of gotten him on F&F.
Stick a fork in him!


Yes.

and how ironic it was that Holder had views in 1995...

He talked about "brainwashing" people about guns of all things !

"Eric Holder 1995 We Must Brainwash People"


I just had to say that video scares me with it's foreshadowing! Well, I have no fear, but he definitely doesn't believe in the 2nd amendment if he's spewing that from his mouth. How is this guy even Attorney General? Has our country ever had an Attorney General with integrity? The one before him, Alberto Gonzales, wasn't that great either...



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by xuenchen
 

I don't feel that Holder said anything that would constitute perjury, or even a lie, in that video. For me, the most interesting part started at the 5:10 mark. Those comments are extremely hypocritical considering some of the actions taken by The US Justice Department, while under his leadership (?).

See ya buddy,
Milt


To quote Holder at the 5 min mark since you couldn't possibly have watched the video:

With regards to the possible persecution of the press, for the disclosure of material... That is not something I have ever heard of, or been involved with, heard of, or would think would be a wise policy.


Red pills on sale at Walmart today in case you are interested. So, you actually sat and watched a man perjure himself in his own words. How much more proof do you need?


edit on 25-5-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


"Prosecute" would be an indictment...not "investigate" which is a warrant.

Everything about those comments is wrong:
1) "Prosecute", in a legal sense, is arguing in support of an "indictment". That's what I did in this post. An "indictment" is merely a formal accusation. The two are not the same, nor are they interchangable!

2) "Investigate" means to search for pertinent information on a subject. A "warrant" is merely a legal tool that aids in that search for information. Once again: The two are not the same, nor are they interchangable!


"publishing Material" is different than "co-conspirator" in espionage, which is about "obtaining" classified material.

You elaborated (?) so much in that comment that you turned it into gibberish.

On the off chance that you were trying to say:
Espionage is about illegal attempts to obtain "classified material".

You would be correct!


What the FBI did was investigate a reporter for "co-conspirator/espionage" aka "leaking" calssified material.
Not "prosecute" aka Indict the reporter for "publishing" that same leaked material.

No... They were investigating a reporter in pursuance of an indictment, that would charge the reporter with OBTAINING classified information.


I think folks should burn for the "co-conspirator" tag they used to obtain the warrant,

Why? A warrant "tagged" "co-conspirator" would need to show "probable cause" before it would be issued.


that was not about "prosecution" for "publishing"...that was about investigating (warrant) for "leaking"...not publishing that leaked material.

No! That was about someone OBTAINING classified information. Publishing classified material IS LEAKING classified information.

MEEP! MEEEP!,
"Old Troll"



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 

This "Old Troll" TRULY DOES LOVE to deal with little Wanabe Trolls, such as yourself:


To quote Holder at the 5 min mark since you couldn't possibly have watched the video:

It's pretty damn obvious that YOU DIDN'T LISTEN to what Mr. Holder said! Your "quote" is flawed! He didn't say "persecution"! He VERY CLEARLY used the word "PROSECUTION"!


Red pills on sale at Walmart today in case you are interested.

I certainly have no doubt that you are likely an expert in that regard!


So, you actually sat and watched a man perjure himself in his own words.

Nope! Not quite! I actually sat here and caught you intentionally misconstruing a man's words. If YOU had done that in a sworn statement, YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF PERJURY!

How much more proof DO YOU NEED?

Damn! I LOVE being an "Old Troll"!

See ya,
Milt
edit on 25-5-2013 by BenReclused because: Typo



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


Certainly this was not a purposeful transcription error, considering that I was transcribing from a video, which is no easy task. Besides the fact that loud video scares my one cat. Nor was I expecting a political dirty bag of tricks using a play on words.. But then again, i was not testifying under threat of losing my law license or during a hearing which could throw my BUTT into jail either. So there was zero chance of perjury for me, although I can't say the same for Holder.


As for the red pill I took mine many years ago, and I am darn proud of it! How long did it take Hitler's followers to take their red pills? For some? Never!

Now if we wish to nitpick here... The phrase in entirety was "POTENTIAL PROSECUTION". Which would mean being in the evidence gathering phase. So if he never intended to prosecute the press, then why did he sign off for a search warrant for Rosen's emails. Such a task would have to be initiated only for possible future prosecution. The only other reason I can think of would be for criminal reasons.

Obviously the old troll that I am seeing, is ready for an old age home and being spoon fed mashed bananas.


edit on 25-5-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


Now if we wish to nitpick here... The phrase in entirety was "POTENTIAL PROSECUTION"

That IS NOT called nitpicking! That IS referred to as "cherry picking"!

"The phrase in entirety was":

With regard to the possible prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material...



So if he never intended to prosecute the press, then why did he sign off for a search warrant for Rosen's emails.

I can understand your confusion:
You obviously don't understand the difference between the words "obtain" and "disclose"!


Obviously the old troll that I am seeing, is ready for an old age home and being spoon fed mashed bananas.

I reckon stupid remarks is all you learn in preschool. You sure as Hell aren't very good at understanding words!

See ya,
Milt



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


My debate with you is done, I have already won fair and square. It is time for you to give up the sinking ship and concede.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


My debate with you is done

There was no debate. All you did shovel [snip]. You didn't even do that very well.

See ya,
Milt
edit on Sun May 26 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Wait, are people still defending Holder?

As of this week it's a matter of fact that he directly lied to Congress on May 15.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Wait, are people still defending Holder?

I'm not defending Mr. Holder. I hate that SOB! All I'm saying is that he didn't perjure himself in the video.


As of this week it's a matter of fact that he directly lied to Congress on May 15.

GOOD! I hope he has to serve a long prison term, in the very near future!


See ya,
Milt



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Great to see that you and MikePMaccabbee Members are "On the Ball".
You both are a credit to ATS. Thanks for sharing your accurate interpretations.
Stars to you both.


Keep the good work going.

edit on 25-5-2013 by Wildmanimal because: content



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildmanimal
 


Originally posted by Wildmanimal
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Great to see that you and MikePMaccabbee Members are "On the Ball".
You both are a credit to ATS. Thanks for sharing your accurate interpretations.
Stars to you both.


Keep the good work going.

edit on 25-5-2013 by Wildmanimal because: content

I'd be mighty interested in seeing you expound on their accuracy regarding the subject of this thread.

At least then, you will be posting something that might contribute to the topic at hand.

See ya,
Milt



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


Fair Enough. How about some links for you and everyone here.

www.fas.org...

www.ajr.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.dm.usda.gov...

You will all surely like these ones :
www.law.cornell.edu...

www.fas.org...

www.fas.org...

Here is a recent Publication from The White House regarding this matter :

www.whitehouse.gov...

Thanks for the challenge.

edit on 26-5-2013 by Wildmanimal because: Add Link



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 
Well they took all my change.........................and I am running out of hope. As far as Holder goes if the prez does nothing soon there wont be no turning back, after all he says he has confidence in him. Personally they all lie, some are better at it than others.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Wait, are people still defending Holder?

I'm not defending Mr. Holder. I hate that SOB! All I'm saying is that he didn't perjure himself in the video.


As of this week it's a matter of fact that he directly lied to Congress on May 15.

GOOD! I hope he has to serve a long prison term, in the very near future!


See ya,
Milt


Won't happen, you see Holder was appointed to investigate Holder. You know, you can't get more transparent that that!!!! I mean how can Holder keep anything secret from Holder??



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Wildmanimal
 


Thanks for the challenge.

I'm glad to see that you appreciated my challenge. Unfortunately, you didn't understand what it was! I asked you to EXPOUND on their accuracy. I did not ask you to hastily post a bunch of links in a failed attempt to show support for them.

Your links only confirmed that the corrections that I posted were, indeed, necessary and proper. If you feel otherwise, I would be mighty interested in having you highlight, and explain, any possible inaccuracies in MY responses to THEM:
1) My response to "MichaelPMaccabee"

2) My response to "Indigo5"

See ya,
Milt



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Won't happen, you see Holder was appointed to investigate Holder.

Now that he's succeeded in pissing Congress off, we MIGHT get lucky.


You know, you can't get more transparent that that!!!!

Well... I certainly don't have any problem seeing through those that are active participants of the current Administration!

See ya,
Milt



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join