Did the Attorney General Commit Perjury?

No, not Jeff Sessions. Sessions was asked whether representatives of the Trump campaign had been in contact with Russian officials on behalf of the campaign, and Sessions said he didn’t know anything about that. He hadn’t had such contact on behalf of the campaign. His answer was completely and fully accurate. No one asked Sessions whether he had ever met a Russian.

I am talking about Eric Holder, who almost certainly did commit perjury when testifying under oath before the House Judiciary Committee. We wrote about it here. The story is worth remembering. Holder was asked whether DOJ could prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act:

Two weeks ago, testifying under oath before the House Judiciary Committee, Holder was asked whether the Justice Department could prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act of 1917. His response (emphasis added) was:

In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material — this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.

When he gave this testimony, Holder had personally signed a request to a court to authorize a wiretap on Fox News reporter James Rosen. The request stated that Rosen may have acted as “an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator” by obtaining national security materials from a government official also under investigation.

I followed up on this post, pointing out that the affidavit that Holder submitted in order to obtain a search warrant for James Rosen’s email accounts specifically said that Rosen was a potential criminal defendant:

As has been widely reported, the affidavit says repeatedly that there is probable cause to believe that Rosen is guilty of a crime, and that his email account will provide evidence of a crime, as well as “fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed.” But the affidavit goes even beyond that. It specifically says that the FBI is looking for evidence of both Kim’s and Rosen’s guilt:

Mr. Kim’s missing responses to the Reporter’s emails would materially assist the FBI’s investigation as they could be expected to establish further the fact of the disclosures, their content, and Mr. Kim’s and the Reporter’s intent in making them, and could be expected to constitute direct evidence of their guilt or innocence.

Emphasis added. But the real clincher is Paragraph 45, which states in part:

Because of the Reporter’s own potential criminal liability 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 the integrity of the investigation and of the evidence we seek to obtain by warrant.

Emphasis added. Paragraph 46 sums up:

Based on the above, there is probable cause 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, and that evidence of that crime is likely contained within the [email protected] account.

So the issue is rather squarely posed: Holder testified that he had never “been involved in” or even “heard of” any “potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material.” And yet, he participated in “extensive deliberations,” “discussed” and approved of the filing of an application for a search warrant that specifically represented to the court that a reporter has “potential criminal liability in this matter.” It is hard to imagine a more direct contradiction.

Either Eric Holder was suffering from acute memory loss at a young age, or he committed perjury. But, because the press was slavishly devoted to Barack Obama and his minions, no matter how corrupt or dishonest they may be, hardly anyone knows about this shameful episode.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.