In a truly bizarre story making the rounds today, we learn that Attorney General Holder felt creeping remorse about his authorization of the secret surveillance of Fox News reporter James Rosen. What a joke!
Holder told Congress just a few weeks ago that he never had been involved with the surveillance of a news reporter. Does Holder now feel remorse about misleading Congress? That may be possible. But Holder also reviewed the entire Rosen matter and discussed it in detail with his staff before he authorized DOJ to seek the subpoena that led to Rosen being under surveillance. Holder knew exactly what he was doing. Are we really to believe that Holder now feels remorse? I don't think so!
We also learned today that the Department of Justice lawyers went to two federal judges who refused to sigh the subpoena on Rosen before they found one who agreed to sign the document. This is extremely significant. Frequently, requests for federal courts to sign a document without notifying the other side (here Rosen) include the statement that "no prior request for this authorization has been presented to the Court." This statement is required specifically so that litigants who are denied ex parte relief by one judge cannot then bring the same matter before another. I wonder if this line was in the affidavit presented to the court who actually signed the document. I also do not know if this statement is required in the DC Circuit for applications of this sort by the government.
Nevertheless, if anyone is still buying the lie that the Rosen matter was just another ordinary investigation by the government, that falsehood has now been put to rest. It is a rare subpoena indeed that requires review by three courts before the government can find one that will actually sign it.
Holder told Congress just a few weeks ago that he never had been involved with the surveillance of a news reporter. Does Holder now feel remorse about misleading Congress? That may be possible. But Holder also reviewed the entire Rosen matter and discussed it in detail with his staff before he authorized DOJ to seek the subpoena that led to Rosen being under surveillance. Holder knew exactly what he was doing. Are we really to believe that Holder now feels remorse? I don't think so!
We also learned today that the Department of Justice lawyers went to two federal judges who refused to sigh the subpoena on Rosen before they found one who agreed to sign the document. This is extremely significant. Frequently, requests for federal courts to sign a document without notifying the other side (here Rosen) include the statement that "no prior request for this authorization has been presented to the Court." This statement is required specifically so that litigants who are denied ex parte relief by one judge cannot then bring the same matter before another. I wonder if this line was in the affidavit presented to the court who actually signed the document. I also do not know if this statement is required in the DC Circuit for applications of this sort by the government.
Nevertheless, if anyone is still buying the lie that the Rosen matter was just another ordinary investigation by the government, that falsehood has now been put to rest. It is a rare subpoena indeed that requires review by three courts before the government can find one that will actually sign it.
No comments:
Post a Comment