Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Another Fox News alert right now we are waiting on a possible response from the White House today.
Over new questions about whether the attorney general of the United States lied to congress.
Eric -- accused of misleading investigators.
It all goes back to his testimony.
On the failed gun running sting known as operation fast and furious.
Listener what He said about his knowledge of this in May of 2011.
-- attorney general.
We have to Border Patrol agents who -- dead.
Who were killed by guns there were allowed.
As far as we can tell to deliberately walk.
Out of gun shops under the program often called fast and furious.
This program as you know.
The president's been asked about it you've been asked about it.
Allowed for weapons.
To be sold to straw purchasers.
Many of those weapons are today in the hands of drug cartels and other criminals.
When did you first know about the program.
Officially -- we've called fast and furious.
To the best your knowledge what date.
I'm not sure the exactly -- probably heard about fast and furious for the first time over the last few weeks.
Problem is this memo sent directly to Eric holder's desk almost a year before.
And the message seems pretty clear it says quote this investigation.
Involves a Phoenix based firearms trafficking ring responsible for the purchase of 15100 firearms.
That were then supplied to the Mexican drug trafficking cartels.
And this memo references.
Fast and furious.
Now there are claims by the DOJ that Eric Holder.
Either way lawmakers say there's no way that holder can investigate himself another -- a special counsel appointed to do the investigating.
Joining me now as Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson junior you know Peter so -- -- on this program yesterday he's heading up -- -- committee the Republican and He says.
He says that Eric Holder was under oath when He gave this testimony and He feels misled.
And I asked him what about that DO GA's claim that Eric Holder just misunderstood He thought when you asked him.
When did you hear about operation fast and furious He -- that that you -- -- amends.
The bad stuff.
Write really controversial stuff.
And that Eric Holder was trying to tell you I heard about a couple of weeks ago.
What the whole operation itself of course He knew about that months and months earlier ice wasn't buying it.
You know congressman Smith's statement is that there's a question about whether mr.
holder is misleading.
Congress -- the implication being that was willful implication being that it was the commission of perjury and there is such a crime there of do you get there had no -- -- perjury or obstruction of justice against the attorney general and will would be obstruction of congress obstruction of justice and and perjury in the -- and have a five year potential.
You take the question and the answer together and you know is a great great lawyers as -- great anchor.
It's the question answered together it's not the answer alone.
And then you take objective evidence and you put them side by side.
And then a grand jury makes a determination whether to indict a person with regard to that and then a jury if it goes to trial makes a determination.
About whether that person was willfully an absolutely.
In a false -- -- -- willfulness because the DOJ seems to be saying look.
We were trying to talk about this controversial last rites of operation -- and here is not the whole operation itself whistle is they seem to be saying it was a mistake was a misunderstanding between the parties.
That's the dramatic tension in in in a perjury charge and especially one involving obstruction.
At a congressional level.
The easiest thing to do with regard to this case and it's being served and are ready is that there was a mistake.
It was a misperception as to what the question.
Mistakes that are honest mistakes that are not willfully intending to -- deceive are not considered.
So there is an opportunity for the attorney general if He believes that He misspoke to say listen.
It's a mistake of fact a mistake of fact he's not.
A crime that I have is it can happen in a congressional hearing -- mean -- -- you don't you know.
He may have been mistaken that the theme that ice and others seem to be saying is.
Bear is a pattern they're pointing to some other instances.
Where they believe the DOJ misled them about what it -- on this very controversial operation fast and here's where we are basically letting.
Bad guys have guns and taken down in Mexico because we're gonna track the guns then get the bad guys but we didn't is that they -- -- that lost the guns they got -- the hands of bad guys of his bat.
But but what -- have pointed to among other things was He says that in February of 2011.
That the Department of Justice told congress.
That it had never let guns walk that's -- -- -- when you -- regret we it it had not done that.
So said no we we didn't do that that's February of a 2011.
Now they point to an October 2010 memo.
That came from the DOJ that's just been released.
That discusses I'm not sure how much grief -- gonna get for guns walking in May be more like finally they're going after people who sent guns down there so He says.
That's -- was contradictory -- what's the real story.
There's two pieces of and He put together really well there's a political dynamic and there's the legal dynamic.
This is of her Ignatius in my view vile stupid program that apparently resulted in.
In death that were walking 2000 guns across Mexico and putting them into the hands of gangs.
And and and criminals so there's the daily building a track that -- people important not to lose track of -- that it's horrible it's it's it's the worst.
And I think holder is almost agreed.
With that assessment.
But then there's the second assessment.
What was withheld.
Was there something they know that I did not authorized to about how I felt that it -- contempt of congress that's something that that that that's out there.
Also this committee has the capacity and it's been done in the past it was Democrat to Clemens to say we want to vote.
As a committee and make a referral.
Of the attorney general.
I think we're gonna hear more from the attorney general on this I think there's a good chance that -- will go back before this committee.
If I was advising him if I was representing him I would say yes.
attorney general you're the chief law enforcement officer in this country.
And we do believe you and we do believe that you made a mistake.
But tell us as to what went all you in this case explain that this memo -- what would trip isn't -- the case on -- a lot of Americans -- -- -- incredible.
In and responsive and misleading answer.
Even if it's arguably false.
Is not necessarily.
Perjury the problem here though is this question the -- -- asked was very clear and straight forward.
It was not a matter there was another exchange that Jason -- it's asked and there were there you know and -- say that there's this memo there's a few things that they're getting concerned about so we'll wait context matters I think he's the attorney general I think we deserve the very best but we also deserve.
And He deserves that He be given the benefit of the doubt at this point let's see what He says going forward absolutely and does need to -- -- -- directly a Paper statement at this point probably gonna cut -- If not junior thank you sir good to see you.
-- -- --
Filter by section