Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
This of course our -- -- Syria.
Judicial analyst -- to see you judge likewise where are we on this these these accusations that the attorney general may have.
However you want to phrase it may have not been entirely forthcoming -- congress.
Well I think this is gravely serious I'm not just saying that because.
-- as our friend and -- and colleague.
I'm saying it because of the abuse and governmental powers.
And that materially misleading congress.
Whether the attorney general was under oath are not because he was speaking to -- a house committee -- -- committee of the congress.
In its official capacity and in his official capacity he had a dual obligation want us to tell the truth and two was not to mislead.
In fact the cases are so clear they say that if the truth misleads -- you have to explain the truth is.
So that the congress understands exactly what you are saying so for him to say.
I don't do this thing I know nothing about it.
And then for the Justice Department to leak to its favorite recipient of leaks and BC news.
The inconvenient truth that the attorney general personally approved it.
The decision to seek.
The search warrant against -- and then for the Justice Department over the long Memorial Day weekend to confirm what NBC news revealed.
Shows that the attorney general materially.
Misled the congress.
In a marrow of of -- political importance and importance to to the public at the time when it was hottest.
He he gave the wrong answer when he when he denied doing something that his underlings eventually admitted he was involved.
-- can that be a simple.
Forgetfulness there allied did not recalled that I did that.
I don't think so I don't think so one of his predecessors went to jail for doing the same thing John Mitchell -- highly politicized environment involving a Watergate.
But the congress takes seriously.
The obligation to tell the truth of those who appear before it.
-- Roger Clemens.
How he feels.
Having been prosecuted by -- Justice Department.
We're not telling the truth -- congressional committee when the head of the Justice Department apparently did the same thing is that person.
Eric Holder going to get away with this or is he going to be prosecuted as Roger Clemens was he -- Has had shall we say a contentious relationship -- members of congress.
Yeah would during the fast and furious investigation etc.
-- is there is there a way out of this for him Andy those who supported the -- This season.
All politics that -- -- trying to.
-- trouble for the bomber admittedly I don't think his state.
Meant that I had nothing to do with the can be justified who I think the only thing that can save him.
Would be -- pardon.
From the president.
Wore a in a quick resignation from office and reaches that level already -- otherwise I think the Republicans.
Will be like a dog on -- -- truck on this one -- I think they've sunk their teeth -- this and -- into this and they simply not gonna let -- -- he's been a lightning rod.
To them and most of these issues have to do with the truth on this before the congress slapped.
So when did the only guy I read some of the over the weekend judgeship back -- than the naming all of James Rosen is a co conspirator.
And the article suggested that if you're trying to go off to the leak.
And you're trying to prove there was conspiracy -- co conspirator and even though you may have no.
Intentional walk so web of going off to that person.
The dead in terms of criminal action you have to name a co conspirator and the naming of James Rosen is a co conspirator is being somewhat overblown -- by some people are any any truth to that.
Well I would reject the premise of the article that you need and -- a co conspirators I mean if you read the article that rose and wrote.
Which apparently got under the skin of the State Department and the Justice Department.
It refers to the an opinion of an unnamed source.
As to how North Korea will likely react if they then pending UN resolution.
Which if enacted and it was.
North Korea is said a public display of nuclear and ballistic missile wherewithal.
The the the the source unnamed by Rosen says it's it's likely that North Korea will do this this and this.
When James Rosen got that information.
From his source.
If the source and violated.
Fumbled ball by leaking classified information to change that is not change his crimes who and it's not necessary that there be conspiracy.
A single individual.
Can be indicted for leaking classified material the crime belongs to leak or not the recipient.
In fact not only was it not a crime for genes to receive it it was not a crime for James to ask for it it was not a crime for James to possess it.
It was not a crime for James to publish it.
And it was not a crime for James to hide his source who how do we know -- that was not a crime because I've just described to -- the Pentagon papers case is.
In which the Supreme Court said the same thing about Daniel Ellsberg it's not a crime to ask for it to receive it to possess it to publish it.
And to refuse to say where you got speed and the Justice Department is this.
The charged with knowing.
What the Supreme Court said has the wall of the law is the FBI is charged with knowing and this -- -- federal judge.
Who believe the nonsense in the FBI affidavit that James as a -- -- -- is charged with knowing the law ensures that you don't want.
You guys are wrong even if this guy Rosen did everything he said he did it's not a crime so I'm not gonna sign that search warrant and said he went along with -- And dressing a couple of viewers writing in with questions for you here judge -- JD -- point says my question of the judges this could Rosen.
James -- all Fox News because -- hold up under any criminal abuse all of his office -- do they need.
An independent prosecutor for value what what I guess I guess what his point is -- of foxes and James is all.
Well sort of get a James and fox could sue Rosen that he's immunized so he can you hold it could go to holders getting Rosen and fox could -- older.
Because apparently it -- in -- -- of this Johnny the the Justice Department.
Information about phone calls.
That fox individuals were making from fox New York wearing jeans is not station so somehow they got fox phone -- in this as well.
So fox as a cause of action against the Justice Department but don't hold your breath -- because the government has written all kinds of statutes that make it nearly impossible.
Successfully to sue the Justice Department.
In terms of prosecution only an independent prosecutor.
Can -- holder and guess who decides if there's an independent prosecutor.
Okay all right one other if it all works in mysterious ways you.
Filter by section