Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Did the attorney general Eric Holder lie under oath.
House Republicans saying that holder may have perjured himself and testified before the Judiciary Committee when he said the following under.
But with regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material that is not something that.
I've ever been involved -- heard.
All we think would be a wise policy in fact my views quite the opposite that.
Well Republican congressman Bob good -- of Virginia chairman of the House Judiciary Committee filed a letter this week and -- the number poised to be made in that letter asking various questions and information from.
The Department of Justice sir good morning to you grown -- -- good to have you back in our program.
I know be the Indy with a question for you is the search -- of the fox emails that directly pertain to James Rosen in the sworn testimony part of which we just -- Did he perjured himself under us.
What well we have sent the attorney general as you noted -- -- the extensive letter pointing out the contradiction between his statement.
To the committee made under oath.
And the Warren.
Which is -- out usually by an assistant United States attorney.
Also under oath that was used to obtain a search warrant against James Rosen.
And in that search warrant Rosen was named as.
I think the language is something like at least an indicator of better or co conspirator.
And it clearly implicated him on a criminal basis.
As a result of that that clearly contradicts his testimony that he'd never heard of thought of such a thing.
And that is what we're asking about we'll wait until we receive the attorney general's reply.
To our our letter which -- we've set a deadline of next Wednesday for that -- before passing judgment on whether that constitutes perjury.
But it is obviously.
That he had to approve the the warrant.
And the Justice Department is now saying that because mr.
Rosen was not.
That he was not being untruthful in his testimony however that raises an additional very alarming concern -- that is.
Is the Justice Department putting false information in.
The information they want because they could not have received a warrant.
With regard to mr.
Rosen and unless they accused him and and Brad bell rings at the very serious conflict as it is in -- brings -- -- questions I just -- -- -- through a couple -- OK because in your letter part of what you said.
The following the Justice Department issued statement of the search warrant.
-- emails was approved at the highest level of an apartment did this include.
You would that be -- smoking gun.
Well it certainly is an important question because the process -- regard to subpoenas search warrants etc.
with regard to the news media requires a sign off by the attorney general.
You'll -- -- that the testimony in the committee was related to.
The Associated Press the issue with the subpoena the broad subpoena issued there -- regard to twenty reporters in over a two month period of time.
In that case the attorney general testified that he recused himself and turn it over to the deputy attorney general.
So we have a lot of questions we which we have address to the deputy attorney general in that case in two weeks ago we sent a letter to deputy attorney general.
Cole asking is serious.
Series of questions about that.
So we want to know what the attorney general's involvement was.
-- -- misunderstood the search warrant the for mr.
Rosen and we're gonna follow this until we -- here's here's another pointed question how can you claim to have never been involved.
In the potential prosecution of a member of the media but you were admittedly involved in discussions.
Rosen scheme -- those discussions.
Is that roundtrip -- -- that raises the very question that goes to the heart of our letter and the question regarding the -- -- of his testimony before.
That committee and it also goes to the heart of a concern that many of us in the congress have regarding.
The attorney general's overall willingness to take responsibility.
But -- is just heart majestic clears your question -- about the apologize about the an eruption but when he talked about the discussions.
Is that where he tripped up.
Well certainly he is acknowledged in that.
That he has been involved in discussions with regard to the roads -- matter.
And if he in his testimony before the committee said that he would never heard of the idea of possible prosecutions.
Of reporters involved in investigating news leaks and -- obviously.
Appropriate for the department.
Leaks out of various government agencies but because of the importance of the First Amendment protecting free press it's also important that.
They follow very.
Clearly delineated procedures when involving the press it's clear they did not do that in this case or.
The attorney general is not being truthful answers by Wednesday we'll see you then Bob good -- thank you out of Virginia with -- -- -- --
Filter by section