As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Tag Archives: James Rosen

James Rosen Corners Jen Psaki

You can tell he cornered her, because watch how pissy she gets.

Veteran Washington reporter James Rosen of Fox News today elucidated the Obama administration’s illogic and temporizing on Iraq by boxing State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki into an untenable position where she was left claiming that what is self-evidently a war is somehow not a war.

Read and watch him Psocking it to Psaki.

Rosen: What is the legal authority under which President Obama has launched the more than 100 air strikes that you just referenced?

Psaki: In Iraq? Well, the Iraqi government has invited the United States in to help them address this threat and that’s the legal authority.

Rosen: And he has reported to Congress on this subject, has he not?

Psaki: Yep.

Rosen: Under the aegis of what statute?

Psaki: He does War Powers Acts every time there’s a need to notify Congress.

Rosen: So we have a commander in chief that launched more than 100 air strikes at a given enemy who is reporting to the Congress under the aegis of the War Powers Act. Who is watching our people beheaded by this enemy, but who for some reason feels queasy about saying that we are in fact at war with this enemy?

Psaki: James, I think — I’m not going to put new words into the mouth of the President of the United States. My point is that his actions to authorize these strikes, his effort to send Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel, any resource we have in the United States to lead the building of a coalition speak to his commitment to his commitment to taking on this threat. And of course we want to see ISIL destroyed, but that is not an overnight effort.

Holder Affidavit Indicated Possible Prosecution of Rosen

The affidavit signed by Attorney General Eric Holder specifically seeks to establish whether Fox News reporter James Rosen committed a crime, a clear suggestion that the Justice Department was considering prosecuting him.

Holder is under investigation by the House Judiciary Committee for perjury for telling the panel that he had never even “heard of” the “potential prosecution” of reporters for divulging classified material.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney Wednesday sought to defend Holder by insisting prosecution of Rosen was never an issue, even though the affidavit states there is “probable cause” to believe Rosen was a “co-conspirator” in the crime of divulging classified materials. Rather, Carney implies, the only person considered for prosecution was Rosen’s source, State Department official Stephen Jin-Woo Kim.

But a closer reading of the affidavit, which was used to gain access to Rosen’s emails and phone records, suggests Rosen’s prosecution was a live possibility. The document, in a passage justifying access to Rosen’s emails, states:

Mr. Kim’s missing responses to the reporter’s e-mails would materially assist the FBI’s investigation as they could be expected 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.

The bolding at the end is mine.

The Justice Department would only seek evidence of Rosen’s guilt if the possibility existed that he would be prosecuted. Otherwise, it would have framed the affidavit solely as an attempt to establish the guilt of Rosen’s source.

It would seem very hard for Holder to claim that he testified truthfully when he said that potential prosecution of a reporter for divulging information was something he had never “been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.” He signed an affidavit that specifically stated the intent was to seek evidence of a reporter’s guilt or innocence.

Carney: Holder Testified Truthfully

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney today claimed that Attorney General Eric Holder testified truthfully when he said that he had never even “heard of” the “potential prosecution” of reporters for divulging classified material.

Jay Carney Eric Holder is not a liar. I happen to know he told the truth just yesterday.
Photo by Keith Koffler

In fact, Holder had signed off on an affidavit allowing a search of Rosen’s emails and phone records because there was “probable cause” to believe Fox News reporter James Rosen committed a crime by acting as a “co-conspirator.”

In an indication that the White House is still ready to go to the mat for Holder, Carney also repeated that Obama has confidence in his attorney general.

What Carney did today was try to say that since there was no prosecution of Rosen, it must follow that there wasn’t a potential prosecution.

Which is perfectly rational if you want to accept that because I decided not to eat dessert after dinner last night, there was no potential that I would do it. Which is a strange assertion, particularly given that dessert contained chocolate.

Here’s the exchange:

MR. CARNEY: I think based on what you said, he testified truthfully. I think every published report — I think the Attorney General talked about prosecution. Every published report that I’ve read about the case in question says that it’s completed, no further charges or prosecution is contemplated. And again, I would point you to published reports on the extremely large distinction between what’s at issue here and prosecution.

Q Because the FBI affidavit identified Rosen as a potential “aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.” That sounds very prosecutorial.

MR. CARNEY: Correct. And I would point you to published reports that say no prosecutorial action was taken and none is contemplated, again, based on my reading of reports. So it seems self-evident that that charge is inaccurate.

This is convoluted logic and desperate spin. That Carney didn’t do better leads to believe that Holder truly has a problem.

Did Holder Commit Perjury Last Week?

Attorney General Eric Holder may have lied under oath last week when he told a House committee that he has never been involved in the “potential prosecution” of reporters for disclosing classified material.

Michael Isikoff of NBC News reported Thursday that in fact Holder himself signed off on the search warrant that identified Fox News reporter James Rosen as a possible “co-conspirator” in a crime that involved reporting he did that resulted in the release of classified information.

Sounds like a “potential prosecution” to me. But here”s what Holder said in answer to questions from Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) of the House Judiciary Committee:

With regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy. In fact, my view is quite the opposite.

Here’s a video of the exchange. Holder’s possible perjury comes just before the five minute mark.

Last night Karl Rove began the drumbeat, charging Holder’s statement was “potentially a lie to Congress.”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney Wednesday when to great pains to assert that Obama doesn’t think reporters should be prosecuted:

The President’s view is that if you were to ask him should a reporter ever be prosecuted for doing his or her job, the answer in his view is no.

So how does it make sense that they get labeled potential “co-conspirators?”

In a featured column in the Wall Street Journal today, attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr. writes that the Justice Department has “has completely lost sight of the First Amendment” in its pursuit of reporters.

He notes that the Supreme Court, even as recently as 2001, has been clear that reporters must be permitted to do their jobs:

The Supreme Court, however, has repeatedly made clear that the First Amendment forbids the government from making it a crime for a reporter who lawfully obtains information of public concern to publish it—even if he knows his source may have committed a crime by leaking the information.

As the court explained in Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001)—a case in which a radio station broadcast the tape of a cellphone conversation it knew had been illegally recorded and disclosed in violation of federal wiretapping laws—”a stranger’s illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern.” To conclude otherwise, the court added, would encourage “timidity and self-censorship” . . .

In the words of the Supreme Court in Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States (1953), the press is tasked with “vigilantly scrutinizing” the government “as a potent check on arbitrary action or abuse.”Apparently none of this matters to the prosecutors (in the Rosen case).

H/T to Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit

James Rosen Appears on Bill O’Reilly’s Show

Looks like he ain’t saying much.

As you may be aware, Rosen has had his phones and emails culled by DOJ as part of a investigation into a State Department source who allegedly leaked him classified information. Rosen himself may be targeted, since he was named as a potential “co-conspirator.”

Rosen is clearly very worried that these people – as in, the ones at the “Justice” Department – are wrecking his career. I mean, would you talk to James Rosen on background at this point?

I pity James. I’ve known him for many years – he covered the White House for a long time. He’s smart, totally unpretentious for a TV guy, and a real reporter who digs for stuff.

It’s ironic that he would be caught up in this, because he has a personal interest in the Nixon Watergate saga. He published a book in 2008, “The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate.

I wish him well and hope sincerely that he is able to continue the great reporting he’s always done.

H/T to Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit.