House Judiciary to Holder: Explain Discrepancies Before CommitteePosted by Randy | June 07, 2013
Last week, I appeared on Fox News to discuss the allegation that Attorney General Eric Holder lied under oath. On May 15th, during a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Mr. Holder said under oath, “With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I've ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be a wise policy.” Soon after, it was revealed that three years prior, Mr. Holder had been in discussions regarding a search warrant for Fox News correspondent James Rosen’s emails and phone records. Since then, I believed, as I do now, that Eric Holder has not been forthright with his testimony. Now, when asked to explain his divergence from the truth, the Attorney General has ignored the requests of Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and directed a subordinate to speak on his behalf. This is not acceptable – not for a government official and certainly not for the office Mr. Holder occupies.
As the top law enforcement officer of the United States, Mr. Holder owes it to the people he serves to answer the questions posed by their voice in government. Yesterday, I joined all Republican members of the Judiciary Committee in signing a letter to Mr. Holder requesting that he appear in-person before the Committee and directly offer an explanation for the discrepancies in his earlier testimony. I look forward to Mr. Holder’s personal response.
Users are solely responsible for the opinions they post here and their comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Congressman Forbes.
Post a Comment
We encourage you to analyze and comment on the posts featured on this blog, but please understand that comments which include campaign content, engage in personal attacks, or include vulgar, profane, obscene, or inappropriate language will be removed from the site. Please note that there may be a brief delay in the publication of your comment.
RECENT POSTS03/03/2014 - It’s not optional, it’s Constitutional
02/28/2014 - Question of the week: Do you believe that reducing the carrier fleet will leave the United States less capable of meeting national security needs?
02/28/2014 - Less power for the IRS
02/25/2014 - Patients vs. politics
02/20/2014 - Question of the week: Do you believe that preserving open space is a permissible use of eminent domain?
02/11/2014 - New Opportunity for High School Students: Congressional STEM Competition