doj sent out today. it wasn t from holder himself it was from a lower level assistant attorney general. seeking to a search warrant as part of an investigation of potential criminal activity, which typically comes before any final decision about prosecution, probable cause, sufficient to justify a search warrant for evidence of a crime is far different from a decision to bring charges for that crime. probable cause is a significantly lower burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt which is required to obtain a conviction on challenge charges. continuing, at no time during the pendency of this matter, before or after seeking the search warrant, again this is for james rosen and the kim leak investigation have sought charges against a reporter. the attorney general s testimony before the committee on may 15th, 2013 with respect to the prosecutor s prosecutions classified information was accurate and consistent with the facts. as the attorney general explained, these prosecutors focu
kind of thing and the only exception is someone is involving in a crime. what was the crime here? what was the crime receiving information? and meanwhile no criminal charges were leveed. this is beyond troubling this after the ap investigation and they did not go through doj procedures and did not conduct the ap or media source. they are supposed to negotiate with the media source. they didn t do that. eric holder said with the ap story when they monitor 20 phone lines and the reporters who used them two months without advance notice. this was one of the worst 2 or 3 yeek weeks in my career. it is so bad we didn t notice them when they went to court.
report came out. the idea that they had no idea about the bombshells that were about to explode is completely laughable. the thing that is disturbing is why wouldn t they just say, why wouldn t president obama, if he knew, if your white house counsel knows, if your chief of staff know, if several top officers know and up in of them tell but something this big, this big, that barack obama himself said he found it outrage yurks possibly illegal,in of th tell but something this big, this big, that barack obama himself said he found it outrage yurks possibly illegal, pushing people to fire, none of them gave him a heads up saying mr. president, you need to know the investigation will come out and it s not going to be good? yeah. i mean, who knows. perhaps it s just that plausible deny ability shield that they were trying to encompass obama in. but like i said, i don t buy the spin going on right now.
activity, they can t be primarily political and the acquisition on the left they are political and don t deserve tax exempt status and use the 501- c- fou to cloak and that is bad. keeping the american public in the dark about who is contributing. that is the rule of the game. and 501 c3 s are not simply charities it is move on.org. and organizing for action. you can go through the list. but the fact is, they are talking about obvisicating the real issue. it is a criminal act on the part of the internal revenue service that deserves investigation and all of the talks about 501c- fou
between going to the ap and trying to identify the leaker by looking at their records. it s another thing entirely to say we re going to prosecutor the reporter. they haven t prosecuted james. they prosecuted the leaker, a case brought threeers ago. but the fact is that doesn t change the issue of them naming james as a criminal co-conspirator for doing his job. that s exactly right you can t prosecute somebody unless you suggest you re going to prosecute them and this is a clear declaration by the fbi and department of justice they considered him a target of a criminal investigation. and wanted to prosecute him for criminal conspiracy. this is beyond the pale. [ male announcer ] dunes, desert, or trail,