This transcript is automatically generated
-- couple of quotes in New York Times Sunday raised some eyebrows here in Washington.
Here's one of them about attorney general holder and his future quote some in the west wing privately tell associates.
They wish he would step down viewing him as politically mallet to it.
Then the White House is apoplectic about him and has been for a long time since democratic former government official who did not want to be identified -- Talking about friends some advisors -- mr.
Obama believe that mr.
holder does not manage or foresee problems the former officials said.
How hard would have -- to anticipate that the AP would be unhappy.
The former official then said.
And then they haven't defended their position -- being in the department justice we're back with the panel.
The future of Eric Holder mark.
I still think his job is pretty safe I think he still has the confident of the for the confidence of the president Jay Carney made a point today of reading the on the record quote from the chief of staff as opposed to these blind quotes saying that he has utter confidence in his abilities.
I think that if Eric Holder wants to leave he will but he won't be pushed out.
You know and but he's gonna have to answer a lot more questions about the search warrant for James residency match.
Tom Brokaw among others have said this is the Potomac two step you have Democrats out defending him publicly but privately.
Some inside the White House undercutting.
And I can understand that he's hurting the administration -- in the present.
If you are pure cynical partisan Republican.
You'd want -- stay in office he's a phrase from the Watergate days twisting out -- in the wind.
Because.
But he did is pretty indefensible.
In his defense -- I lied to congress has had received a judge.
Not exactly a good defense and it is a perception of the -- it wasn't only that he said that -- -- would be a criminal co defendant.
Which he now says he never intended you -- a ruse.
To be able to look in the -- -- email.
But then he added on to that that he's a flight risk.
Now if you never intend to prosecute the guy.
And being a flight risk is entirely irrelevant it is simply a means to deceive the judge in -- thinking that you intend to prosecution.
Which is exactly the opposite way intent well here's with the DOJ.
Sent out today and it wasn't from holder himself differs from.
A lower level assistant attorney general -- seeking to assert a search warrant is 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 problem who causes -- significantly lower burden of proof.
And beyond a reasonable doubt which is required to obtain a conviction on criminal charges continuing.
At no time during the pendency.
Of this matter before or after seeking the search warrant again this is for George James Rosen in the Kim.
Leak investigation have prosecutors sought approval to bring criminal charges against the reporter.
-- the attorney general's testimony before the committee.
On May fifteenth when he thirteen with respect to the department's prosecutions of the unauthorized disclosure of classified information was accurate and consistent with the facts.
As attorney general explained these prosecutors focused on those who break their oath and put the American people at risk not reporters who gathered this information.
I want to read all of that because it's pretty detailed the response from committee Steve is.
This is insulting it.
And they want to hear from holder himself.
It is doing what's important remember what air -- said he talked about potential prosecution not prosecution and said that not only had -- never been involved in it.
He never even heard of such -- thing.
-- that is clearly false because we know based on that the information that has come from the White House and has otherwise been reported that what he said there is not true so.
I can take it you know it could have page letter that lays out all of legalese about -- -- Everybody understands what what do you what do -- -- saying true that he never had the intent.
He never intended to prosecute ever so in his mind it wasn't a potential -- prosecution that's what the person.
But he said he'd never even heard of a discussion of a potential prosecution as Charles points out.
That was the express purpose of the search warrant -- that was express purpose of labeling James Rosen it could go potential co conspirator.
And a possible fright flight risk you don't do that in theory and that's what they were arguing.
Ladies and you know what.
Did have first -- I think it's almost impossible to look into it and it's good.
It's it goes against common sense to say you call someone a flight risk -- say they were at the very least a -- in a better and a co conspirator.
And then say but we were never thinking about prosecuting him whenever they even thinking about potentially prosecuting him we just have -- hyperbolic.
-- -- you know and request to a judge for search warrant -- -- -- so we could -- the -- we never we're gonna have.
And try to prosecute the leaky.
It's just hard for people to understand however I believe that Eric Holder never -- prosecuted James -- because we haven't.
Ever prosecuted someone for -- And in his own mind he's.
Doesn't believe that it's just that.
It just is almost impossible to two to square the circle of why you could say all those horrible things about James Risen to a judge when you have no intention of process.
When you -- -- -- -- in your own mind completely irrelevant.
He said he never even heard of -- potential prosecution.
Can I only heard of and he argued it and then he did he brings up the issue a flight risk which is entirely irrelevant entirely.
Unless you are thinking of a potential prosecution.
So it does not stand up to logic to -- tennis mind.
This is -- is is irrelevant as well as he himself as a flight risk -- on the side.
Yes no.
Yes.
-- couple of quotes in New York Times Sunday raised some eyebrows here in Washington.
Here's one of them about attorney general holder and his future quote some in the west wing privately tell associates.
They wish he would step down viewing him as politically mallet to it.
Then the White House is apoplectic about him and has been for a long time since democratic former government official who did not want to be identified -- Talking about friends some advisors -- mr.
Obama believe that mr.
holder does not manage or foresee problems the former officials said.
How hard would have -- to anticipate that the AP would be unhappy.
The former official then said.
And then they haven't defended their position -- being in the department justice we're back with the panel.
The future of Eric Holder mark.
I still think his job is pretty safe I think he still has the confident of the for the confidence of the president Jay Carney made a point today of reading the on the record quote from the chief of staff as opposed to these blind quotes saying that he has utter confidence in his abilities.
I think that if Eric Holder wants to leave he will but he won't be pushed out.
You know and but he's gonna have to answer a lot more questions about the search warrant for James residency match.
Tom Brokaw among others have said this is the Potomac two step you have Democrats out defending him publicly but privately.
Some inside the White House undercutting.
And I can understand that he's hurting the administration -- in the present.
If you are pure cynical partisan Republican.
You'd want -- stay in office he's a phrase from the Watergate days twisting out -- in the wind.
Because.
But he did is pretty indefensible.
In his defense -- I lied to congress has had received a judge.
Not exactly a good defense and it is a perception of the -- it wasn't only that he said that -- -- would be a criminal co defendant.
Which he now says he never intended you -- a ruse.
To be able to look in the -- -- email.
But then he added on to that that he's a flight risk.
Now if you never intend to prosecute the guy.
And being a flight risk is entirely irrelevant it is simply a means to deceive the judge in -- thinking that you intend to prosecution.
Which is exactly the opposite way intent well here's with the DOJ.
Sent out today and it wasn't from holder himself differs from.
A lower level assistant attorney general -- seeking to assert a search warrant is 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 problem who causes -- significantly lower burden of proof.
And beyond a reasonable doubt which is required to obtain a conviction on criminal charges continuing.
At no time during the pendency.
Of this matter before or after seeking the search warrant again this is for George James Rosen in the Kim.
Leak investigation have prosecutors sought approval to bring criminal charges against the reporter.
-- the attorney general's testimony before the committee.
On May fifteenth when he thirteen with respect to the department's prosecutions of the unauthorized disclosure of classified information was accurate and consistent with the facts.
As attorney general explained these prosecutors focused on those who break their oath and put the American people at risk not reporters who gathered this information.
I want to read all of that because it's pretty detailed the response from committee Steve is.
This is insulting it.
And they want to hear from holder himself.
It is doing what's important remember what air -- said he talked about potential prosecution not prosecution and said that not only had -- never been involved in it.
He never even heard of such -- thing.
-- that is clearly false because we know based on that the information that has come from the White House and has otherwise been reported that what he said there is not true so.
I can take it you know it could have page letter that lays out all of legalese about -- -- Everybody understands what what do you what do -- -- saying true that he never had the intent.
He never intended to prosecute ever so in his mind it wasn't a potential -- prosecution that's what the person.
But he said he'd never even heard of a discussion of a potential prosecution as Charles points out.
That was the express purpose of the search warrant -- that was express purpose of labeling James Rosen it could go potential co conspirator.
And a possible fright flight risk you don't do that in theory and that's what they were arguing.
Ladies and you know what.
Did have first -- I think it's almost impossible to look into it and it's good.
It's it goes against common sense to say you call someone a flight risk -- say they were at the very least a -- in a better and a co conspirator.
And then say but we were never thinking about prosecuting him whenever they even thinking about potentially prosecuting him we just have -- hyperbolic.
-- -- you know and request to a judge for search warrant -- -- -- so we could -- the -- we never we're gonna have.
And try to prosecute the leaky.
It's just hard for people to understand however I believe that Eric Holder never -- prosecuted James -- because we haven't.
Ever prosecuted someone for -- And in his own mind he's.
Doesn't believe that it's just that.
It just is almost impossible to two to square the circle of why you could say all those horrible things about James Risen to a judge when you have no intention of process.
When you -- -- -- -- in your own mind completely irrelevant.
He said he never even heard of -- potential prosecution.
Can I only heard of and he argued it and then he did he brings up the issue a flight risk which is entirely irrelevant entirely.
Unless you are thinking of a potential prosecution.
So it does not stand up to logic to -- tennis mind.
This is -- is is irrelevant as well as he himself as a flight risk -- on the side.
Yes no.
Yes.