Michael Isikoff (a fine investigative journalist, who would have won a Pulitzer during l'affaire Lewinsky had it involved a Republican president) is reporting that Eric Holder himself signed off on the search warrant for James Rosen's emails.
But here's the problem. Today, in his speech, the President said,
Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. That is why I have called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government over-reach. I have raised these issues with the Attorney General, who shares my concern. So he has agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and will convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review.
So, in other words, Holder is going to review policies he himself has pushed to the limit and presumably revise them? Isn't that a tacit admission that his actions were improper? And how does the President justify keeping him on if that's the case?
What's more, recall that Holder asserted that he had recused himself from the AP investigation, though somehow the paperwork confirming that recusal was, well, lost (nevertheless, he did nothing to stop it). Why would he recuse himself from the AP investigation, but not from the investigation into Fox News? Was it just that he didn't mind involving himself in the administration's "war on Fox"?
And just how "concern[ed]" can Holder be with "government over-reach" given his unprecedented trashing of the First Amendment in his pursuit of journalists?
How does this guy keep his job?
Could this possibly be setting the stage for a Memorial-Day-Friday Holder "resignation"?
Exit Dream: that some enterprising soul in the House Judiciary Committee has the gumption to ask Holder if he really -- as stated in the affidavit to get the warrant on Rosen -- that James Rosen really constituted a flight risk.