Posted on 05/28/2013 2:05:53 PM PDT by Biggirl
The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza, a bulldog on the DOJ/Fox News secret subpoena story, reports that the effort by the Justice Department to obtain the controversial court order was arduous, contentious and unsuccessful until finally a third judge acquiesced.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
OF COURSE he went judge shopping.
ANYTHING to lower the esteem of the Article III Courts
and Justice in America to his level (breakin of Columbia,
burning alive of children at Waco, murder of everyone
through Fast&Furious, violations of
the 1st Amendment through perjury, and here
salient violations of the Rules.
No problem though.
Corrupt Holder and Obama can rule on themselves
from the positions they “won” through election fraud.
Before or after he recused himself.
I wondered about that in a previous thread. I also wondered what the judges thought about being “shopped”, or even if they knew. I wonder what they think now, as they should now know they were “shopped”.
He doesn’t remember.
This would do in a conservative.
Bingo! Holder perjured himself.
I’m actually quite surprised that H0lder didn’t already know who to go see to get his dirty deeds done dirt cheap.
I haven’t read the various DOJ pleadings (and don’t plan to even if they’re available online). From what I’ve seen for 2+ decades now, Judge Lamberth is not a dupe or crook; he’s always had an excellent reputation for fairness. Originally, IIRC, he was appointed by Reagan. If there’s fraud or corruption involved her, I’d place it at the feet of DOJ, not Judge Lamberth.
A party's appealing an adverse decision of a U.S. magistrate judge to a U.S. district court judge is not "judge shopping." It's how the system works.
In this instance, that there were two magistrate judges involved appears to have been inadvertent; a second magistrate had acted on the DOJ's "motion for clarification" of an earlier order, not realizing that the first magistrate had already done so.
The "judge shopping" allegation here is an ignorant canard.
I doubt that the two judges really care. They kept their names off the subpoenas and don’t really care if Eric The Corrupt found someone dumber to put their name on it. They’ll joke about it and rag him at the gentlemen s club.
Travis, Is that bumper sticker for sale anywhere? Put it on Zazzle and I’ll buy it. If you don’t I might...I’ve made a few hundred $$ off of zazzle.
a double impeachment is called for ~ Holder and Lamberth
I wish there was another country in this world that appreciated inherent rights.... Then i would go “country shopping”....
Maybe this is why we will colonize space... to escape tyrannical rules..... Much like the people who founded this country....
History will repeat itself....
Always... It is the law of universe...
What is sad about this is that the DOJ/Judge Lamberth meet was ex-parte. It did not include an attorney representing the other side.
Usually in ex-parte meetings, the judge is expected to step into the shoes of the absent attorney and test the application from that perspective.
Also, Lamberth has apologized for not posting the warrant on the court log in November 2012 as he was required to do.
No wonder it took Obama so long to catch on /lol
So impeach the judge too?
I don’t know what that judge was thinking.
I found it interesting that they used the female pronoun of “her”.
Is there another warrant for our esteemed ABC investigative reporter here?
That's not true. The first of the U.S. magistrate judges, Alan Kay, did sign the warrant -- it was a "search and seizure warrant," by the way, not a "subpoena," as the story inaccurately states -- on May 28, 2010.
The second magistrate judge who was involved had no occasion to sign the warrant as his only role, apparently, was to issue a ruling on DOJ's "motion for clarification" of one aspect of Judge Kay's original order. As it happens, this second magistrate did so without realizing that Judge Kay had himself already ruled on the motion.
What actually happened here, and what is being "reported" as to what happened here, bear no reasonable resemblance to each other, I'm afraid. A lot of ill-informed allegations are being thrown out as a consequence, by "reporters" and "pundits" who should know better, but who apparently don't give a damn about being accurate or honest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.