I understand, indeed share, conservative frustration about the reluctance of Attorney General Holder to investigate Acorn and other supporters of the Democratic Party, but Andrew Breibart goes too far when he says Holder must investiage them or else:
Not only are there more tapes, it's not just ACORN. And this message is to Attorney General Holder: I want you to know that we have more tapes, it's not just ACORN, and we're going to hold out until the next election cycle, or else if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have, we will comply with you, we will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward but are fearful of this organization and the retribution that they fear that this is a dangerous organization. So if you get into an investigation, we will give you the tapes; if you don't give us the tapes, we will revisit these tapes come election time.
It's not the place of a private citizen, even a combative, guerilla journalist, to talk like that.
I think it is entirely appropriate. Holder's motives for not investigating ACORN are entirely political. What could be more appropriate than a private citizen creating a political motive for Holder to do his job and investigate ACORN?
He should have said that he plans to keep releasing the videos. If, however, a true, official investigation begins, he will turn the videos over to the Justice Department. Framing it as a threat is somewhat different.
Other than the grammatical and syntactical solecisms there was nothing wrong with what Breitbart said. The administration is comprised of public servants, not royalty.
Mr. Breitbart is not only doing the right thing, he is doing the honorable thing.
He most likely has more evidence of criminal Mafia-like behavior by various elements of ACORN-like groups, and he may have reason to believe that the Democratic party, at some level, has benefited from these activities.
And what I believe Mr. Breitbart really is saying is "Look, clown. I got the goods, and you now know I got the goods--or you should know. And I could just reap 100% benefit from this politically. But...the damage to the institutions of the country may be a little too much, so O! Ever so wise Mr. Holder, why don't you please--for once in your miserable little life--put something other than *your* conception of what the world should be like first, and do your duty, out of duty, even though you assuredly don't want to, so that at least something is salvaged from the debacle to come."
Or at least, this makes sense. To me, at any rate. He's giving the administration, which will most likely take damage in some way, shape, or form from what Mr. Breitbart has, an opportunity to do the right thing so that we don't have mass chaos. Just as he has given journalism chance after chance, but the MSM has refused to pick up the gauntlet. Mr. Breitbart is not being a Godfather, he is being the hero of the moment. Assuming that what I have hypothesized is true.
He is also putting an idea to a test--can the Democratic party ever do the right thing if it hurts them politically?
The typically sober Stuart Taylor defends Holder/Obama on having the trials in NY. https://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20091121_1730.php
Taylor does not account for all the mischief having these trials may create. Moreover, what sounds like ranting to us and confirmation of evil may actually give encouragement to our enemies abroad. Who knows how many plotters the opportunity to appear in court may have encouraged already? Most Machiavellians fail because they are not sufficiently Machiavellian.
When the state is corrupt, then it is appropriate to take the hard line, the "sheeple" route will get you nowhere with these crooks, that's what they're counting on...Chicago politics anyone???
Go Brietbert! Truth to power!
The "threat" -- to the extent there was one -- was not against life, limb or liberty ... but against Holder's political fortunes and the fortunes of others like him.
I see nothing wrong with it.
In a different age -- and perhaps there never was such a time -- a more honorable approach might be called for. But times are different.
Richard Adams: Framing it as a threat is somewhat different.
The Columbia Journalism Review sees it as you do.
"not the place of a private citizen ... to talk like that."
Why the hell not?
Holder just guaranteed our intelligence methods and means would get into our enemy's hands, what few of these they don't already have. Wake up to the type of regime we now live under. People yearning to be free in Iran or striving to retain their freedom in Columbia, or their lives in Israel, are confronted with our cold silence. Holder refuses KSM's request to be executed in favor of a civilian show trial in the heart of New York.
But we dare not threaten our governors.
We should be tarring and feathering them, and then submitting voluntarily to police prosecution for our assault. That's today's required patriotism.
Holder and the others work for us. I don't know that what Breibart has is going to do much though. Acorn is more corrupt, how does that change anything. It would be a a better bluff if he was implying direct connection to someone higher up.
"We should be tarring and feathering them, and then submitting voluntarily to police prosecution for our assault. That's today's required patriotism." agreed, but I think the police need to be part of the we and honor their oath to uphold the constitution; not be the iron fist of tyranny.
"It's not the place of a private citizen, even a combative, guerilla journalist, to talk like that."
If we as private citizens don't start talking "like that" and more, NOW - there won't be any more private citizens at all, just "public citizens" serving the great public "good" as determined by our great leaders. USSA anyone???