Terrorist trial decision made six months ago by White House
November 17, 2009 at 10:27 am by Steve McGough
Filed under Featured, Politics & Government
Gov. David Paterson (D-N.Y.) is not at all on board with Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to have five Sept. 11 planners brought to New York City for a civilian criminal trial. Supposedly Holder made the decision, and he informed President Obama. Why is Paterson saying the White House warned him this was coming six months ago?
The main headline this morning may be Paterson disagreeing with the White House on having the trials in New York, but I picked up on this paragraph in a CBS News report out of New York by Marcia Kramer.
Paterson also said that the White House warned him six months ago this very situation would happen. He said while he disagrees with the decision, he will do everything in his power to make sure that the state’s Department of Homeland Security will keep New Yorkers as safe as possible.
Paterson did not say it “may” happen, nor did Paterson refer to the Justice Department. He was specific to the White House when he criticized the decision, and was told it would happen six months ago … deal with it.
Let’s go back to Friday night, when Holder was a guest on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. This transcript courtesy of RushLimbaugh.com.
LEHRER: Did you run the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed decision by President Obama?”
HOLDER: Just informed him of the decision.
LEHRER: So you just told him what your decision was. You didn’t say, “What do you think about it, Mr. President?”
HOLDER: Nope. Told him last night, or had relayed to him what I was going to do last night while he was on Air Force One on his way to Asia.
LEHRER: Did you talk to anybody outside the government?
HOLDER: I talked to my wife –
LEHRER: Yeah, okay.
HOLDER: — about what she thought, and I actually talked to my brother who’s a retired Port Authority police officer –
LEHRER: Is that right?
HOLDER: — in New York, New Jersey, and who lost friends and colleagues on 9/11 in the towers. And I talked to them about what — was it appropriate to bring it in New York, symbolic significance of it, the possibility of getting a good and fair, detached jury.
So, who is bending the truth? Holder or Paterson?
The Obama administration is building a paper firewall between the Justice Department and the Executive Office of the President. This decision is not just a criminal prosecution, it is a decision with broad national security implications. For the president to not be involved with this decision is unthinkable, and I think Patterson let the cat out of the bag.
Limbaugh is right.
The very idea that all that happened here was Obama was informed of this decision, I don’t believe that for a minute. And that he consulted what? His brother and his wife, his brother, who’s a retired Port Authority cop who served in New York and New Jersey who lost friends and colleagues on 9/11? He talked to his wife and a brother? He didn’t do anything but inform Obama of the decision? I’ll tell you what, what they’re trying to do here is grant him deniability, plausible deniability. “I didn’t know it. I was not aware. I was only informed after the decision was made, and I didn’t want to undercut my attorney general.”
Related posts
Liked this post?
Subscribe to the RSS feed and post some good comments! You can also share on Facebook or Twitter right now!
Dimsdale 
donh 
Erik Blazynski 
Loading ...
[...] As it turns out, the latter point is already unfolding. The lawyers for the 9/11 terrorists intend to plead not-guilty, and intend to use the trial to focus on American foreign policy. This, of course, becomes obviously what the entire trial was about…a manufactured crises designed to confuse and further demoralize the American people, since this strategy was thought out six months ahead of time. [...]