Terrorist trial decision made six months ago by White House

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.”

7 replies
  1. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    I think plausible deniability and the benefit of the doubt went out the window with all of Obama's campaign promises.

     

    This is an administration of liars and schemers.

  2. donh
    donh says:

    Has anyone checked the family background of Eric Holder? He sure does bear an uncanny physical resemblance to the Pesident of Syria Bashir Al Assad , as do his policy judgements.

  3. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    So decisions made long ago, i.e. the terrorist disposition, they are trying to claim were just made (and unilaterally by Holder), while decisions that were just made, i.e. the decision to dump breast exams, they are trying to claim were in the works for a long time.

     

    Does this administration EVER stop lying to us?

  4. Erik Blazynski
    Erik Blazynski says:

    I can usually see both sides of a situation but I just don't see it here. I listened to CSPAN today and Holder was question by the Senate on this decision. It seem that they selected NY because the detention facility is fortified as is the court building and there is direct access to the court room from the detention facility without having to transport the criminal. An Article III court was selected to show the world that we will give this guy a fair trial and subject him to our courts which are supposedly the most fair in the world.

    Who gives a crap what the world thinks. I have hypnosis clients whose issues stem from their perception of what others think of them. As a country we are collectively psychologically screwing ourselves over.

  5. Erik Blazynski
    Erik Blazynski says:

    How do you focus on this totally irrelevant sequence of events? This timing is not of any consequence. These are also not mutually exclusive events. Holder may not have PERSONALLY told the president until that day on AF1. They may have discussed and never settled on a final decision until that time.  That is completely plausible.  Not that it matters in any way. There are real substantive issues surrounding this story that you fail to recognize.

    • Steve McGough
      Steve McGough says:

      Sorry you feel I'm writing about inconsequential stuff. Lots of others covered what, where and why about the story and I seemed to be the first person to pick up on the fact Paterson said the decision was made – and he was told by the White Housesix months ago.

      If I had more time, I'd write more stuff. You'll have to deal with it. Just because I did not write about something does not mean I failed to recognize another issue.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] 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. […]

Comments are closed.