Eric Holder’s New Book: Protecting Your Prevarications from Peril

By: Jim Byrd

The bearing of new laws, new resolutions, new beginnings, and fresh starts are paramount to start a new year; 2012 is no exception. Eric Holder welcomed the new year by submitting a manuscript for a book he penned over the Christmas holidays. I was able to obtain a draft of the preface of a self-help book from Harlequin Publishers that he submitted for publication.

The draft:

What do Alger Hiss, Bill Clinton, Martha Stewart, and Scooter Libby have in common? They were all amateurishly convicted of perjury. Perjury can be defined several ways, but its marrow is thus: willfully giving false testimony, oath, or affirmation, written or spoken, regarding material matters before a judicial or legal inquiry. The ambiguity of certain words in this definition are pivotal in circumventing the culpability of fabrication. “Willfully…false…oath…affirmation…written…spoken…regarding…material matters…before…judicial…legal…a… or…inquiry,” are words that can have significantly different meanings to different people depending on interpretation and state of mind. My motto is: “Actus non facitreum nisi mens sit rea,” meaning “the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty.” This book will give you the tools to cleanse your mind of perceivable guilt, completely erase the appearance of guilt, and project a clear conscience to your adversaries, thus making you immune to perjury conviction(s).

Remember, it’s only perjury if you are convicted.

With my simple five-step system, I will show you how to virtually eliminate the possibility of being prosecuted for perjury, and guarantee an acquittal in the rare event you are tried for perjury. Knock on wood.

This five-step system is not for the squeamish. You will be lying, everyone will know you are lying, you will know that everyone knows you are lying, everyone will know that you know that everyone knows that you are lying, but that is irrelevant if they can’t prove you are lying. I will give you the tools to not be distracted by bothersome interrogations, and to not let the finger pointing and name calling ruin your day. Just believe, believe you are not lying.

As of this writing, I am being subjected to hearing after hearing by Congress, and daily harassment by right-wingers regarding Operation Fast and Furious, the operation that I was never aware existed at least in my mind. Naturally these fanatical doctrinaires are attempting to use the hundreds of emails, memos, conversations, witnesses, etc., to demonstrate that I was aware of the full scale of the operation. But with the employment of my five-step system, I have, quite frankly, convinced myself that I have never heard the words “Operation Fast and Furious” until the past couple of weeks.

The five-steps you will learn from this book are…

1. A Simple Misunderstanding. Regardless of how simple and direct a question you are asked, there is no law against misunderstanding the question, and answering the question with an answer that would apply to another question you have created in your mind. I will show you how I turned the tables with an answer to a different question that I feel should have been asked.

2. State of Mind. Your state of mind when answering a question will determine if your answer is an intentional lie. You will learn to control your state of mind, and with this, confuse your interrogators by dismantling any prejudiced definition of perjury that may adversely affect you.

3. Blame it on Bush. This is the genius stratagem created by the Democratic Party, and is still the preferred default by Barack Obama for his failed polices three years after Bush left office.

4. Can’t Read Everything. Who has the time? I’m an important person, you’re an important person, should we be expected to read every single memo, email, briefing, etc. that comes across our desks each day?

5. The Nuclear Option. This is perhaps the most powerful, but can take a decade or more to implement. I started seriously implementing this tactic during the Clinton administration. You will need at least a ten-year trail of unadulterated incompetence. If you can make yourself appear too stupid to do your job, then the natural assumption would be that you are too stupid to create a sophisticated web of deceit.

Step One: A Simple Misunderstanding

No matter what the question, how straightforward, or how simple, your answer can’t incriminate you if you obviously misunderstood the question, and in fact, were answering another question that you created in your mind.

Take for example when Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, asked me the following question under oath:

ISSA: This program, as you know – and the President’s been asked about it, you’ve been asked about it – allowed for weapons to be sold to straw purchasers, and ultimately, many of those weapons are today in the hands of drug cartels and other criminals. When did you first know about the program, officially, I believe, called Fast and Furious? To the best of your knowledge, what date?

Me: I’m not sure of the exact date but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.

Now this was on May 3, 2011, but there is myriad documented evidence that show I was well aware of Fast and Furious at least ten months prior to this question. Now this may seem like a slam-dunk case of me committing perjury, but not if I was answering a different question. In my mind, I was answering a completely different question than the one posed by Issa. The Justice Department,  of which I am the leader, is on record stating my apparent perjury regarding the emails and memos associating me with Operation Fast and Furious was a simple misunderstanding of the question. In my mind, I thought Issa was asking about Operation Fast and Furious, not the flawed tactics of Fast and Furious of giving 2000 weapons to dangerous Mexican drug cartels that were ultimately used in crimes and murders on both sides of the border. There is a difference. He really should have been more clear and I would not have answered the question incorrectly. It also does not hurt matters to always be out of the loop on what is happening within your own department.

Step Two: State of Mind

Back in February, I sent a letter to Congress explaining that Operation Fast and Furious did not let guns “walk” into Mexico. It never happened as far as my mind is concerned. Walking guns. Where did they think I was going with that? After the “evidence” started piling-up “implicating” me and the Department of Justice of “purposely” allowing 2000 guns to go directly into the hands of murderous Mexican drug cartels, which produced a string of dead Mexican and US citizens, and a murdered Border Patrol agent, it would seem like an open and shut case. But not so fast. I have taken the unprecedented step of withdrawing that letter, making that letter of perjured denial irrelevant.

Now when Rep. James Sensenbrenner asked me,What are you going to do to clean up this mess?,” as truthfully as my state of mind would allow, I said, “Well, first let me make something very clear: nobody in the Justice Department has lied. Nobody.”

Then when he asked why I withdrew the letter, I said, “The letter was withdrawn because the information in there was inaccurate.” Inaccuracy is not equal with lying, even if the inaccurate statements were intentional and meant to mislead.

Then Sensenbrenner starting splitting hairs with his next question:“Tell me what’s the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?” This is when I got all legal on him, and bewildered him with my state of mind answer:

Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that would be considered perjury or a lie. The information that was provided by the February 4th letter was gleaned by the people who drafted the letter after they interacted with people who they thought were in the best position to have the information.

Did I have a requisite intent of lying when I lied? When you start “gleaning” and “interact with people” who you “thought” because of their “position” to have the “information,” it can become very confusing and really affects your state of mind.

Step Three: Blame it on Bush

Listen: Blaming everything on Bush has served Obama and the Democratic Party very well for many years, and still has another 10-15 years of life left in it.

In a letter that I sent to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I pulled the “recollection” card. I stated, “I have no recollection of knowing about ‘Fast and Furious’ or of hearing its name prior to the public controversy about it.” This allowed me to then pull the self-investigation card, which will derail the train of thought of the most steadfast inquirer, and give credence to bizarre and vague answers: “I have not spoken at length on this subject out of deference to the review being conducted at my request.”

Of course this was a setup for the money maker: “It has become clear that the flawed tactics employed in Fast and Furious were not limited to that operation and were actually employed in an investigation conducted during the prior administration (Bush’s fault).” I was making a not-so-veiled reference to Bush’s Operation Wide Receiver. Even though Operation Wide Receiver was the surveillance of the illegal transfer of goods, then the arrest of all parties involved as soon as the crime was consummated, Bush still had something to do with those 2000 guns “walking” through Operation Fast and Furious.

Step Four: Can’t Read Them All

You’re a busy person, I’m a busy person, who has time to read all their emails, memos, and daily briefings? I certainly don’t. When I filed the lawsuit against the state of Arizona regarding its immigration bill SB1070, I publicly admitted that I never attempted to read the ten-page bill, I filed the lawsuit just because. Of course there are myriad paper trails that show I was inundated with emails, memos, and daily briefings regarding Fast and Furious. That doesn’t mean I read them. Who has the time? Unless someone actually saw me read anything regarding Fast and Furious, there is no irrefutable proof that I actually read any of the plethora of communications I received about putting thousands of guns in the hands of violent Mexican Drug Cartels, and the death and destruction it caused. I just never got around to reading all of them. It’s a matter of prioritizing things, and reading the important emails, memos, and daily briefings will always take precedence over distractions such as Fast and Furious. If you didn’t read it, you’re not responsible.

Step Five: Nuclear Option

The Nuclear Option is a little trickier than the others, and much more complex. It works in conjunction with steps one through four. But it takes an enormous amount of forethought and long-range planning. I started my Nuclear Option back in 2001. You have to cultivate a history of being so incompetent that it is hard to tell if you are lying, too stupid to run your department, or just too damn incompetent to orchestrate a sophisticated string of lies.

As Deputy Attorney General, I “recommended” that Marc Rich circumvent standard procedure and protocol to be granted a presidential pardon directly from Bill Clinton. In his last days of office, Clinton pardoned Rich for making oil deals with Iran with the Ayatollah Khomeini, and evading $48 million in US taxes. Rich was also on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list, and even made the Justice Department’s  Most Wanted International Fugitive list. Can a higher level of incompetence be demonstrated?

I also recommended that Clinton grant clemency to 16 members of the Boricua Popular Army, who were serving time in prison for acts of terrorism, bombings, bank robberies, and a sundry of other crimes against the United States. The FBI and federal prosecutors were saying no, no, no, but Clinton and I granted clemency against their whining opposition. Another fine feather in the incompetence cap.

There were numerous other selfish acts of unadulterated incompetence that are too bountiful for me to recall leading up to the time I was confirmed as the Attorney General of the United States. Shortly after being confirmed, to set in action the Nuclear Option for situations such as Operation Fast and Furious, I called the United States a “nation of cowards.” There was a lot of squawking about that one from the cowards.

I then proceeded to drop all the charges against the New Black Panther Party for intimidating white voters at a voting booth with clubs and threats of violence and generally making them feel that they would be clubbed like baby seals if they voted for John McCain at a black-only poll.

Once it looked like the whole gun walking thing was going to be a big stink, I decided it was time to up the stakes. I always wanted to be a king, and now I decided to play one and see how that would go over with this nation of cowards. I decided I would determine what federal laws were constitutional and which ones were not rather than deferring to the Supreme Court. The Defense of Marriage Act was the first one to get the constitutional axe. I just refused to defend it. I then decided to hound Gibson Guitars to hell and back for no reason at all– raiding their warehouses, taking their inventory, interrupting their production of guitars, job losses, losing money, etc. I’m not sure of the exact numbers, but I’m pretty sure I have initiated a lawsuit against every state in the union for legal justifications I’m not really sure exist.

There is a positive collateral bonus from demonstrating this level of incompetence for an entire career, as Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Janet Napolitano, Joe Biden, Kathleen Sebelius, half the Supreme Court, Hilda Solis, Barack Obama, especially Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and too many more to name, can attest to: the opportunities within the Democratic Party are virtually limitless.

Does the person described above seem remotely capable of a labyrinth of sophisticated perjury? Of course not, but rather the thoughts of how did this person ever graduate school, much less law school, and how was he continually promoted with such a record of incompetence? Well, sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never keep me from advancing in the Democratic Party.

It is all too obvious that I have lied and misled pretty much as far back as I can remember, and have been an abysmal failure as Attorney General, but I’m still here, and that is what counts. Guns need to be controlled, and what better way to help that legislation along than to put a couple thousand weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels, and let the mayhem begin. Sure it was a political ploy of creating artificially created gun crimes that would never have happened if not for me, and will backfire on my underlings and cost them their careers, but whose fault is that? It’s theirs for not using my five-step method, but you, dear reader, can be shielded from each and every instance of perjury you commit with this book.

About The Author Jim Byrd:
Jim Byrd's website is A Skewed View.

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.