If That’s the Case for Holder Lying Under Oath, It’s Not Just Weak — It’s Bordering on Silly

Help me mull this over, will you?

Volokh Conspiracy  "The [Privacy Protection Act] prohibits the government from conducting a search or seizure of a reporter’s property unless there is probable cause that the reporter was involved in the crime. As it applies to investigations of national security leaks, the PPA requires the government to make the case that there was probable cause Rosen was involved in the offense before it can obtain a warrant.

"Importantly, the PPA doesn’t require the government to actually be considering prosecuting the reporter. It only requires the government to establish probable cause that the reporter’s conduct was prohibited by Congress’s law. So, again, there is nothing inconsistent between Holder concluding that there was probable cause to believe Rosen committed a crime and Holder testifying that he has never “been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy” to bring a criminal prosecution against a reporter.
In the comment threads to Jonathan’s post, some commenters argued that you can read Holder’s testimony as saying that there was not a “potential” for prosecution against Rosen. If the affidavit stated the basis for probable cause that Rosen committed a crime, they argue, isn’t there “a potential” that Rosen could be prosecuted, at least in a certain sense, thus making a possible case for perjury? This argument misrepresents what Holder said. "