Asked whether the case was worth returning to, Kiriakou said the only genuinely new element was the Justice Department’s denial. The department, he reports, said that it “played no role in this at all. Nothing at all.” [1]
Why he doubts it
Kiriakou’s objection is jurisdictional rather than political, and he states it as a matter of routine practice. “I find that very hard to believe,” he says, “because we’re talking about electronic images, and we’re talking about electronic communications to try to meet up with an underage girl. That would make it federal.” [1]
The two categories he names are the standard hooks for federal jurisdiction in such a case. On his reading, the presence of either would ordinarily draw the Justice Department in, and the presence of both makes a claim of total non-involvement implausible on its face.
The alternative he is left with
Kiriakou then states the only version of events consistent with the denial, and does so in a way that makes clear he does not accept it: “So what? The Justice Department just told the local authorities in Las Vegas to handle it, and they let the guy go, and he just ran back to Israel.” [2]
His conclusion is a single sentence, and he does not attempt to resolve it: “I don’t know. Somebody’s lying.” [2]
This is characteristic of how Kiriakou treats cases where he has no inside knowledge. He does not name who he thinks is lying, does not assert a cover-up, and does not offer a theory of motive. What he asserts is narrower and within his competence — that the stated facts and the stated denial cannot both be true.
The framing
The segment was brief by design. Kiriakou and his co-host had already discussed the matter and returned to it only because a viewer raised it; Kiriakou’s contribution was confined to the new development. His co-host’s response to the analysis was agreement. [2]