Eric Holder was asked, in a meeting about the 2014 DOJ budget, if the DOJ was monitoring phones of members of Congress.

Holder refused to answer, saying that he'd be glad to answer in the appropriate forum.  That clearly says that, in fact, the DOJ did monitor phones used by members of Congress.  If such monitoring hadn't occurred, then Holder could have just said no.

The Senator who asked the question, Kirk (R-Il),  said, "The correct answer would be to say, 'No, we stayed within our lane, and I am assuring you we did not spy on members of Congress.'"

In defense of Holder, if there is an ongoing investigation into a member of Congress due to evidence of treason, there might be justification.  However, in that case, he could have replied that any monitoring of phones in the Capitol could be done only in certain cases and that members of Congress would be informed.  Holder did not do that.

If this were, say, the Truman or Carter administration, it might make sense to give the DOJ the benefit of the doubt.  But since we know that Obama plays by Chicago rules and has no problem with using the government to reward his cronies (Solyndra, anyone?) and punish those who don't agree with him (the IRS and EPA scandals), it would be foolish to presume honest intent when discussing monitoring the phones used by members of Congress.

Even Democrats should be concerned about this, since Obama has clearly shown that he does not feel any need to treat anyone in Congress -- Democrats included -- with anything resembling collegiality.

Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.