Grassley: Holder’s Association With Blagojevich Is Unacceptable, Burris’s Is Fine
Grassley: Holder’s Association With Blagojevich Is Unacceptable, Burris’s Is Fine
When President-elect Obama nominated Eric Holder to be Attorney General, Karl Rove called him the “one controversial nominee,” and urged conservatives to “examine” him. Chris Matthews reported that Rove “is going to be helping lead the fight against Eric Holder,” pushing his involvement in controversial Clinton policies including the pardon of Marc Rich.
Now Senate Republicans are taking Rove’s marching orders, latching onto Holder as “the most vulnerable” of Obama’s nominees. Yesterday, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) lashed out at Holder, calling into question “issues of [Holder's] character” and suggesting Holder acquiesced to President Clinton too readily.
In a conference call this morning, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) continued the assault, saying that “it’s not going to be a smooth confirmation” for Holder. He evoked Holder’s very tenuous ties to embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich as reason to be suspicious of the nominee:
GRASSLEY: It signals that it’s not going to be a smooth confirmation. It doesn’t signal that he may not be confirmed. … [H]e was a counsel or at least Governor Blagojevich had sought to have him involved with something with race tracks in Illinois and casinos, I think. And so we’re trying to get freedom of information on that because we need to know what the relationship is with Governor Blagojevich. And I don’t say that in denigrating in any way except Governor Blagojevich’s recent troubles raises questions with anybody that’s had a relationship with him. … [I]t’s not going to be smooth sailing.
Ironically, just minutes before asserting that “anybody that’s had a relationship” with Blagojevich “raises questions,” Grassley insisted that the Senate must seat Blagojevich-appointed Roland Burris. “He’s got a perfect right to have that seat,” Grassley said.
Responding to the conservative attacks, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) — who already agreed to postpone Holder’s nomination hearing to give Republicans more time to dig into his record — said, “Any effort to question his character is unfounded. Every Republican voted for Alberto Gonzales, and felt his character merited confirmation. Certainly Eric Holder greatly exceeds that test.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
May I just say… I hate Republicans. I *really* hate Republicans.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:31 pmsuggesting Holder acquiesced to President Clinton too readily.
???As opposed to how Gonzo fought the Prez ???
January 7th, 2009 at 2:34 pmHolder will be confirmed….no problem. These people live in a dream world where they are always in power.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:37 pmLet’s hear it, all of you in the wing-nut choir, “Up or down, up or down.”
Thought so.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:39 pmThese basTURDS let Bush get away with murder; they didn’t even put his appointees under oath; they defended them, excused them, and granted them unequivocal approval.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:39 pmAnd they have the gall to nit-pick Holder for people who may have wanted to speak to him. How dare they – and Leahy must tell them so.
Funny, the folks that were perfectly contented with Gonzo think they should make life difficult for Obama’s nominee? Where were these people when bush and gonzales was urinating on our constitution?
January 7th, 2009 at 2:40 pmAnd Grassley’s association with Rethugs is even more unaccepatable.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:41 pmleahy needs to just stfu. he provided the repigs the additional time to build their media narrative to smear holder.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:41 pmCan anyone tell us if there is anything real behind these alleged points of concern? Is it all just BS and red herrings?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/politics/07holder.html?_r=1&ref=us
January 7th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Sen. Al Franken (R-PA) lashed out at Gonzalez, calling into question “issues of [Gonzalez’s] character” and suggesting Gonzalez acquiesced to President Bush too readily.
Now thats better. Some nerve.
RIP
January 7th, 2009 at 2:41 pmSGT Stephen R. Sherman
C CO 1-5 IN (STRYKER)
KIA 3 Feb 2005
Mosul, Iraq
ToF
January 7th, 2009 at 2:43 pmThanks for reporting that — Franken in the Senate may show up some of the old guard and remind them that they have gonads!
I believe it was Hertzberg that said that the GOP needs to go away and pupate into something better or die.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:44 pmGrassley insisted that the Senate must seat Blagojevich-appointed Roland Burris. “He’s got a perfect right to have that seat,” Grassley said.
Am I the only one who has found the repug support for all that is Blago fishy? C’mon people, you are being gamed. Blago is getting paid to play and the game being played is to stay in the public eye as long as posssible to smear the dems. Ehy do you thing the media is all over it instead of more contoverial issues?
January 7th, 2009 at 2:44 pmNow Senate Republicans are taking Rove’s marching orders, latching onto Holder as “the most vulnerable” of Obama’s nominees. Yesterday, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) lashed out at Holder, calling into question “issues of [Holder’s] character” and suggesting Holder acquiesced to President Clinton too readily.
Um, unlike Ashcroft and Gonzales, the pictures of the Rule of Law? Who covered Bush’s (read: Cheney’s) criminal ass at every turn?
As a Pennsylvanian, it is imperative that we continue fighting the good fight and not let up. Specter comes up for re-election in less than two years, and he cannot be allowed to hold this senate seat again. All bluster with respect to the Bush admin, then folded like a cheap suit when it came time to vote.
PEACE
January 7th, 2009 at 2:45 pmSoon it will become apparent even to the 23%’s, that the only thing the republicans have left is obstructionism. And this tactic can easily be taken care of in an election year. Either the republican’s reform or they fade away. It’s their choice.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:46 pmThey were doing the James Brown.
Talking tough and saying nothing.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:46 pmannie – i must say, i do agree… and it started way back with the clinton witch hunt… has deepened exponentially since…
if only 9/10s of my family members were not so stoopid…
January 7th, 2009 at 2:48 pmTheir concern is noted. For some reason, these guys really fear Eric Holder and I’m glad.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:49 pmMarie Says:
No problem, its gonna be something to see.
RIP
January 7th, 2009 at 2:51 pmSGT Stephen R. Sherman
C CO 1-5 IN (STRYKER)
KIA 3 Feb 2005
Mosul, Iraq
Rove and company are peeing in their pampers over the Attorney General nomination.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:54 pmAnd every other Republican who has rubber stamped the Bush administration also know that the impending deluge of indictments, subpeonas and convictions will not only nail their political coffins, but bury them as well.
And no one has worked harder to earn that hatred than Republicans.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:54 pmMagic Bullet Senator Specter is in for a big surprise as Bush will sure criminals like Isaac Toussie who paid for his pardon. Then their othes who will get the pardon to keep their mouth shut. With the US Supreme Court ready to find Ashcrof and the FBI Director guilty they to might have to get a pardon. This Holder comfirmation hearing will clearly show Specter is to old to stay in office. Holder was a Deputy AG and Gonzo was the AG. Holder or even an AG can advise a pardon but it’s the President’s decision. Now we just witnessed Bush giving Toussie a pardon it was Bush who took it back not the AG or his Deputy. Specter knows Eric Holder is over qualified for the job and is scared he will go after Republican criminals who have committed crimes over the pass 8 years. Now if these idiots stall or refuse to confirm Eric Holder, Obama might think of one of the fired Attornys or even Patrick J. Fitzgerald to take the spot. Now Karl Rove will piss in his pants and Dick Cheney would shot another friend as just the name of Fitzgerald scares them.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:56 pmclutchkill Says:
…
Am I the only one who has found the repug support for all that is Blago fishy?
i don’t think so… i’ve thought the same, but don’t hear it expressed much…
i smell the rove slug all over it…
January 7th, 2009 at 2:59 pmHear hear, Perry. Hear-freaking-hear.
Gimme a shoe! Hell, gimme a whole freaking shoe STORE!!
January 7th, 2009 at 3:00 pmGOP = the “New Obstructionists“
January 7th, 2009 at 3:13 pmGuess who Marc Rich’s attorney was? Yup, good ol Scooter Libby!
January 7th, 2009 at 3:15 pmThe Party of Rove continues to expose their true selfish, petulant character unashamedly.
republicans have no higher calling than their own greed and ego. They are nasty little children and can’t lose with anything approaching grace. Still they are losers.
Rove, indeed. Will no one shut him the foch up?
January 7th, 2009 at 3:20 pmThe Pukes will hold up ANY A.G. nominee who is not a Bushevik sympathizer.
That’s primarily because a ‘principled, honest’ A.G. would spend the first year of his tenure ensuring that Karl Rove got 20 years in a State Pen. The process would cas an intolerable light upon the actions and crime committed or sanctioned by the Pukes over the last 8 years, deeds in which the likes of Grasseley, Spectre, and Lieberman would be revealed starkly for what criminals they were and are…
January 7th, 2009 at 3:22 pmIn each case, Mr. Specter said, Mr. Holder appeared to go against the advice of career professionals at the Justice Department.
well, at least he didn’t try to fire any of them…
January 7th, 2009 at 3:24 pmObama should mention that if Holder is voted down, he’ll probably nominate someone like… oh, say… hey, that Patrick Fitzgerald seems like a smart chap.
That’d make ‘em poop in their panties, and Holder would breeze through in a snap.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are loading their big guns and taking careful aim… at their own feet.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:25 pmEverytime that Holders name is mentioned about what he might have or have not done done the following response should be given in aloud but firm voice, ” What about Scooter Libby being the attorney of record for Marc Rich?”
January 7th, 2009 at 3:26 pmWell I’ll be a voice of sanity here. I’m amazed that the republicans are only questioning the Holder appointment. It seems a reasonable question given his recent dealings. As far as Burris, he’s not a Blago cronie, only a lower level player. Panetta should give us all pause. CIA? Really? Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and realize that at least two of Obama’s appointments don’t pass the smell test. I like the other choices and it seems the repubs do too. I think this is all reasonable. Besides, when has Specter ever been a right wing nut? Come on guys, stop with all of the frothing vitriol.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:28 pmWhy are Karl Rove and his fellow corrupt Republicans so afraid of Eric Holder becoming our nation’s next Attorney General?
January 7th, 2009 at 3:29 pmdrew3rd Says:
Stop the vitriol while YOU tell us to stop drinking the koolaid and just decide on your own that two of Obamas appointments dont pass the smell test take your own advise and grow up.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:32 pmdrew3rd Says:
Well I’ll be a voice of sanity here. I’m amazed that the republicans are only questioning the Holder appointment. It seems a reasonable question given his recent dealings. As far as Burris, he’s not a Blago cronie, only a lower level player. Panetta should give us all pause. CIA?
If you’re all sane and everything, perhaps you would like to explain in some detail why Panetta isn’t qualified for the job.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:35 pmI say, let them piss Holder off as much as possible.
It will be that much more fun to see what he does once confirmed… with such a fresh memory of what he is fighting for (against).
January 7th, 2009 at 3:45 pmPanetta is a lawyer with absolutely zero foreign or domestic intelligence experience. I’m not saying he can’t do the job, I’m saying he needs to be scrutinized. He may turn out to be the best man for the job. Don’t you want to find that out, or should we just confirm him because he likes Bill Clinton and we like Bill Clinton?
January 7th, 2009 at 3:46 pmEugeneDebs, you’re statement is without flaw sir. How ever will I be able to post here any longer? Stop hating republicans and ask serious questions. Is Holder corrupt? He IS Blago’s right hand man. Is Panetta the best man for the chief intelligence officer of the U.S.? Why don’t we INTERVIEW him!!!???!???!!! You interview potential employees for your company but not the Director of the CIA? Breathtaking!
January 7th, 2009 at 3:51 pmComparing Holder to Burris is apples and oranges; one is an executive nominee, the other is a Senator. As a Senator, Specter would be expected to uphold the rights of Senators more than he would Cabinet posts.
Nonetheless, all the R’s points of contention will fail.
Marc Rich pardon: the President has the constitutional right to pardon almost anybody he wants. Rich falls into the category of pardonable criminals. Holder’s role was to confirm that. Don’t like it? Go blame Bill Clinton all you like.
Blago taint:
So he was selected to investigate a decision made by somebody else.
Everything else: He was doing his job. In most cases he was completing an investigative review on an already-expired situation. In other cases, he was presenting a thoroughly legal and defensible argument on behalf of the government. But it’s not like he was defending torture in front of a judge, or trying to argue that habeus corpus doesn’t apply – nothing ridiculously unconstitutoinal like that…
“issues of [Holder’s] character”: You know what, I’d flip that guy off and tell him to go f*** himself. Smearing someone’s “character” without good reason consitutes a personal insult, rather than a professional criticism.
The R’s are messing with Holder for two reasons – one, to try and scare off any attempt by the DoJ to investigate the Bush Administration (showing their teeth), and two, to set up the story that “Holder is a partisan hack” once such investigations start to bear fruit (blame the referee). While they’re at it, it also lets them try giving some old Clinton-era campaigns another day in the sun to see if they help their case any.
.
drew3rd Says:
Panetta is a lawyer with absolutely zero foreign or domestic intelligence experience.
The White House Chief of Staff job is such that you get a little experience in everything. I think the CIA could use some organizational and policy discipline about now, and that’s what he knows best. A good manager doesn’t need to know exactly how to do someone’s job in order to manage them effectively. It’s not like they’ve been good at much of anything for the past eight years, seeing how as we’re in Iraq after all.
As with so many Republican complaints, the ansewr is the same: we tried it “your way” and you screwed everything up. Now we’re going to try something else.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:55 pmdrew3rd Says:
Panetta is a lawyer with absolutely zero foreign or domestic intelligence experience. I’m not saying he can’t do the job, I’m saying he needs to be scrutinized. He may turn out to be the best man for the job.
You said he didn’t meet the smell test, so obviously you did say “he can’t do the job.”
Others disagree.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:58 pmElBruce, fair point on Panetta. Wouldn’t you like to find out?
gummitch, that’s it? Your world is THAT simplistic?
January 7th, 2009 at 4:02 pmdrew3rd Says:
Who said I hate Republicans? I haveno patience for stupid people and you made a stupid post. I have a good deal of respect for conservatives in general I just see things differently but I have no patience for an idiot who comes in and insults us while snivelling that we hate or insult them. Your HYPOCRISY is just stunning and frankly ignorant. I dont do guilt by association can you show Holder being involved in Blagos corruption if you can then cough it up if you cant him doing his job for a corrupt politicican isnt anything at all as for Panetta the top man at CIA is a manager he isnt a spy. He was chief of staff he has dealt with intelligence at top levels before. He might not have been my pick but saying he isnt qualified when MANY of the top CIA guys were carreer politicians is the old game of attacking THIS President for doing what many Presidents have done before. You dont really have a good argument but at least this time you MADE an argument your first stupid post was whining that we were mean while insulting us and saying they werent qualified because you said so while making an ignorant comment about koolaid. If you WANT to be taken seriously make serious posts. Your snivelling is pathetic
January 7th, 2009 at 4:06 pmI find the hypocrisy of all the rethuglicans who nodded their approval for the Bush Crime Family the past eight years who now try to question any appointment hilarious. These are the same token azzholes who supported and defended Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez and KKKarl Rove, and the gang. What the majority should do is start the investigation into all their actions. There will be a day of reckoning for the thugs on the reichwing.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:26 pmI don’t use “smell tests” for my opinions. Try thinking.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:30 pmi’d say if Rovey is against Holder, he’s got to be pretty damn good.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:53 pmdrew3rd Says:
gummitch, that’s it? Your world is THAT simplistic?
Me? I asked you to provide good reasons why Panetta wasn’t qualified and you had the simplistic response. I also pointed you to a column by someone with a great deal of CIA experience who thinks he’s a good choice — and I suspect he knows a LOT more about it than you do.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:13 pmwizard2000 Says:
Why are Karl Rove and his fellow corrupt Republicans so afraid of Eric Holder becoming our nation’s next Attorney General?
Here’s my Answer: JACK ABRAMOFF
The Abramoff scandal is a very active investigation and it is flying far below the radar. One gets the sense that the professionals in the Department of Justice who have been investigating this scandal are waiting out the Bush Administration to minimize political interference and any possible pardons Bush might hand out to his co-conspirators as he leaves office. The US Attorney in Maryland had to be tasked with investigating the DOJ in Washington DC because Abramoff and his team had infiltrated the Justice Department. There is evidence in the Abramoff billing records, documents released from Court cases and from Congressional investigations that former Attorney General John Ashcroft may have exposure is the scandal. Two of his former staffers are involved. One has pleaded guilty and the other has been indicted, his trial should begin later this year.
Many in Washington and in the press want to point to the artificial scandals from the Clinton era or that dickhead Governor in Illinois as the biggest scandals of the day. I expect that the GOP will trot these out as they try to attack Eric Holder, Obama’s choice to be Attorney General. I wrote about this a few weeks ago (Why the GOP Fears Eric Holder) and we need to get ready to fight back.
When the GOP screams Marc Rich: We scream Abramoff!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/2/0828/92837/28/679346
January 7th, 2009 at 5:22 pm#40 Elbruce,
January 7th, 2009 at 7:54 pmExcellent comment/reply.
Wow, I whine? Maybe you guys would be wiser to look at presidential appointments and see who had their boys investigated. Every administration has numerous appointees delayed until confirmation. Do you believe Bush was unfairly treated because so many of his appointees were investigated? No, of course not, you are blinded haters of all things republican. I’m asking a simple question. should we give Obama a blank check or should congress look at a few of these guys. I like Panetta as a staffer. Maybe CIA loves him and maybe he’s the best guy for the job, let’s find out. Holder is suspect and could be a problem down the line, if you don’t think so it’s because you are willfully ignorant. I am a voice of reason on a terribly irrational board. Grow up! Read befopre you post. I’m not really that hard to understand you bunch of blowhards.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:53 am