Attorney General Holder reminds Sessions who’s boss.
Attorney General Holder reminds Sessions who’s boss.
This morning, Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) slammed the Justice Department’s release of Bush-era memos authorizing the use of torture on terrorist suspects, telling Holder that his “predecessor, Judge Mukasey, and Mr. Hayden,” the former Director of National Intelligence, “didn’t approve of that at all.” Holder reminded Sessions that Mukasey and Hayden were no longer in charge:
SESSIONS: Well it was disapproved by your predecessor, Judge Mukasey, and Mr. Hayden, the CIA, um, DIA [sic] director. They didn’t approve of that at all. … You were willing to release matters that the DNI and the Attorney General believe were damaging to our national security.
HOLDER: Well, one attorney general thought that. I am the Attorney General of the United States, and it is this attorney general’s view that the release of that information was appropriate, as well as the president of the United States. I respect their opinion, but I had to make the decision, holding the office that I now hold.
Watch it:
- Comments
- 163
Rove: Legal ‘Mess’ at Guantanamo Is Obama Administration’s Fault
Rove: Legal ‘Mess’ at Guantanamo Is Obama Administration’s Fault
In his national security speech Thursday, President Obama addressed the controversy being stirred by conservatives over his decision to close Guantanamo. Obama forcefully said that he inherited a legal “mess” that has consumed his administration’s time and energy:
There are 240 people there who have now spent years in legal limbo. In dealing with this situation, we do not have the luxury of starting from scratch. We are cleaning up something that is – quite simply – a mess; a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my Administration is forced to deal with on a constant basis, and that consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.
Yesterday, on the Brian and the Judge radio show, Karl Rove was angered by Obama’s critiques of the Bush administration, and he disputed the fact that the Bush administration had left a “mess” at Guantanamo. When conservative judge Andrew Napolitano noted that Obama “does have a constitutional mess on his hands,” Rove responded by saying that the “mess” is being caused by litigation from Attorney General Eric Holder — who is apparently “arguing against the government”:
ROVE: What’s ironic to me is that yesterday he said “this is a mess that was left to me by my predecessors.” No. This is a mess, to the extent that it is a mess, left to him by his friends and allies like Attorney General Eric Holder. Remember, there are DOJ appointees of this president who are in court arguing against the government’s position on these kind of things. I mean, it is his friends and allies and in some instances, his appointees who are in court arguing for an expansion of the rights of the terrorists and arguing for an end to the military commissions.
Listen here:
It’s unclear what cases Rove is referring to. There has been no litigation on the military commissions since Obama took office in January.
The lingering legal mess at Guantanamo, of course, was created by Bush. Obama now must determine “where to imprison and/or try the remaining approximately 250 Guantanamo detainees, many of whom have already been declared eligible for release.” This is complicated by the fact that multiple detainees have not been able to go to trial because of inadmissible evidence obtained through torture or hearsay. The international community is also encountering similar problems in repatriating Guantanamo detainees. Perhaps worst of all, Bush’s kangaroo courts have produced only three convictions.
As Obama noted Thursday, “the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place.”
Obama: Holder Will Decide Whether To Prosecute Torture Authors, Supports Bipartisan Truth Commission
Obama: Holder Will Decide Whether To Prosecute Torture Authors, Supports Bipartisan Truth Commission
Recently, the White House has sent mixed signals about whether it supports investigations into the Bush administration officials who authored the torture policies.
On Sunday, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said that “those who devised the policies…should not be prosecuted.” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs admitted yesterday the White House was failing to hold anyone “accountable” for torture. However, today the New York Times’ Peter Baker and Scott Shane reported that aides to Obama “did not rule out legal sanctions for the Bush lawyers who developed the legal basis for the use of the techniques.”
In the Oval Office this afternoon, the AP’s Jennifer Loven put the question directly to Obama. He refused to rule out prosecutions of the Bush lawyers who created the legal underpinnings for torture, saying it was a question he would leave up to Attorney General Eric Holder:
OBAMA: The OLC memos that were released reflected in my view us losing our moral bearings. … For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it’s appropriate for them to be prosecuted. With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don’t want to prejudge that.
Obama also tacitly endorsed a bipartisan, Congressional commission to investigate Bush’s torture program. Watch it:
Obama is effectively putting the ball in Holder’s court. Recall, during his Senate confirmation hearing, Holder said that the President cannot “immunize” torture and must enforce the law in all cases:
LEAHY: Do you believe that the president of the United States has authority to exercise a commander-in-chief override and immunize acts of torture? I ask that because we did not get a satisfactory answer from Former Attorney General Gonzales on that.
HOLDER: Mr. Chairman, no one is above the law. The president has a constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. There are obligations that we have as a result of treaties that we have signed — obligations, obviously, in the Constitution. Where Congress has passed a law, it is the obligation of the president, or the commander-in-chief, to follow those laws. [...]
If one looks at the various statutes that have been passed, it is my belief that the president does not have the power that you’ve indicated.
Holder told Katie Couric earlier this month that a special commission investigating torture is something that “Senator Leahy, the people in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the President will ultimately have to decide.” Leahy, Judiciary Committee senators, and Obama have made up their mind. Now, it is up to Holder to ensure that “no one is above the law.”
Obama announces release of Bush-era OLC torture memos.
Obama announces release of Bush-era OLC torture memos.
President Obama announced this afternoon in a written statement that the Justice Department is releasing memos from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) between 2002 and 2005 which “speak to techniques that were used in the interrogation of terrorism suspects.” In his statement, Obama laid out his reasoning for making the memos public and announced that his administration would not seek to prosecute individuals who “who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice”:
First, the interrogation techniques described in these memos have already been widely reported. Second, the previous Administration publicly acknowledged portions of the program – and some of the practices – associated with these memos. Third, I have already ended the techniques described in the memos through an Executive Order. Therefore, withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time. This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past, and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States.
In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world.
Attorney General Eric Holder issued a parallel statement in which he not only promised not to pursue prosecutions but also to provide representation “in any state or federal judicial or administrative proceeding brought against” any CIA employee who acted “reasonably” upon the advice of the OLC. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) responded to the release by reiterating his desire to hold a “Commission of Inquiry” into the Bush administration’s use of torture in order to gain a “thorough accounting of what happened.” Read the memos here.
This release, as well as the decision to ban the use of such techniques in the future, will strengthen both our national security and our commitment to the rule of law and help restore our country's standing in the international community. The legal analysis and some of the techniques in these memos are truly shocking and mark a disturbing chapter in our nation's history.
Holder: Cheney is ‘way off the mark’ to say Obama has made the U.S. less safe.
Holder: Cheney is ‘way off the mark’ to say Obama has made the U.S. less safe.
Last month, Vice President Cheney claimed that President Obama is “making some choices that…raise the risk to the American people of another attack,” referring to Obama’s decisions to close Guantanamo and end torture. Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder responded to Cheney, telling CBS’s Katie Couric that Cheney’s comments were “totally false”:
HOLDER: Well, I think that’s totally false. It’s inconsistent with the facts. … All the things that we’re doing are designed to enhance the safety of the American people. And closing Guantanamo is, in fact, one of those things. It takes away from people who are our enemies. A recruiting tool. It actually makes our relationships with our allies a lot less complicated. If you look at what the president is doing, what this administration is doing in Afghanistan, what we’re doing with regard to Guantanamo, I think the former vice president’s remarks are are way off the mark.
Watch it:
Vice President Biden also said this week that Cheney is “dead wrong,” noting that the “last administration left us in a weaker posture than we’ve been any time since World War II.” Senior Obama adviser David Axelrod said on Sunday that Cheney has not been acting like a “statesman.”
Rush: I’m No Coward On Race, I Stood Up To Media’s ‘Slavish Coverage Of Black Quarterbacks’
Rush: I’m No Coward On Race, I Stood Up To Media’s ‘Slavish Coverage Of Black Quarterbacks’
Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder said that the U.S. has acted as a “nation of cowards” when it comes to discussing the sometimes “awkward and painful” issue of race relations. Today on his radio show, however, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh rejected Holder’s view claiming, “I, El Rushbo, am no coward. … I show bravery on race” by standing up to the media’s “slavish coverage of black quarterbacks”:
LIMBAUGH: I, El Rushbo, am no coward. … In fact, I show bravery on race. I am totally willing to discuss it openly and honestly. How does one show bravery on race as I have? You talk about media bias, you talk about slavish media coverage of Black quarter backs in the National Football League. Then see what happens. Then watch all hell descend upon you from every quarter of this nation’s media. From print to broadcast to internet. … I show bravery on matters of race.
Watch it:
Limbaugh is clearly still bitter about the fact that he was forced to resign from his position as an ESPN commentator in 2003 for claiming that the media were only interested in Philadelphia Eagles Quarterback Donovan McNabb because he is black (despite the fact that McNabb has shown himself to be incredibly talented):
Sorry to say this, I don’t think he’s been that good from the get-go. I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve.
By citing the McNabb episode as a “brave” moment in the history of race-relations, Limbaugh actually reaffirmed Holder’s point. As Holder explained yesterday, discussions surrounding race and public policy in American society ought to be “nuanced, principled and spirited.” But too often, we leave the conversation to “those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own, narrow self interest.”
The result is a de facto acceptance and even endorsement of Limbaugh’s repeated race-based outbursts and criticism of public officials who choose to speak out.
Holder: America is a ‘nation of cowards’ on racial matters.
Holder: America is a ‘nation of cowards’ on racial matters.
Today, Attorney General Eric Holder spoke at the Justice Department in honor of Black History Month. As the first African-American leading the DOJ, he called for a national dialogue on race — something the United States has generally avoided:
Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial, we have always been, and we, I believe, continue to be, in two many ways, a nation of cowards. Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issue in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about things racial. [...]
And we, in this room, bear a special responsibility. Through its work and through its example, the Department of Justice — this Department of Justice — as long as I’m here, must and will leave the nation to the new birth of freedom so long ago promised by our greatest president. This is our duty, this is our solemn responsibility.
Holder’s remarks are a refreshing break from the Bush administration, during which Justice Department officials allowed conservative political interests to trump civil rights concerns. Watch Holder’s speech here.
Obama Justice Department Re-Hires Attorney Fired By Goodling Because Of Lesbian Rumor
Obama Justice Department Re-Hires Attorney Fired By Goodling Because Of Lesbian Rumor
In October 2006, Leslie Hagen, who was working as the liaison between the Justice Department and the U.S. attorneys’ committee on Native American issues, was informed that despite her “outstanding” job performance reviews, her contract would not be renewed. In April 2008, NPR reported that the Justice Department was investigating whether Hagen was fired after a rumor reached former Justice Department official Monica Goodling that she was a lesbian.
When the DoJ Inspector General report on Goodling was released in July 2008, it concluded that Goodling was motivated by Hagen’s perceived sexual orientation and “that Goodling’s actions violated Department policy and federal law, and constituted misconduct.”
Last night, however, NPR reported the good news that Obama Justice Department has re-hired Hagen for old position:
Last year, the Justice Department posted Hagen’s old job again. The department conducted a national search. Applications came in from around the country. After several rounds of interviews, Hagen eventually won the job.
The paperwork makes it official as of Monday, Feb. 2. Hagen now has her old position back, but this time it’s a little different. Her contract no longer comes up for renewal every year. Now, the job is permanent.
NPR’s Ari Shapiro notes that “it is not a perfectly happy ending for Hagen” because “nobody official from the department ever apologized to her for what happened” and she still owes thousands of dollars in attorney fees that the Bush Justice Department refused to pay.
Hagen’s rehiring is only the latest move in an effort by President Obama and new Attorney General Eric Holder to provide a “a clean break with the past policies of the Bush administration.” Not only does Holder say that the Department is “no place for political favoritism,” but he is also expected to embark on “a broad doctrinal shift in policies” from the Bush administration.
(HT: Queerty)
Obama’s nominees stuck in the Senate.
Obama’s nominees stuck in the Senate.
The Washington Post’s Al Kamen notes that while President Obama has nominated his top appointees at a record pace, the Senate has been approving them at a slower rate than they did for his predecessors:
But less than two weeks into his presidency, just 17 of the 31 nominees officially announced by the White House have been confirmed by the Senate. [...] By comparison, 19 of Bill Clinton’s nominees were confirmed in his first 10 days in office. George W. Bush, who had a much abbreviated transition because of the Florida recount, had 13 nominees confirmed in the first 10 days, according to an analysis by the Presidential Transition Project at New York University’s Wagner School of Public Service in cooperation with The Washington Post.
Among the key nominees awaiting confirmation are Eric Holder for attorney general and Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA) for Labor Secretary. For example, Senate Republicans have obstructed Holder’s confirmation for 63 days since Obama nominated him on Dec. 1.
Senate Judiciary Committee recommends Holder.
Senate Judiciary Committee recommends Holder.
In a 17-2 vote today, the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended President Obama’s attorney general nominee Eric Holder to the full Senate for consideration. Six Republicans approved Holder, with Tom Coburn (R-OK) and John Cornyn (R-TX) as the only “nay” votes. Yesterday, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) announced that he would support Holder’s nomination, even though he had expressed reservations about the pick and forced Senate Democrats to delay the hearings.
Levin: I’ve Suggested To Eric Holder That He Should Appoint An Independent Investigator On Torture
Levin: I’ve Suggested To Eric Holder That He Should Appoint An Independent Investigator On Torture
Responding to a question earlier this month, President Obama didn’t rule out the possibility of appointing a special prosecutor to “independently investigate” the “greatest crimes” committed by the Bush administration. But he said that his “orientation” was “to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.” Congressional Democrats, such Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), have said that Congress should continue to investigate Bush’s torture policies regardless of Obama’s plans.
At the Progressive Media Summit on Capitol Hill yesterday, Marcy Wheeler asked Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), the chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, about congressional plans to continue investigating torture. “There needs to be, I believe, an accounting of torture in this country,” replied Levin. He then said that he had suggested to Attorney General-nominee Eric Holder that he appoint “an outside person who’s got real credibility” to continue to investigate:
LEVIN: We’re going to try to complete this investigation, at least on the DoD side, Ok. But on the intelligence, the CIA side, that’s going to be up to the Intelligence Committe. I know I suggested to Eric Holder, who will be the next Attorney General despite the delay that took place today, that he select some people or hire an outside person whose got real credibility, perhaps a retired federal judge, to take all the available information, and there’s reams of it.
Watch it:
In December 2008, Levin’s committee released the executive summary of an investigation into the Bush administration’s detainee policy, which concluded that top Bush administration officials “bore major responsibility for the abuses committed by American troops in interrogations.” Levin said yesterday that the full report would be released “in the next couple of weeks.”
Transcript: More »
Cornyn delays Holder’s confirmation to make sure Bush administration isn’t prosecuted for torture.
Cornyn delays Holder’s confirmation to make sure Bush administration isn’t prosecuted for torture.
In his confirmation hearing, Attorney General nominee Eric Holder unequivocally declared that “waterboarding is torture” and has signaled a willingness to investigate Bush officials. But torture advocate Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) is holding up the nomination because he wants to know exactly whether Holder will pursue criminal prosecutions of “intelligence personnel” involved in torture.
“It could well be there will be a request to delay the markup for a week so those questions can be asked and answered,” Cornyn said. “Part of my concern relates to his statements at the hearing with regard to torture and what his intentions are toward our intelligence personnel who were operating in good faith based on their understanding of what the law was.”
Cornyn’s Absurd Hypothetical For Holder: What If Waterboarding Were Your Only Interrogation Option?
Cornyn’s Absurd Hypothetical For Holder: What If Waterboarding Were Your Only Interrogation Option?
During his confirmation hearing today, Attorey General nominee Eric Holder unequivocally rejected torture. “No one is above the law,” Holder said repeatedly during the hearing.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) could not fathom that an Attorney General would reject a practice that both is unlawful and endangers Americans. He tried to get Holder to back off his anti-torture stance by presenting an absurd “ticking time bomb” hypothetical in which thousands of American lives are at stake. “You would still refuse to condone aggressive interrogation techniques?” Cornyn asked. When Holder replied that waterboarding is not the only interrogation method, Cornyn insisted, “Assume that it was”:
HOLDER: I think your hypothetical assumes a premise that I’m not willing to concede.
CORNYN: I know you don’t like my hypothetical.
HOLDER: No, the hypothetical’s fine; the premise that underlies it I’m not willing to accept, and that is that waterboarding is the only way that I could get that information from those people.
CORNYN: Assume that it was.
HOLDER: [Laughs] Given the knowledge that I have about other techniques and what I’ve heard from retired admirals and generals and FBI agents, there are other ways in a timely fashion that you can get information out of people that is accurate and will produce useable intelligence. And so it’s hard for me to accept or to answer your hypothetical without accepting your premise. And in fact, I don’t think I can do that.
Watch it:
A few minutes later, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) identified where Cornyn most likely thought up his torture-is-the-only-option scenario: “I understand Senator Cornyn’s questions. They are questions that anyone who watches Jack Bauer on ‘24′ would ask.”
Intelligence officials have repeatedly rejected the idea of a ticking time bomb scenario. Jack Cloonan, who spent 25 years as an FBI special agent and interrogated members of al Qaeda, said that he has “been hard pressed to find a situation where anybody” can say “that they’ve ever encountered the ticking bomb scenario” when interrogating terrorists. He said it is a “red herring” and “[i]n the real world it doesn’t happen.”
One law professor, who has extensively researched interrogation, said she had heard of only one ticking time bomb scenario. “It’s on the show ‘24.’ And that’s the only one I know of.”
Transcript: More »
Holder breaks with Mukasey, says ‘waterboarding is torture.’
Holder breaks with Mukasey, says ‘waterboarding is torture.’
In October 2007, during his confirmation hearings, Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused to call waterboarding torture and to this day has not called it torture. In his confirmation hearing today, Attorney General nominee Eric Holder clearly said that he believes waterboarding is torture:
HOLDER: If you look at the history of the use of that technique, used by the Khmer Rouge, used in the Inquisition, used by the Japanese and prosecuted by us as war crimes. We prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, waterboarding is torture.
In another break with Bush administration officials, Holder said other countries would be violating international law if they waterboarded U.S. citizens. Watch it:
Holder also said that the President cannot immunize officials who committed acts of torture. “No one is above the law,” he stated.
Specter Knocks Leahy For Predicting Holder Confirmation Despite His Own Similar Conduct On Ashcroft
Specter Knocks Leahy For Predicting Holder Confirmation Despite His Own Similar Conduct On Ashcroft
This morning, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) took to right-wing talk radio to continue his politically-motivated crusade against President-elect Obama’s Attorney General designate Eric Holder. Appearing on Bill Bennett’s Morning In America, Specter complained that Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) had declared his support for Holder’s appointment before the confirmation hearings had even begun. Additionally, Specter took issue with Leahy’s recent prediction that Holder would be confirmed:
BENNETT: Do you have confidence that the Democrats on your committee will look at [Holder's record] honestly? [...]
SPECTER: I think they will be strongly inclined to confirm him regardless. … Sen Leahy has said that he “guarantees” the confirmation of Holder.
BENNETT: Well, how can you say that ahead of time?
SPECTER: Well I can’t say that ahead of time. I wouldn’t and haven’t.
Specter said further, “I think it’s very important for people in my position to deal on a factual basis and a professional basis and not to make up my mind in advance. That is what a hearing is for.” Listen here:
Specter’s dismay at Leahy’s prediction is ironic, considering his past statements. On December 24, 2000, two days after then President-elect Bush announced that he had selected John Ashcroft for Attorney General and three weeks before Ashcroft’s confirmation hearings, Specter went on Face the Nation and confidently predicted that Ashcroft would be confirmed by the Senate:
SCHEIFFER: Senator Specter, you’re on the Judiciary Committee. Can John Ashcroft be confirmed?
SPECTER: Yes, I think he can be, and will be. I think the president is entitled to great latitude in the selection of his Cabinet officers. And I know John Ashcroft very well. He’s a first-rate lawyer. He was attorney general of Missouri.
Additionally, Specter’s emphasis today on the import of senators not making up their minds “in advance” of confirmation is disingenuous considering that fact that he decided to vote to confirm Ashcroft before that set of hearings began. A day before Ashcoft’s hearings began on January 16, 2001, Specter told a reporter for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “I’ve said publicly that unless something comes up which is extraordinary, that I do intend to vote for him.”
Similarly, on January 17, 2001, Wolf Blitzer asked Specter, “you have made up your mind, basically, already, haven’t you?” Specter responded, “I have said that unless something unusual happens, I will support John Ashcroft.”
Specter appears increasingly alone in his opposition to Holder’s confirmation. Today, former judiciary committee chair Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) announced his support for Holder. Other prominent conservatives backing Holder include former Solicitor General Ted Olsen, former Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR), and former Deputy Attorneys General Jim Comey and Paul Mcnulty.
Kyl Falsely Claims Holder Doesn’t Support Patriot Act, Says He Shouldn’t Be AG If He’s Against Torture
Kyl Falsely Claims Holder Doesn’t Support Patriot Act, Says He Shouldn’t Be AG If He’s Against Torture
Conservatives, led by former Bush adviser Karl Rove, are hoping to use the upcoming confirmation hearing of Eric Holder, President-elect Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, to “lay down a marker” that will show they “they can remain relevant” after their electoral losses. Though GOP opposition is mainly focusing on Holder’s role in the pardon of Marc Rich, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) claimed yesterday that Holder’s views on terrorism laws will be an issue too.
Speaking to right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt, Kyl said that Holder had made “some very unfortunate statements about our interrogation” of terrorists, which made him think “he is not going to be supportive of the Patriot Act [and] the FISA law.” Kyl claimed this may be reason to oppose his nomination:
KYL: I think Eric Holder will have some problems. He has not been able to stand up to his bosses in the past, President Clinton when he wanted to do pardons that I think Holder must have realized were big mistakes but he facilitated. And he’s also made some very unfortunate statements about our interrogation of prisoners, terrorists, and other things that lead me to believe that he is not going to be supportive of the Patriot Act, the FISA law, and others. And if he can’t be supportive of those laws, then he shouldn’t be Attorney General.
Listen here:
Though it’s true that Holder has spoken out strongly against the excesses of the Bush administration, Kyl simply has his facts wrong about Holder’s position on the Patriot Act. In 2004, Holder told CNN that he doesn’t question “the need for the Patriot Act.” At the same time, Holder believes that enforcement of the law needs oversight:
HOLDER: I think in a lot of ways, the problem that I had with the enforcement of the act is that this administration said essentially trust us. We’re not going to involve judges, we’re not going to report to Congress on what we’re doing, and I think our history has shown us that we are best when we operate as people governed by the law as opposed to putting our trust in people and that’s the problem I have.
As for Holder’s views on FISA, he’s on the record opposing President Bush’s bypassing of the law, saying in June that he never thought he “would see that a President would act in direct defiance of Federal law by authorizing warentless NSA surveillance of American citizens.”
Apparently, Holder’s belief that “we are best when we operate as people governed by the law” is reason enough for Kyl to oppose Holder’s nomination to be the nation’s chief enforcer of the law.
Former Pardon Attorney Who Was Transferred For Racist Remark Now Critical Of Holder
Former Pardon Attorney Who Was Transferred For Racist Remark Now Critical Of Holder
Earlier this week, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), issued what the New York Times characterized as a “broad attack” on President-elect Obama’s Attorney General Designate Eric Holder. Specter argued that Holder’s role in several pardons at the end of the Clinton Administration call into question his “character.” The AP explained what may be the real motives behind that attack, writing, “Holder is the liberal face of nominees to come as Obama remakes the federal judiciary, and possibly the Supreme Court.”
Still, critics of Holder are publicly couching their often vaguely defined objections to his nomination in terms of Clinton-era pardon and clemency decisions. The LA Times, for example, reports today that Roger Adams, the Justice Department’s pardon attorney from 1997-2008, is suggesting that Holder’s support for granting clemency to several Puerto Rican nationalists was inappropriate:
“I remember this well, because it was such a big deal to consider clemency for a group of people convicted of such heinous crimes,” said Adams, the agency’s top pardon lawyer from 1997 until 2008. He said he told Holder of his “strong opposition to any clemency in several internal memos and a draft report recommending denial” and in at least one face-to-face meeting. But each time Holder wasn’t satisfied, Adams said.
Holder’s support for granting clemency was backed by former President Jimmy Carter and several religious groups because the length of the sentences were viewed as excessive. At the time of their release, the nationalists had already served 19 years in prison. Additionally, in 1999, Adams defended the clemency process in that case before Congress.
But Adams isn’t the best character witness against Holder. Earlier this year, the Justice Department’s Inspector General found that Adams allowed his racial prejudices to influence his decision in a recent pardon case:
[The Inspector General found that] Adams acted improperly in describing a drug convict applying for a pardon as “about as honest as you could expect for a Nigerian.” “Unfortunately, that’s not very honest,” Adams allegedly told a co-worker, according to the inspector general’s December 2007 report. [...]
“We believe that Adams’ comments - and his use of nationality in the decision-making process - were inappropriate,” the report concluded. “We were extremely troubled by Adams’ belief that an applicant’s ‘ethnic background’ was something that should be an ‘important consideration’ in a pardon decision.”
For his racist statements, Adams was transferred out of his position early last year. Given Adams’s history of racism with regard to clemency decisions, his criticisms of Holder should not be accepted uncritically.
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.”
Bush’s former deputy attorney general: ‘Eric Holder should be confirmed.’
Bush’s former deputy attorney general: ‘Eric Holder should be confirmed.’
Recently, conservatives have been rallying behind Karl Rove’s call to obstruct Attorney General nominee Eric Holder’s confirmation hearings, citing the 2001 pardon of Marc Rich. Today, former deputy attorney general Jim Comey, who famously clashed with the Bush administration on illegal wiretapping, endorsed Holder, saying he will ensure that the DOJ is free from political influence:
I know a lot of good people who have made significant mistakes. I think Mr. Holder’s may actually make him a better steward of the Department of Justice because he has learned a hard lesson about protecting the integrity of that great institution from political fixers. I’m not suggesting errors of judgment are qualification for high office, but in this case, where the nominee is a smart, decent, humble man, who knows and loves the Department and has demonstrated his commitment to the rule of law across an entire career, the error should not disqualify him. Eric Holder should be confirmed as Attorney General.
Responding to GOP complaints, Leahy reschedules Holder hearing.
Responding to GOP complaints, Leahy reschedules Holder hearing.
In recent weeks, GOP senators have been balking over the scheduled Jan. 8 confirmation hearings for Eric Holder, President-elect Obama’s nominee for attorney general. Following the lead of Karl Rove, these senators have been claiming that they need more time to prepare their attacks on Holder. Today, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) announced that he has decided to postpone the hearings one week until Jan. 15:
The Committee has not yet received the names of other designees for high-ranking Department of Justice officials that we had anticipated and more time is now available to the Judiciary Committee. Therefore, to accommodate the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, at their request we are delaying the hearing, again, until January 15. The Assistant Republican Leader said last year that ‘attorney general nominees have been confirmed, on average, in approximately three weeks.’
Nonetheless, in order to accommodate the Republicans members, I am rescheduling the hearing on Mr. Holder for twice that long, until more than six weeks after his official designation. It is disappointing to me that they are insisting that we delay at a time when the nation needs its top law enforcement officer and national security team in place and working. I trust that with this additional time to prepare, they will cooperate in proceeding promptly to Committee and Senate consideration of the historic Holder nomination as Democrats did for President Bush.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll