Freeh: Holder Allowed Himself to Be Used

louisfreehholderericFormer FBI Director Louis Freeh testified today that the Marc Rich pardon was “corrupt” and that Attorney General-designate Eric Holder allowed himself “to be used” by the Clinton White House in January 2001. I discussed today’s testimony on Countdown in this segment.

Freeh testified that “The pardon of Marc Rich was a corrupt act” and that President Bill Clinton’s White House staff kept the FBI and Justice Department “in the dark.” He claims that Clinton and his staff “actively conspired” to keep the pardons secret and “went to extraordinary lengths to deceive the attorney general, myself, the Department of Justice and everyone about who was on the secret pardon list.”

It is striking that no one has demanded interviews with Clinton, whose abuse of the pardon power was a disgrace to his office. Once again, it is also striking that no one is asking Holder about the greatest abuse: the use of the pardon power to benefit Clinton’s own brother. Did Holder object to such a use of official power for personal benefit? These are legitimate questions in my view. I am not convinced by Holder’s portrayal of the Rich matter as simply not looking at the file. The Rich pardon stood out as an abuse — as did Roger Clinton’s pardon.

The fact is that Holder has quite a political reputation — one of the concerns about his willingness to investigate and prosecute inconvenient crimes like torture.

For the full story, click here.

21 thoughts on “Freeh: Holder Allowed Himself to Be Used

  1. Any reasonable person should recognize that Mr. Holder is lying about his role in the outrageous Clinton pardons. However, he was a deputy AG and not THE AG, so we should give him a pass on this one ‘big lie’ because all other indicators suggest that he is a decent and highly qualified man who will make a good AG.

    Who among us has not allowed ourselves to be used by someone who was our boss, someone who had authority over us, or with whom we placed our full trust, only to learn that we made a mistake in judgment?
    _________________________________________

    From the link provided:

    {Quote: “But Freeh told senators at Holder’s confirmation that Holder was nevertheless a man of “tremendous integrity” who “will never allow himself again to be put in that position.”

    “The pardon of Marc Rich was a corrupt act,” Freeh said, but was not Holder’s responsibility.” End Quote}.
    _________________________________________

  2. Eric Holder needs to withdraw. He is a crook. Why are you supporting him MR. Turley? You should be on Rachael Maddow & Keith Olbermann DEMANDING that he withdraw his nomination. The fact that you are not doing this means you are just ANOTHER LOW CLASS PARTISAN HACK that is all “do as I say, not as I do”…

    SHAME ON YOUR MR. TURLEY. YOU ARE A PATHETIC PERSON.

  3. pretty girl:

    “The fact that you are not doing this means you are just ANOTHER LOW CLASS PARTISAN HACK…”

    ********************
    Pretty is as pretty does–and says.

  4. Louie “the pot” Freeh would have a lot more credibility on Eric “the kettle” Holder had he been so circumspect during his tenure. With operation Carnivore, his role in suppressing the First Amendment as disclosed in the Zieper v. Metzinger case, and his shoddy investgative work on the Ruby Ridge disaster, he should be calling out noone for graft or favoritism.

  5. Got to agree with mespo on this one. Freeh is not one to talk about protecting anyone’s liberties or what is proper.

  6. Pretty girl has an empty head. Did you read what Professor Turley wrote above? He IS questioning Holder’s fitness to serve as AG.

    Talk about pathetic …

  7. Mojo: Like you have what it takes to keep ANY girl happy. Maybe you can keep the boys happy, but not the girls.

    As far as the sliime ball Holder:

    Mr. TURLEY NEEDS TO GO ON HIS FAVORITE (BUT HE GETS PAID) TV SHOW AND BLAST ERIC HOLDER OR HE IS JUST ANOTHER STUPID PARTISAN HACK. HE NEEDS TO DEMAND THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT HOLDER ON THE RACHAEL MADDOW AND KEITH OLBERMANN SHOW AND IF HE DOESN’T HE IS JUST ANOTHER TWO BIT PARTISAN DO AS I SAY DON’T DO AS I DO PARTISAN HACK. But we all know he won’t because he values the $350 per show he gets paid to sit and spew the slime ball lines that he does.

  8. Mr. Freeh, a Phi Beta Kappa with a LL.M. degree in criminal law who then resigned from the FBI “amid criticism that the FBI needed stronger leadership” falls within that enigma category of the highest honors individuals with somewhat flawed characters (my opinion).

    I watched his ‘testimony’ today on C-Span in support of Mr. Holder. He was very direct, he did not back away from any questions, and he spoke well of Mr. Holder.

    Virtually every law enforcement agency supports Holder and there is no reason why he should not be confirmed as AG.

  9. Pretty girl has foul mouth,and is likely not even a girl. By the way what is it that Mojo would need to keep a girl like you happy? Diamonds? A dictionary? Removing your “Caps Lock” Key?

  10. pretty dumb –

    Who said anything about trying to make you happy? You sound about as feminine as the psycho from ‘Silence of the Lambs’.

    “Precious … Precious!”

    I won’t distract you. I’ll let you get back to making your girl-suit.

  11. I just viewed tonight’s Olbermann video and he replayed the exchange between Leahy and Holder.

    Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy asked Mr. Holder “do you agree with me that waterboarding is torture “AND illegal”. What surprised me was that Mr. Holder agreed that waterboarding was torture; however, he did not say that it was illegal (as Leahy asked). His omission to the second part of Leahy’s question could have been a simple oversight, although perhaps not.

    Of course, we all know that it is illegal because we also knew it was torture. However, we needed the chief legal officer of the U.S. to state that waterboarding was (is) illegal—for the official record—after he acknowledged that was torture.

  12. FFLEO –

    I noticed that too in Holder’s treatment of the question and how he cited a number of examples of past water-boarding methods throughout history. I also wondered why a simple yes or no was not given to the question rather than the lengthy review.

    However, if he did agree that is was torture, and it is understood that under U.S. law torture is illegal, then there is little or no room to wiggle out of prosecuting these illegal acts unless he intends to be the second-coming of Alberto Gonzalez and simply ignore the law in the vain hope that nobody notices …

  13. There was a very interesting article in the paper today, strongly suggesting that Marc Rich’s pardon was pushed through at the strong urging of the Isreali government. Apparently he was a Mossad asset.

    So rather than being pardoned because of large contributions given to Clinton by Rich’s socialite wife, it appears the pardon was really carried out because it was felt that the interests of Isreali intelligence where more important than the integrity of the White House.

    So, I’m expecting a flurry of troll posts in the following days defending Rich, Holder, and the Clintons.

  14. Mojo et al.

    From my experiences as a public servant in the federal government and in retirement, ensuring documentation of ‘testimony’ and/or facts within the administrative record is critically important. If the government ‘affords’ you the ‘permission’ to sue that entity, then the administrative record is vital. Everything else not ‘in the record’ that might be crucial to a case is just ‘extra-record’ evidence or fact and therefore not legally relevant; except possibly as somewhat limited value within a potential amicus curiae brief that courts often frown on and that defendants/plaintiffs often complain about and often request the court’s exclusion of such ‘extra-record’ attempts at justice. Therefore, regardless of how trivial something might appear—such as Holder’s not specifically stating that torture is illegal—it is vital to ensure that such specific statements are entered in the record and I am surprised that Senator Leahy did not seek a declarative statement of illegality from Mr. Holder ‘for the record’. Otherwise, we can only ‘assume’ that Mr. Holder considers waterboarding illegal by simple deductive logic alone.

    Assumptions, logical reasoning, and scientific facts are often not legally relevant, especially in a legal case v. a factual case. I learned this the extremely hard way because courts of law give deference to government defendants when facts are involved, regardless if those governmental “facts” have demonstrative falseness, inconclusiveness, biasedness, or if the rebuttal/refutations of the facts emanate from an experienced authority who is not employed by the government. A judge will confer deference to a neophyte, no-nothing, and perhaps disingenuous governmental civil servant in uniform over a highly experienced and credentialed nongovernmental expert.

    I think that some thoughtful and careful congressperson must get Mr. Holder’s direct and unequivocal statement entered into the ‘official record’ that as an experienced lawyer and a former federal judge, that he ‘knows’—not believes—that waterboarding is illegal, in addition to his previous confirmation—submitted for the official record—that waterboarding is torture.

    I am not a lawyer; as a nonprofessional, I welcome any rebuttal, corrections, or expounding regarding what I have posited as my understanding of legal deference, the administrative record, extra-record evidence and/or facts, the importance of definitive and unambiguous declaratives for the official record, or any other legal points I might have misstated above. I derived my experience of those legal aspects from personal involvement while confronting violations of environmental rules, regulations, and law committed by the federal government to which I dedicated my career.

  15. I still think this has to do with liability exposure…

    (see WPO link)

    ——————————–
    Patty C 1, April 5, 2008 at 8:02 pm

    Don’t you find it interesting that CIA Director Hayden now wants to provide insurance policies so as to remove the concern of exposure to future litigation – “take that off the table”, so that in the future, agents and new hires won’t have to question if their actions in the field are legal or not.

    Huh?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/washington/20lawyers.html?_r=1&ex=1358485200&en=7cbf5132f0704efd&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

    In Legal Cases, C.I.A. Officers Turn to Insurer
    WASHINGTON — When Jose A. Rodriguez Jr. came under investigation for ordering the destruction of Central Intelligence Agency interrogation videotapes, one of his first calls was to a small Virginia insurance company that thrives on government trouble.

    Like a growing number of C.I.A. employees, Mr. Rodriguez, former head of the agency’s clandestine service, had bought professional liability insurance from Wright & Company. The firm, founded in 1965 by a former F.B.I. agent, is now paying his mounting legal bills…

  16. Patty C:

    I’m watching the Obama train come into the station, and hoping that Bush & Cheney might be going out of town on a rail.

Comments are closed.