The confirmation of Eric Holder, Jr. is running into some trouble with the planned appearance of witnesses about his role in some of the infamous pardons by Bill Clinton. Some of the greatest abuse of the pardon power occurred in the final week of the Clinton administration, including his use of official power to benefit a family member with the pardon of Roger Clinton. Ironically, however, it is not the most abusive pardons that is attracting the ire of Republicans.
It is hard to feel sympathy of Clinton officials who assisted in the pardons of Roger Clinton, Marc Rich and others. The pardoning of campaign contributors and a family member was shameful abuse of power by Clinton. Holder should be questioned about his role in these abuses. I would personally like to know if Holder was aware of the Roger Clinton pardon and sought to discourage the President in the use of official power to benefit his own family or whether he raised questions on the other pardons like Marc Rich — who seems completely without a meritorious basis for a pardon.
However, the GOP is focusing on the 1999 grant of clemency to members of a Puerto Rican terrorist organization, which was not viewed as abusive but simply unpopular. Former pardon attorney, Roger Adams, has gone public with allegations that Holder pressured staff to drop their opposition to the pardon. However, there was nothing in this pardon (supported by members of Congress, religious groups and President Carter) that was done for personal or political gain — unlike Clinton’s other pardons.
It just shows that politicians can accidentally stumble on an issue of merit and find the one issue that involves not principle but politics.
For the full story, click here
Here is part of what JT said in his interview with Legal Times:
“Eric Holder should be asked the same question that Mukasey refused to answer in his confirmation hearing: is waterboarding a crime? If he refuses to answer or denies that it is a crime, he should not be confirmed. If he admits that it is a crime, he should order a criminal investigation.
““This is precisely why Mukasey refused to answer the question (after first stating implausibly that he did not know what waterboarding is). The appearance around the world of not only a presumptive war crime but our continued debate over whether to investigate is destroying any credibility left after eight years of controversy. The rule of law demands that crimes be investigated equally for crimes equally whether they are committed by the lowest and the highest in our society.”
Here’s a link to an early discussion of Holder, both some very good aspects and some very scary aspects of his opinions (ie; detainee rights and abuse) written in Nov. by Glen Greenwald. JT also address some info on him under ‘Self fulfilling legal…” (in the search box) in his article for Legal Times.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/19/holder/
bell,
No more, one (1) was enough.
Caveat: a person must never immediately trust MSM or other news sources without in-depth verifications. The honesty and ethicalness of the 1950s/60s news media is extinct.
Former Federal LEO,
When will you be posting some more Hamas propaganda links?
Rafflaw & Mike S.
Later on, I will reply with further discussion regarding our philosophical differences of Clinton’s lack of presidential character rather than questioning any substantive differences we might have concerning Mr. Obama.
The important aspect now is that we all voted for Mr. Obama and we must ensure that his administration does not follow the same disastrous demagogic path of unchallenged partisan ideologies that many of the past public officials have followed that resulted in the ruinous financial and infrastructure declines we are experiencing.
Rafflaw,
I agree, too much of politics on both sides of the aisle has become like rooting for the hometown football team and for most people that usually requires the suspension of disbelief.
FFLEO,
I must admit that I know little about Mr. Holder, but the fact that Karl Rove and the gang want to make his nomination a big deal actually adds luster to him in my eyes. Now I admit, knowing little, that even knaves and fools like the Rovian bunch could get something tight, sometime, but it is hard for me to trust their altruism.
As for Bill Clinton, I wasn’t then and am not now a fan of him or his Presidency. Where we might part company was in the fact that the Lewinsky Affair, pathetic as his part was, is just the continuation of the Washington Go Round of Adultery that seems to characterize men so empowered by ego. Many of his congressional inquisitors were also carrying on adulterous affairs, exploitative relationships, or hiding their homosexuality in the closet. JFK’s exploits alone make Clinton a sexual piker and LBJ wasn’t far behind.
My problem with Clinton began with “don’t ask don’t tell.” Forgetting for a minute one’s pro or con feeling about the policy (I fall on the side of The Spartans, among the greatest warriors in history), his immediate surrender on his own campaign commitments showed his opponents and supporters like me, that he was to be a weak president. Hilary’s health care disaster, phony welfare reform and caving in on other key issues led directly to the Republican’s retaking the house, the ascendancy of Gingrich, Lott and DeLay (three of the slimiest pols in US history) and the election of G.W. Bush, who has created the nadir of Presidencies. In the end Clinton’s another self-serving egotist, who just happens to choose the Democratic Party as his home team.
On the other hand though his takedown by the Washington establishment was based on social class and so was equally disgraceful. As you can guess I was never a Hilary supporter.
Mike,
Your last sentence is a good one. It has always amazed me that so many people would vote against their own best interests during the Bush years. Even when you point out to them that they will not benefit by the tax cut for the wealthy, for example, they still just don’t want to admit that they voted the wrong way. I think the real reason is that they do not know what their candidate stands for and do not bother to investigate the plans by any candidate and they do not want to admit that they voted for the wrong person or that they were unintelligent in their review of the candidates. I think it becomes a pride issue, more than anything. I voted for the winner so that is all that matters, is the mentality at work for the “have less” Republicans.
Bell,
Ringing in the New Year with more Bush loving platitudes and Democrat put downs. Just another gutless right winger hiding behind his alias and taking potshots fed to him by the likes of Fox News, Karl Rove and Grover Norquist. what’s so pathetic about you is that you belief that you’re having so much fun getting under our skins. The reality is that we, both the liberal and conservative contributors to this site just see you for the pathetic person you are. You’ve been deluded into believing that an administration of draft dodgers somehow has the capacity to protect us, while all they’re doing is manipulating your fear for their profit. The most honest thing George W. Bush said was at a Texas fundraiser a few years back. He looked at the crowd with his usual smirky smile and said “Some people call ya’all the Haves and Have-Mores, I call you my base.” Somehow I doubt that you’re one of the “Haves, or “Have-Mores,” but you nevertheless represent his other base which are those less than wealthy people, who have allowed themselves to be deluded into acting against their own best interests.
So, bell, that should make you happy and more excited about Obama’s Presidency, yes? Otherwise, you’re in the position of bitching regardless of what he does or says which makes you a troll.
As for me, I don’t think too may folks are worried about it one way or the other. I think Congressmn Conyers and Wexler will have something to say about the matter. The fact is that Obama is IN and the evil-doers and many of their Congressional and Senate cabal are OUT. Ahhhhhh! It feels great to have our country back.
LOL! Did you see Obama on Stephanoupolis this AM! He is back pedaling from EVERY campaign statement he made, including “torture”. Stephanoupolis read the following statement Cheney made and Obama said he would pay particular attention to the advice:
“If I had advice to give it would be, before you (Obama) start to implement your campaign rhetoric, you need to sit down and find out precisely what it is we did and how we did it, because it is going to be vital to keeping the nation safe and secure in the years ahead,” Cheney told CBS Radio.
Obama was also flustered when asked what directives he would give the CIA and interrogation. He replied along the line that obviously he doesn’t want to endanger the country by causing CIA operatives to have to continually look behind their back.
Mespo,
Amen brother!
“Eric Holder is another totally corrupt Democrat. He should not be the AG of the United States of America.”
**********
Even if true this would not disqualify him from the AG’s job. Look at Alberto Gonzalez. Corruption and disregard for law were written into the job description by Bush’s doppelganger Monica Doodling, er make that, Goodling.
Former FEd,
I have to respectfully take exception to one of the things you said. I do not agree with Clinton’s pardon of Rich or his half brother, but to say that he destroyed the honor of the presidency is way beyond reality. Whether you are suggesting it was the few pardons that were the culprit or the BJ with Monica or lying about he BJ, are they more of a disgrace to the Presidency than lying the country into a war that has killed 4500 plus soldiers and countless civilians? Isn’t it more of a disgrace to the country that Bush still says he authorized waterboarding and that it isn’t torture? Inherent in your decision to not vote for anything Democratic, notwithstanding the qualifications of the respective candidates, is the backlash that you are talking about. Would the commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence be “unpardonable”?
All I am suggesting here is that before we get riled up over pardons, I think we should be more concerned about the bigger issues. The issues of protecting the Constitution and representing the people and not the President. Will Holder protect the Constitution and the people? That would be what I would be more concerned about. That doesn’t mean the pardons of any President are not unimportant, but they should not be the main focus. By focusing on the pardons, the neocons are steering us away from the major crimes of the Bush regime. The Libby pardon and some others may be the reason why the Republicans are trying to hang their hats on the Puerto Rican nationalist’s pardons. Ignore the War Crime President behind the curtain, and get me the wicked witch of the pardons.
bell, you are obviously cracked and your clapper is spewing claptrap that is not ringing true.
Professor Turley always provides a link to the full story which all of the literate and open-minded readers of this blawg access for more detail. The information within this blawg is space limited and Turley adds his wit to the articles that are not part of the original full story. If you do not or cannot understand the process, then your bell is cracked and fouled up beyond repair.
Regarding the topic, I do not like Mr. Holder and I think Mr. Obama could find a more honest, ethical, and acceptable AG.
Mr. Clinton destroyed the honor of the presidency, became a salacious joke, and most critically by his actions, he set the stage for the religious backlash that allowed the election of the disastrous Mr. Bush.
Clinton’s pardon decisions were unpardonable and Mr. Holder could have strongly opposed and advised against those decisions. Mr. Holder was a key player in the Clinton White House ‘legacy’. I would have voted for Mr. Gore, but like many other voters, I was thoroughly disgusted by Clinton and all things Democratic.
I find it interesting how when reading Turley’s news notes he changes a word here and there and otherewise manages to interwine his left wing demented agenda into the article.
rafflaw,
That is a good question and I think JT’s query would answer it. He wants a straight answer to this question; is waterboarding torture?
I have seen some articles suggesting that Holder is not qualified because of these pardon issues. In light of our past experience with Gonzo and Mukasey, my only question in the hearing room would be will Holder represent the People or the president? We don’t need any more yes men like Gonzo and Mukasey. They have turned the Constitution on its ear and they both need to spend some quality time preparing for the defense of their felony charges.
I think we should set up a pool to see who can guess the “name” of the next Troll will be. I think the next Troll should be named Gomer. When I see the latest troll named “Bell” I think of the character from “Paper Chase” who was named Bell. Even a troll would not want to be named after that heel.
“It just shows that politicians can accidentally stumble on an issue of merit and find the one issue that involves not principle but politics.”
———————————————————————–
This sums up not only politicians but our press at this time. When it comes to constantly missing what’s important and focusing on the tangential or celebrity realated issues, “I don’t believe in accidents”. This is a consistent and dangerous pattern. It seems they all follow the DOD manual on civilian psy-ops– FOCUS ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE MEANINGFUL ISSUES. If ever there was a time for hard hitting investigation, this would be it. Surrealistically, this is no where in sight.
Eric Holder is another totally corrupt Democrat. He should not be the AG of the United States of America.
I find it interesting how when reading Turley’s news notes he changes a word here and there and otherewise manages to interwine his left wing demented agenda into the article.
This is sort of like the Bush Administration announcing that 5, not 4 as previously reported, terrorists had been subject to harsh interrogation. Then adding to the report the increase was due to a redefinition of harsh interrogation and not suddenly finding their numbers were wrong.
the Turley Olbermann Maddow take on this would be “Bush Administration now tells us 25 PERCENT more detainees had been tortured than previously reported!” Then they would switch to Tom Wolf of Newsweek who would say “The world is stunned by this revelation and the outrage is pouring in”.
See what a word or two can do and Turley does it consistanly here.