Here is today’s column in USA Today calling for the firing of Attorney General Eric Holder (I have added a couple lines removed in editing). Holder is not the only individual who needs to leave federal office but he is the first. Equally responsible are his deputy, James Cole, and Ronald Machen Jr., the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia who played critical roles in the investigation of journalists with Associated Press and Fox News. Notably, Obama reportedly “fired” IRS Director Steve Miller (who was reportedly already leaving) over the IRS scandal though there is no indication of any knowledge on his part. In Holder’s case, he was personally involved in targeting journalists (in the Fox case) and launched an attack on the media that has been condemned by a wide array of public interest and media groups. Yet, Holder has been asked to hold a simple meeting with aggrieved media representatives by Obama.
Recently, Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to answer questions about the administration’s sweeping surveillance of journalists with the Associated Press. In the greatest attack on the free press in decades, the Justice Department seized phone records for reporters and editors in at least three AP offices as well as its office in the House of Representatives. Holder, however, proceeded to claim absolute and blissful ignorance of the investigation, even failing to recall when or how he recused himself.
Yet, this was only the latest attack on the news media under Holder’s leadership. Despite his record, he expressed surprise at the hearing that the head of the Republican National Committee had called for his resignation. After all, Holder pointed out, he did nothing. That is, of course, precisely the point. Unlike the head of the RNC, I am neither a Republican nor conservative, and I believe Holder should be fired.
The ‘sin eater’
Holder’s refusal to accept responsibility for the AP investigation was something of a change for the political insider. His value to President Obama has been his absolute loyalty. Holder is what we call a “sin eater” inside the Beltway — high-ranking associates who shield presidents from responsibility for their actions. Richard Nixon had H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman. Ronald Reagan had Oliver North and Robert “Bud” McFarlane. George W. Bush had the ultimate sin eater: Dick Cheney, who seemed to have an insatiable appetite for sins to eat.
This role can be traced to 18th century Europe, when families would use a sin eater to clean the moral record of a dying person by eating bread from the person’s chest and drinking ale passed over his body. Back then, the ritual’s power was confined to removing minor sins.
For Obama, there has been no better sin eater than Holder. When the president promised CIA employees early in his first term that they would not be investigated for torture, it was the attorney general who shielded officials from prosecution. When the Obama administration decided it would expand secret and warrantless surveillance, it was Holder who justified it. When the president wanted the authority to kill any American he deemed a threat without charge or trial, it was Holder who went public to announce the “kill list” policy.
Last week, the Justice Department confirmed that it was Holder who personally approved the equally abusive search of Fox News correspondent James Rosen’s e-mail and phone records in another story involving leaked classified information. In the 2010 application for a secret warrant, the Obama administration named Rosen as “an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator” to the leaking of classified materials. The Justice Department even investigated Rosen’s parents’ telephone number, and Holder was there to justify every attack on the news media.
Ignoble legacy
Yet, at this month’s hearing, the attorney general had had his fill. Accordingly, Holder adopted an embarrassing mantra of “I have no knowledge” and “I had no involvement” throughout the questioning. When he was not reciting the equivalent to his name, rank and serial number, he was implicating his aide, Deputy Attorney General James Cole. Cole, it appears, is Holder’s sin eater. Holder was so busy denying responsibility for today’s scandals, he began denying known facts about older scandals. For example, Holder was asked about an earlier scandal in his administration in the handling of the “Fast and Furious” program where guns were allowed to be sold to criminal gangs. Holder insisted that Ronald C. Machen Jr., the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, was not told to decline the prosecution of Holder for contempt of Congress after refusing to turn over key documents and that “[Machen] made the determination about what he was going to do on his own.” However, Holder’s deputy, Cole, wrote to Machen to inform him (before the contempt citation even reached his office) that Main Justice “has determined that the Attorney General’s response to the subpoena . . . does not constitute a crime.”
In the end, Holder was the best witness against his continuing in office. His insistence that he did nothing was a telling moment. The attorney general has done little in his tenure to protect civil liberties or the free press. Rather, Holder has supervised a comprehensive erosion of privacy rights, press freedom and due process. This ignoble legacy was made possible by Democrats who would look at their shoes whenever the Obama administration was accused of constitutional abuses.
On Thursday, Obama responded to the outcry over the AP and Fox scandals by calling for an investigation by … you guessed it … Eric Holder. He ordered Holder to meet with news media representatives to hear their “concerns” and report back to him. He sent his old sin eater for a confab with the very targets of the abusive surveillance. Such an inquiry offers no reason to trust its conclusions.
The feeble response was the ultimate proof that these are Obama’s sins despite his effort to feign ignorance. It did not matter that Holder is the sin eater who has lost his stomach or that such mortal sins are not so easily digested. Indeed, these sins should be fatal for any attorney general.
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.
May 29, 2013 USA Today
Furthermore. I think holder should be taken seriously….. He is a liar and a frontman…… He will take an easy out after the meeting with the press…. All psychopaths have varying degrees of intelligence which translates to survival skills…. In my opinion…..
Blouise,
As we’ve discussed…. Jefferson words were basically in vain…. He did not live up to them as the results were different….. Justification based results…
Bob,
Good to see you. Hope all is going well…..
Today, I was driving home…. Behind me was a vehicle equipped with lights etc…. From a distance it looked like a cop SUV….. Not doing anything wrong I just slowed down…. So they could pass…. On the side of it said…Homeland Security Police….. It also had Federal Protection Service….. I don’t know much about the duties and powers of the same…. But isn’t that darn close to a Standing Army….. Just asking your take on it….
pbh:
you have an interesting take on things. Not that I agree but you bring in valid points.
But you seem to be justifying the means by saying but hey everything seems better. For example your take on the use of drones reducing civilian casualties and allowing us to field fewer troops. All good outcomes in themselves but not necessarily the ultimate good. The ultimate good in war is a quick end with a clear victor. War by its nature is immoral in its effect upon people and to try and make it moral by reducing civilian casualties or putting fewer troops in the field merely extends pain and suffering.
We would still be fighting the Civil War if we only used drones and tried to limit or eliminate civilian casualties.
Bron 1, May 29, 2013 at 9:28 pm
Just goin’ Medieval.
pbh
pbh:
I was just joking around, I was curious what a sjambok was.
So now I know. A rather nasty piece for a brutal time in history.
Why did you mention a sjambok and not a whip or a blackjack or billy club?
Bron 1, May 29, 2013 at 9:08 pm
“if PBH is pulling out his sjambok, he is ready to rumble”
The idea is that I would punish my backside, & etc. I would never intend harm upon any other of “God’s” children.
pbh
Bob, Esq. 1, May 29, 2013 at 8:32 pm
“The policies at issue are the same ones (continued and expanded by Obama) that you despised G.W.B. for instituting in the first place.”
I am just not willing to accept this line of argument. It assumes absolutes that are simply not achievable.
Also, I take issue with “expanded”. That is a very equivocal term that could be applied with equal accuracy to the stock market. I could also suggest the term “reduced” which might refer to the number of troops fighting overseas.
Is it possible that you think that the war powers of the President have been “expanded” by his use of drones that kill fewer than a fraction of the civilians that were annihilated by previous, less sophisticated, weapons of war (I’m talking 1,000-maybe versus 100,000-likely) and have enabled our country to “reduce” its international force by some 1,000,000 constantly rotating troops?
pbh
Darren:
if PBH is pulling out his sjambok, he is ready to rumble:
Darren Smith 1, May 29, 2013 at 8:11 pm
“ad asinem”
Gotta say, that one stumps me. I am betting it stumps you too.
“As such, It is no longer worthwhile in conversing with you.”
I am so humiliated. Exsqueeze me while I pull out my sjambok.
My pennance will be watching you limp from the field disarmed and unmanned.
Please, please come back. Come back. Shane.
And tell me why you think that the crimes of Bush and Co. are so much more excusable than the very legal actions of the current elected (twice, by historic majorities, not by USSC fiat) administration.
pbh
“:I am not the one trying to change the strike zone.”
Yes you are Pete.
The policies at issue are the same ones (continued and expanded by Obama) that you despised G.W.B. for instituting in the first place.
pbh brayed:
“Heh. And then you go all ad hominem. Predictable, no?”
~+~
Well that might be the case if I was referring to someone else. But for you it would be more appropriately:
ad asinem
As such, It is no longer worthwhile in conversing with you. Declare your victory all you want. I couldn’t care less arschloch.
Blouise 1, May 29, 2013 at 6:54 pm
“The wikipedia link pbh provided, quoted Jefferson’s words”
Don’t get me started!
pbh
Geeba Geeba 1, May 29, 2013 at 6:58 pm
“What, you don’t like the trade?”
Not in the least.
We could talk about this at some length, but, honestly, i don’t think you have much comprehension of either law, or else you would not compare them so cavalierly.
Not sayin’ you aren’t smart or nothin’.
pbh
Bob, Esq. 1, May 29, 2013 at 6:44 pm
“Please don’t attempt to hide apologetics behind the race card. It is what it is. You’re not supposed to change your calls on balls and strikes simply because it’s ‘your guy’ who’s in there.”
I am not the one trying to change the strike zone. To semi-quote a former Secretary of Defense, “You [play] with the [strikezone] that you have, not with the one that you would like.”
And, if we are going to follow the baseball analogy, I am the one who wants all of the steriod users disqualified. Starting with B v G.
W/R/T race: That’s what I call high and tight. People who exercise their outrage at investigations of the surreptitious disclosure of the classified documents of one adminsitration but look upon prior disclosures by insiders of a prior adminstration with indifference [ie: Valarie Plame] are open to having their motives questioned, I/M/H/O. And if I want to jack them up by tossing out the odd word, well, eat me.
I am much amused by all the angry liberals who complain that Holder has failed the nation by not proceeding against Cheney, et al. I am equally amused by those who insist that he should be impeached for somehow being responsible for a lawful investigation of security leaks.
“the law is all about the categorical imperative.”
I am just as happy to argue absolutes as anyone. But that is not the business of governance. Plato dreamed of philoshper kings. Euripides saw through that ruse.
pbh
Geeba Geeba, I don’t think Holder has to worry about unemployment compensation.. His wife is a prominent DC obstetrician. For all we know, Holder offered to resign and Obama turned him down. Saw that progressive caucus member John Conyers was defending him today as he was attacked by two far right wing republicans. I don’t know if he should resign or not. The press ultimately will have a difficult time siding with Issa and his crew, and that bodes well for Holder’s future if he decides to stay.
Oh I forgot. If you fire Holder we would have to pay for his unemployment. If you ask for his resignation and he declines then he could be put on the shelf while he collects salary on admin leave. Then after a while the govt will figure it out and then release him and get him his unemployment. Sorry.
Darren Smith 1, May 29, 2013 at 6:43 pm
“The fact that you even brought up the “negro” bit is like looking into the eyes of someone and seeing their soul.”
Oh, do forgive me if I read into your selective memorial an imputation of bias against the perfectly legal behavior of the current Holder versus the outright crimes of the prior series of unlawful AGs.
Where is your outrage at the sanction of torture? Oh, my heavens, some irresponsible journal tits have been legally investigated! Off with their heads!
“it is just like being out on the ranch and having to endure the braying.”
Heh. And then you go all ad hominem. Predictable, no?
pbh
Elaine: Thank you. One can usually get away with wordsmithing, i.e. using Aryan instead of (the words you mentioned), and “legacy costs” instead of “unfunded mandates”, just to name a couple.
pbh51: What, you don’t like the trade? I’m just pointing out 2 major headaches that can be rethought from 2 opposing perspectives. One a law that was rushed through to deal with the War on Terrror (now renamed with more wordsmithing) and one a law that was barely passed with unfulfilled promises (lies) rife with unintended consequences that affect both opponents and proponents, that with soon suck up all the expendable cash available that the govt can borrow from the Chinese to the detriment of all other needs we have. All to pass out some minimal hc for people who didn’t pay for it.
I still think it’s a good trade.
“pbh ain’t no troll and when he comes on the board things always get interesting.”
Seconded.