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
Me: “There is no such thing as a general federal police power”
Pbh: Article One, Section Eight.
Wrong Pete. There is no specifically enumerated police power in the constitution. It’s pure fiction created from tax acts and the progeny of Wickard v. Filburn.
Professor Charles Whitebread: “The very first criminal law at the Federal level in this country to criminalize the non-medical use of drugs came in 1914. It was called the Harrison Act and there are only three things about the Harrison Act that we need to focus on today.
Number one is the date. Did you hear the date, 1914? Some of you may have come this morning thinking that we have used the criminal law to deal with the non-medical use of drugs since the beginning of the Republic or something. That is not true. The entire experiment of using the criminal sanction to deal with the non-medical use of drugs really began in this country in 1914 with the Harrison Act.
The second interesting thing about the Harrison Act was the drugs to which it applied, because it applied to almost none of the drugs we would be concerned about today. The Harrison Act applied to opium, morphine and its various derivatives, and the derivatives of the coca leaf like cocaine. No mention anywhere there of amphetamines, barbiturates, marijuana, hashish, hallucinogenic drugs of any kind. The Harrison Act applied only to opium, morphine and its various derivatives and derivatives of the coca leaf like cocaine.
The third and most interesting thing for you all as judges about the Harrison Act was its structure, because the structure of this law was very peculiar and became the model for every single piece of Federal legislation from 1914 right straight through 1969. And what was that model?
It was called the Harrison Tax Act. You know, the drafters of the Harrison Act said very clearly on the floor of Congress what it was they wanted to achieve. They had two goals. They wanted to regulate the medical use of these drugs and they wanted to criminalize the non-medical use of these drugs. They had one problem. Look at the date — 1914. 1914 was probably the high water mark of the constitutional doctrine we today call “states’ rights” and, therefore, it was widely thought Congress did not have the power, number one, to regulate a particular profession, and number two, that Congress did not have the power to pass what was, and is still known, as a general criminal law. That’s why there were so few Federal Crimes until very recently.”
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/whiteb1.htm
Pbh,
Me: “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: “I am just not willing to accept this line of argument. It assumes absolutes that are simply not achievable.
Pbh: “Glenn Greenwald” Arguing from Authority?”
No Pete, as I showed you, the ACLU deems the Obama administration as worse than Bush/Cheney per condoning the use of torture and extraordinary rendition; suspending habeas corpus without the existence of insurrection or rebellion; carrying out a policy of warrantless wiretapping as if the 4th Amendment did not exist and issuing executive orders authorizing the extrajudicial execution American citizens.
Apparently you’re too entrenched in your party line thinking to realize just how unprincipled you sound in light of your past objections regarding Bush/Cheney.
Bron 1, May 30, 2013 at 11:17 am
“if it is a defensive war, then wouldnt the use of nukes be OK?”
I would rather advocate a measured response to a measurable threat. If the Martians are attacking, then maybe nukes are a reasonable response, although they probably wouldn’t change much. Anything short of that and I’d be inclined to be a bit more surgical.
“The various tribes had more than ample opportunity to kick the white man out, they blew it and the rest is history.”
Disease played more a part in Native American demise than Cortez and/or Sheridan. I am not at all clear why you appear to be so sanguine about all that.
“I am not sure you can use today’s culture to judge a culture 100, 200 years in the past.”
My bologna has a first name, it’s O-S-C-A-R.
My bologna has a second name, it’s M-A-Y-E-R.
Oh, I love to eat it everyday, and if you ask me why, I’ll say,
‘Cause Oscar Mayer has a way with B-O-L-O-G-N-A.
“I would love to see a debate between Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King, Jr. I wonder how Jefferson would treat his ownership of slaves?”
How about a throw down between Frederick Douglas and Jeff? Ever read Fred’s 4th of July speech? http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/douglassjuly4.html
Jeff often complained that the Northern States wanted to “enslave” the South, etc. His views on the evils of slavery pretty much stopped there.
B/T/W, I don’t recall that MLK ever owned slaves.
pbh
Blouise 1, May 30, 2013 at 10:45 am
“his ideas and his ability to express those ideas was superb.”
I forgot to mention that he was a plagarist.
And in his later years he advocated expanding slavery to the new states as a way toward abolishment of the practice.
Such a complicated, special fellow. How difficult it is to both despise and hate him. And still be disgusted by him.
pbh
pbh:
if it is a defensive war, then wouldnt the use of nukes be OK?
Borders and cultures are changed by war, been happening for as long as man has walked upright. To the victor go the spoils. The various tribes had more than ample opportunity to kick the white man out, they blew it and the rest is history.
I am not sure you can use today’s culture to judge a culture 100, 200 years in the past. Living humans want it both ways, we want to judge the past actions of our ancestors based on our standards and we dont want to be judged based on their standards.
I would love to see a debate between Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King, Jr.. I wonder how Jefferson would treat his ownership of slaves?
pbh,
See … I have mespo on one side and you on the other and of course I like and respect you both so the dilemma circles. He was, indeed, all those things you mention including a coward … but his ideas and his ability to express those ideas was superb.
Back in the day … had we voted for President and had I been one of the fortunate few permitted to vote, I would have gone for Adams. (Burr notwithstanding) but in 1804 Pinckney would have been too much of a Federalist for me so I would have voted for Jefferson. And so the push/pull continues.
Like I said, makes me nuts.
And, by the way, while we are not on the subject, I totally reject the notion that Eric Holder has done anything unconstitutional with regard to the Justice Department’s investigation of the Associated Press, Faux Noise or any other member of the fourth estate. A breach of national security in the form of disclosing classified documents is a Federal crime. It is the responsibility of the AG to investigate such matters. Period.
pbh
Bob, Esq. 1, May 30, 2013 at 8:27 am
“There is no such thing as a general federal police power”
Article One, Section Eight.
pbh
Bob, Esq. 1, May 30, 2013 at 3:15 am
“Glenn Greenwald”
Arguing from Authority?
“the two differences cited there, though positive, are wildly exaggerated by Obama defenders: the torture techniques authorized by Bush were no longer in use and the CIA black sites were empty by the time Obama was inaugurated”
Ending, instead of starting, three wars (including now the War on Terror), that don’t count?
“the way in which Bush’s attempt merely to imprison a U.S. citizen without due process (or merely to eavesdrop on citizens) prompted such outrage, while Obama’s claimed right to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process provokes virtually no protest:”
That is because there is nothing inherently immoral with shooting an axe murderer in the face.
I am perfectly willing to discuss how, why and when an individual might be judged to be an axe murderer. I am also willing to discuss other measures that might be taken to put such people out of business. I also view the use of drones as a mixed blessing, to say the least. But, worse than Bush? Puhhhhleeaaazzzze.
pbh
Thanks for the link, RWL.
Blouise 1, May 29, 2013 at 10:44 pm
“I have a love/hate relationship with Jefferson … drives me nuts.”
I don’t have that problem. Jefferson was an immoral, amoral, unethical, self serving degenerate hypocrite. And a liar.
pbh
Someone was on CNN yesterday, and a few minutes ago:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2013/05/29/tsr-acosta-holder-embattled-attorney-general.cnn
Bron 1, May 29, 2013 at 9:53 pm
“The ultimate good in war is a quick end with a clear victor.”
Tell that one to the remaining representatives of the Cherokee Nation.
“War by its nature is immoral”
Not when it’s self defense.
“to try and make it moral by reducing civilian casualties or putting fewer troops in the field merely extends pain and suffering.”
By this rather self contradictory formulation I understand that you would nuke ‘em asap.
“We would still be fighting the Civil War if we only used drones and tried to limit or eliminate civilian casualties.”
Great idea for a sequel: Lincoln: Drone Vampire Killer!
pbh
Bob,
Thank you…
AY: “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….”
AY,
That sounds more like a federal police power issue. There is no such thing as a general federal police power. That grew out of the narcotic tax acts of the early 20th century and the line of cases following Wickard v. Filburn regarding the interstate commerce clause– stretching it beyond anything it was ever intended to be.
Not that I have a problem with a reasonable federal police power, but there needs to be a reckoning in the form of a constitutional convention SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATING THE POWERS that we’ve grown accustomed to and the states taking back those powers they never intended the liberal Justices of SCOTUS to take away from them.
Obama is nothing like a liberal; he is a Friedmanite to his core
Me: “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: “I am just not willing to accept this line of argument. It assumes absolutes that are simply not achievable.
The ACLU on Obama and core liberties
The leading civil liberties group documents the dangerous continuity between this President and the last one
By Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/2011/09/07/liberties_3/
Highlights:
“Last week, the top lawyer and 34-year-veteran of the CIA, John Rizzo, explained to PBS’ Frontline that Obama has “changed virtually nothing” from Bush policies in these areas, and this week, the ACLU explains that “most [Bush] policies remain core elements of our national security strategy today.“ At some point very soon, this basic truth will be impossible to deny with a straight face even for the most hardened loyalists of both parties, each of whom have been eager, for their own reasons, to deny it (and even the two differences cited there, though positive, are wildly exaggerated by Obama defenders: the torture techniques authorized by Bush were no longer in use and the CIA black sites were empty by the time Obama was inaugurated; by contrast, there is ample evidence that the Obama administration continues to use torture by proxy and rendition/CIA-black-sites by proxy as well).
The ACLU then highlights one of the most perverse though revealing ironies of Democratic Party opinion on civil liberties in the Obama age: the way in which Bush’s attempt merely to imprison a U.S. citizen without due process (or merely to eavesdrop on citizens) prompted such outrage, while Obama’s claimed right to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process provokes virtually no protest:”
…
“During the Bush era, the actions and condemnations of the ACLU received ample positive attention from progressives. That, of course, is no longer true, and this damning report will likely be ignored in most of those circles, just as this truly remarkable comment from the ACLU’s Executive Director has been. And, as usual, anyone urging that attention be paid to these facts will be met with demands that eyes be diverted instead to how scary Sarah Palin Christine O’Donnell Michele Bachmann Rick Perry is, and then this will all blissfully fade away in a cloud of partisan electioneering even with the election more than a year away.
Either way, this creeping unchecked authoritarianism marches forward unabated, and is now — rather than the province of the right-wing GOP – fully bipartisan consensus. I really don’t understand how progressives think they’ll be taken seriously the next time there is a GOP President and they try to resurrect their feigned concern for these matters; they’ll be every bit as credible as conservatives who pretend to be deficit-warriors and defenders of restrained government only when the other party is in power. ”
Pbh: “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?”
Glen Geenwald from article above: “The ACLU then highlights one of the most perverse though revealing ironies of Democratic Party opinion on civil liberties in the Obama age: the way in which Bush’s attempt merely to imprison a U.S. citizen without due process (or merely to eavesdrop on citizens) prompted such outrage, while Obama’s claimed right to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process provokes virtually no protest:
Critically, the ACLU emphasizes that this Obama fixation — wildly expanded programs of targeted killings even of U.S. citizens far from any battlefield — is as threatening to the rule of law, and at least as dangerous, as any policy implemented by Bush/Cheney”
Stop lying to yourself Pete.
Regardless of one’s views of his tenure as AG, Mr. Holder will have to resign because his effectiveness, such as it is, has been irreversibly compromised. However, he should not resign immediately since it would be widely seen as a capitulation to Republican pressure.
Having said that, I hasten to add that I feel no particular sympathy for the travails of the press. All of the outrage is coming from the same group of people who served as a virtual propaganda arm of the Bush administration while the country was allowing fear to completely replace reason in the adoption of legislative and foreign policy responses to terrorism. The actions of the DOJ in its investigation of leaks is a quite logical application of authority which journalists have not found objectionable when directed elsewhere.
AY,
I have a love/hate relationship with Jefferson … drives me nuts.
pbh,
“Blouise 1, May 29, 2013 at 6:54 pm
“The wikipedia link pbh provided, quoted Jefferson’s words”
Don’t get me started!
pbh”
———————————————————————————–
I read the links people post and right smack dab in the middle of the one you placed for my consideration was good ol’ Thomas J. Now, in all honesty, how could I pass it up?!
I expected the words quoted to come from the 1820’s when he decided his legacy needed some fixing up and so started taking full credit for the DOI etc. I was rather surprised to find that those words came in a letter in Sept. of 1810.
At any rate, the last paragraph of this letter is a bit humorous when juxtaposed to this column upon which we are all commenting … “I have indulged freer views on this question, on your assurances that they are for your own eye only, and that they will not get into the hands of newswriters. I met their scurrilities without concern, while in pursuit of the great interests with which I was charged. But in my present retirement, no duty forbids my wish for quiet.”
The best copy I could find is at this link (page 146 to the top of page 150)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Nxh-K4RcuaQC&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=Sept+20,+1810,+Thomas+Jefferson+to+John+B.+Colvin&source=bl&ots=Pna7GRl3KQ&sig=Q7dKGeHKT9f1XWc6zxxj_HYCc6s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=k7WmUdj9Gc7_qAGFmICwDg&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Sept%2020%2C%201810%2C%20Thomas%20Jefferson%20to%20John%20B.%20Colvin&f=false