Below is my column on the resignation of Eric Holder as United States Attorney General. For civil libertarians, Holder’s tenure as Attorney General under President Obama has been one of the most damaging periods in our history with a comprehensive attack on various constitutional rights and principles from free speech to the free press to international law. In recent polling by NBC and the Wall Street Journal, Holder was the second most unpopular government official after the positively radioactive Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
As someone who previously called for Holder’s firing after the investigation of various journalists under national security powers, I am hardly one who can offer congratulatory sentiments for such a record. However, much like President Obama, one has to wonder what could have been if Holder had chosen a more principled and less political approach to his office. Holder is resigning the same week that a federal judge ordered the release of “Fast and Furious” documents after the Justice Department was accused of a pattern of delay and obstruction. Holder was previously held in contempt by Congress for his withholding documents and conflicting accounts to an oversight committee looking into the scandal. Indeed, Holder was looking at an even more aggressive period with the possible loss of the Senate and increased GOP seats in the House.
Ironically, Holder came into office trying to distinguish himself from such disastrous predecessors as Alberto Gonzales but proved no less political or blindly loyal to his own president. Indeed, both men fought aggressively to expand the powers of the presidency and national security laws over countervailing individual rights and separation of powers principles. It will be civil liberties and not civil rights that will be the lasting, and troubling, legacy of Eric Holder. The column is below:
The resignation of Eric Holder as attorney general is an unavoidably symbolic moment for an administration that itself appears to be waning in the final years of a troubled second term. Holder truly personifies an administration of unrivaled ambitions colliding with inescapable realities.
He proved a fierce friend to President Obama, and that loyalty might have worked to the disadvantage of both men. After a series of major court defeats and public controversies, Obama (like President Bush before him) might have been served better by an attorney general who was more detached from him and more attached to the constitutional principles that shape both their offices.
Holder has secured a well-earned position for himself in history as the nation’s first black U.S. attorney general. He is by any means an American success story. The son of a father born in Barbados and raised in New York, Holder used his considerable intellect to go to Columbia University for both college and law school. He was made a judge on the local D.C. court by President Reagan and was appointed U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia by President Clinton, who later made him deputy attorney general.
Holder’s life should be both an inspiration and a cautionary tale for young lawyers. As he ascended into power, Holder became increasingly viewed by critics as a bit too ambitious and political within the Justice Department. That reputation was reaffirmed for many with Clinton’s last-minute pardon of fugitive and major Democratic donor Marc Rich. By any objective measure, Rich was one of the least deserving pardon applicants in history — with 65 criminal counts, from tax evasion to wire fraud to racketeering to illegal trades with Iran. While his companies later pleaded guilty to 35 criminal counts, Rich fled to live the good life in Switzerland. Besides a long list of alleged felonies, Rich had a long list of friends close to Clinton … and Clinton in turn had Eric Holder.
Holder was accused of short-cutting the normal procedures to push through the pardon for Rich. Though he said he was “neutral” on the pardon (which itself is a bit shocking), former FBI director Louis Freeh said the Clinton White House had “used” Holder to keep the FBI and the DOJ from being heard on the pardon.
In his confirmation hearing, Holder promised not to have a repeatof the Rich scandal and not to allow politics to influence his decisions. It was a defining moment and one that Holder would have been wise to work to live up to.
But it did not take long for Holder’s inspiring “Mr. Smith comes to Washington” story to become “all the king’s men.” When the president was confronted with demands to investigate and prosecute individuals for torture under the Bush administration, Holder faced an early test of principle. He failed. The Justice Department blocked any prosecution despite our obligation under international treaties and the president’s (and Holder’s) acknowledgment that waterboarding is clearly a form of torture.
To quote Jerry Maguire, Obama had Holder at “hello” in seeking unbridled presidential authority. Many of the cases that Holder brought and policies that he supported resulted in startling defeats. He lost a series of criminal cases seeking massive reductions in privacy and due process protections for citizens. He unwisely pursued cases such as Canning, where a unanimous Supreme Court curtailed the powers of the president to make recess appointments.
Holder personally announced Obama’s “kill list” policy, in which the president claimed the right to kill any U.S. citizen on his sole authority without a charge, let alone a conviction. Holder’s department used the controversial Espionage Act of 1917 to bring twice the number of such prosecutions of all prior presidents under the Act. Journalists were placed under surveillance in a record that rivaled that of President Nixon. Holder led an appalling crackdown on whistle-blowers. Holder fought to justify massive warrantless surveillance and unchecked presidential authority to attack other countries without congressional approval.
Holder’s continual confrontations with Congress came to a head in a series of scandals, including the “Fast and Furious” controversy in which the government allowed drug gangs to get high-powered weapons in a truly moronic “gun walking” program. In that and other scandals, the administration withheld documents and key witnesses from oversight committees. Holder was wrong and was ultimately held in contempt of Congress.
While Holder can be credited with not shying away from our race conflicts, his actions such as intervening in the Zimmerman case (after the shooting of Trayvon Martin) and the recent Ferguson shooting were viewed by many as premature. His calling the United States a “nation of cowards” on race was a brave but also a divisive moment. In the end, however, his positive work in the area of civil rights will ultimately be eclipsed by his destructive legacy in the area of civil liberties and constitutional government.
The sad truth is that Holder could have been truly great — not simply as the first black attorney general but as a man of principle who stood with the law over politics and friendship. In one of the great lost opportunities in history, Holder will finish his tenure as he began it: a man with great but still unrealized potential.
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors.
What we have in this blog to rely on is the body of work one produces. We can go to the archives and produce direct quotes and if they are considered out of context then the opportunity exists to set the record straight. For instance, yesterday I alluded to comments made by Annie to support a conclusion I was making. Annie denied it and I produced her comments as evidence. Now I’m accused of “misrepresenting” exactly what she said but she hasn’t demonstrated how nor has she denied the truth of them.
If it used to be a longstanding practice in this blog to not be challenged then that is not the fault of the challenger. If it is uncomfortable to have to now defend one’s own words, then that’s not uncivil discourse.
Lee:
The problem is not with people who agree with Obama on some issues, and not on others.
The problem is the people who inevitably rush to his defense in every single one of these interminable scandals. Or they blame Bush, or they blame the GOP . . . anything but just say what he did was wrong.
I have great respect with someone who says, I agree with Obama on X, but on Y he was utterly and completely in the wrong.
“Hunter eating PP…”
???, AY. (I was referring to someone who took on N. at one time)
“You don’t like my words so you don’t care what I wrote except to interpret to your ends.”
It isn’t a matter of liking or not liking your words. I never said that I agreed or disagreed with your words. It is a matter of trying to understand your thinking, reasoning and perhaps why you think and reason as you do. This is how you have discussions and learn from each other.
Interpreting or trying to discern the meaning behind your words (or anyone else’s words) does not mean that there are “ends” or an agenda.
In addition. Disagreeing with someone’s words or their thinking is not incivility if you do that disagreeing in a grown up, logical manner. Mere disagreement is not an attack, it is part of a debate or discussion.
Very interesting should have said..
Hunter eating PP because my records show you came here about a week ago…. Are you psychic?
Thank you, anon.
nick, Is the loss of six seats a bloodbath or do the dems need to lose ten seats to constitute a bloodbath? What if the election results in a 50- 50 tie? Is that a bloodbath? I will agree with you that Obama is a drag on many of these senate candidates even with falling gas prices and continually lower unemployment rates.
You’re absolutely correct, swarthmore mom. Most of the time, I don’t even bother reading the comments. And your entire comment is spot on.
(Also, my condolences.)
DBQ youre right in that I should have had quotation marks around the first paragraph which was form but I hit reply to Karen so neglected to use the quotes.
I reread and reread what I wrote and what I wrote was very clear.
You don’t vote for the guy who most closely reflects your personal beliefs?
Youre pro choice but you vote for the anti choice guy? You are not for privatizing social security but you vote for the guy who is? Really?
And you know what- you and oily are right in a way. I don’t like that he continued PRISM brought to you by Bush, I don’t like that he has not closed quantanimo, brought to you by Bush, etc. But that is exactly what I wrote.
End of story. End of discussion.
You don’t like my words so you don’t care what I wrote except to interpret to your ends.
“As to Bush, it is not a matter of of judge each on their own, like a footbll player. Bush left a mess that this President inherited. Some things the president has been good on and cleaned up the mess others he is continuing policies that are against what many of us on this blog, both sides of the aisle, have said they are things with which we have big disagreement”
@ leejcaroll
I don’t know any other way to interpret what you said other than this: You think the President has done some good things….being those things with which you agree. And you are disappointed that he is continuing policies with which you disagree. Since your first sentence the the paragraph references Bush and the mess you say he left for Obama, then I can only conclude that those policies which are being continued are those he inherited from Bush. Therefore when Obama is acting as Bush did you don’t like it…..but when Obama acts in accordance with policies you DO like, you approve of Obama.
Basically Olly’s interpretation of your writing. “LOL, so when Obama is being Obama he’s great but when he’s being Bush he’s terrible. Got it.”
Interpreting your or anyone else’s writing is part of an ongoing dialogue and is not UNcivil.
If you don’t want to be interpreted in a way that you didn’t intend then perhaps your writing should be clearer.
AY,
What I was saying is that MamaM is reminscent of times gone by when a past guest blogger got himself into a little difficulty because he may have checked the IP address on a couple of comments… and then it was brought out into the open and had a little light shined on it. As you intimated, too many people are cheating and lying these days.
SWM, agreed.
Oily I will not respond as I said.
Nick, I haven’t a clue for AG But the WH would be acting like a spoiled child but the congress taking another vacation and putting off any vite on the air strikes is not acting like a spoiled child and worse. (And the blood bath may be for the repubs. We don’t know what will happen in the election and as we wrote about recently too many say throw the bums out except for my incumbent because he is not a bum, he is my guy.)
Annie, Yes,…… far right wingers and Oath Keepers that want total domination…. Although I agree with you about the hostile tone, I disagree about the comments sections being interesting. I find them almost entirely predictable and tedious. The writing and research does not compare to that of some of the former bloggers that previously posted here. And in that group I include some of those whom I previously disagreed with and some of those that I did agree with.
SWM – you could always pick up the pace of your research if you do not like the level of research being done now. Lead by example. Lead and we shall but follow. 😉
I have been told I am wrong on this but I have noticed the vitriol has gotten stronger and the unwillingness to even accept someone else’s view point, while not having to agree with it, seems to have been missing for some time. It is a shame because when I started here it was not this polarized nor do I recall the misrepresentations of the words of others.
The republicans are experts at lying, exaggerating, distorting, and taking out of context (I am not saying dems don’t also but the repubs are much more adept at it). This is what I see here from a number of posters.
Annie, I, others on the “left” repeatedly say there are things that have disappointed us from this president, and harsher words as well, but that is ignored. Instead we are “cultists” unwilling to see any bad in this president, Obama lovers, etc.
How can one have intelligent conversation and debate when the ears and eyes of one side refuses to listen with an open mind.
It is those on the “left” in this conversation and others who have said ‘yes there are things you say about this president that we sadly agree with’. I have not seen those on the ‘right” say’ yes there are things we agree with that this president has done despite all we do not like of what he has done’.
They are unwilling to see, as someone wrote upthread, ‘not everyone is all bad or all good’ and what the president has done is neither all bad or all good.
LJC,
We don’t have the luxury of looking someone in the eye when they speak; we have to weigh the words and determine as best we can, intent. You set the foundation in your comment by saying you “also have big disagreements and disappointments with him (Obama). To support what that means you go on to explain and that is what I commented on.
You are implying I took you out of context but you haven’t demonstrated how. I ask you what I missed and now “I” am accused of having an agenda. I won’t suggest what’s in your heart as that would be the lowest form of debate. Instead, I’ll just continue to seek an understanding of the various personalities in this blog and measure people by the words they choose to express their opinions.
leej and Olly, Who do you folks think Obama might pick as the new AG?
The increasingly petulant WH is now talking about replacing Holder in a Lame Duck session later this year. Amnesty and a new AG after the November bloodbath. That would be like a spoiled child acting out after being disciplined.
OK, this is interesting. I’ve observed that those who misrepresent other’s comments quote their comments back to them after the original poster has corrected their misperception. Then the misrepresenter just goes on in the same vein and doubles down on the mischaracterization. Is this some technique that has been taught to them? Odd that the two commenters here that most often misrepresent other’s comments do the exact same thing.
Kamala Harris is a bright and articulate AG of California. She is quite far left, which comports w/ Obama’s philosophy. However, I think Michelle and Valerie will nix her. Ms. Harris is a KNOCKOUT and Barry is smitten w/ her. Her may go w/ Janet Napolitano, no sexual tension there!!
Napolitano has a nice job as Chancellor of the UC system why would she want another crap job under Obama? She paid her dues to the Democratic party.