Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- Will It Get Ugly? Both Sides Prepared for Start of Sotomayor Hearings Monday
- Obama in Africa
- Out of Africa
- Kenyan President should be “squirming”, says country’s political analyst
- An Emotional President Obama Tours Former Slave Port with Family
- O Baby! The Obamas Visit Maternity Clinic in Ghana
- In Ghana, President Obama Gives Tough Love
- 2 Prez Obama: Questions Sent in Via Text, Email from Africa & the World
- Obama Campaign Plane Emergency: Report Shows it Could Have Been Catastrophic
- Give it Some Time, Obama Says in Defending the Recovery Act
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Key Senate Republican Ups the Rhetoric, Questions "Character" of Obama's AG-Nominee
January 06, 2009 6:02 PM
The ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., this afternoon raised the level of his rhetoric in questioning the "character" of President-elect Obama’s nominee to be Attorney General, Eric Holder.
Specter suggested that he’s concerned that Holder would be too much like former Attorneys General Harry Daugherty (of the Teapot Dome scandal), Homer Cummings (of FDR’s court-packing riff) and Alberto Gonzales – more loyal to the President than to the rule of law.
Raising “the issue of character,” Specter said “sometimes it is more important for the attorney general to have the stature and the courage to say ‘no’ instead of to say ‘yes.’”
He then went through three controversies where Specter said he wonders if Holder as an official of the Clinton Justice Department passed this test:
*President Clinton's January 2001 Marc Rich pardon, which Holder supported with a "neutral leaning favorable" recommendation and helped facilitate in other ways;
*President Clinton's August 1999 decision to commute the sentences of 16 members of the violent Puerto Rican nationalist group FALN, which Holder supported against the wishes of the FBI; and
*Attorney General Janet Reno's decision when she decided not to appoint an independent counsel to look into “allegations that Vice President Gore engaged in fund-raising from the White House, in violation of federal law.” Specter said he wondered what advice Holder gave his then-boss about that decision.
Specter and his colleagues have raised these questions before, but the fact that Specter is raising them today, the first work day of the new Senate, is not insignificant.
“All of these matters relate to judgment and relate to whether Mr. Holder had the kind of resoluteness” seen in the best Attorneys General in history, Specter said, “to say no to his superior."
The Pennsylvanian said he would keep “an open mind to give Mr. Holder an opportunity to explain his conduct…. Mr. Holder ought to have his day in court, so to speak.”
Specter said that he was raising his concerns about Holder’s “character issue” so as to better prepare Holder for his pending confirmation hearings.
Obama Transition Team spox Nick Shapiro said that "from prosecuting corrupt officials from both parties to supporting the appointment of independent counsels to investigate Democrats, Eric Holder has demonstrated throughout his career that he has the integrity and independence to be an outstanding Attorney General."
Examples of Holder making decisions that didn't necessarily please the Democratic establishment include:
*his time as a U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia when he was responsible for the indictment, prosecution and jail time of former powerhouse Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill.;
*his recommendation as deputy Attorney General that an independent counsel be appointed to investigate then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt for lying about his role in the rejection of a casino project (Babbitt was ultimately cleared); and
*his recommendation that independent counsel Ken Starr be able to expand his investigation into President Bill Clinton's affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
The confirmation hearing is scheduled for next Thursday.
- jpt
January 6, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (31)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
After running through 3 attorney generals during Bush's presidency I am not sure that the Republicans have much room to question someone else's pick. They obviously didn't ask tough questions when it came to their own presidents candidates to let someone like Gonzalez with little experience hold AG.
Posted by: Ryan | Jan 15, 2009 4:24:05 PM
When compared to Anthony Gonzalez, Eric Holder is a paragon of virtue and achievement. Where were Arlen Specter's tough questions when Anthony "I can't recall" Gonzalez was in front of Congress?
Posted by: Ordermonger | Jan 15, 2009 4:19:31 PM
Holder flatly stated that he never once knew anything whatsoever about Rich's horrid criminal status, background and history, prior to the pardon being granted by Clinton. Holder also stated that NONE of the 'pardon' attorneys under his auspices ever once apprised him about Rich's horrid criminal background. Holder said this was because they did not know about Rich's criminal status and background. Asked about a high-level attorney who DID sound the alarm and who did try rigorously to alert Holder and apprise him of Rich's sordid criminal status, Holder responded that he largely disregarded the attorney's appraisal because he was not a 'pardon' attorney. I find Holder's claims to be too incredible to believe. The picture it paints is clearly one of "contrived ignorance" -- "Ignorance of convenience" -- "Selective Cognition." At a bare minimum, there are profound competence problems entailed in his being so grotesquely ignorant about such important matters that were so fundamental to his core responsibilities. It reveals an utter lack of conscientiousness, or due diligence, in the performance of his job. Why should we now promote such nonchalant apathetic mediocrity and inertia to the top position in the U.S. government? Aside from Specter, Holder is being treated as gently as a newborn in a bassinet.
Posted by: Reflecting_Pools | Jan 15, 2009 12:34:01 PM
Now let's say that Obama gets through all 4 years of this election cycle and the country comes out better than when he got in, would the nay sayers admit they might have been wrong? They guy isn't even in office and the doom and gloom detractors are in full force. I voted against Bush (both times) and hoped that he might actually pull a miracle, even as I watched my country plummet in respect, economically and culturally. The key thing was that I waited and judged him by the actions he took, not just because he was a republican. Can't the Republicans here atleast admit that Obama might be better than Bush? Time will tell.
Posted by: rayhagermanniraqvet | Jan 9, 2009 6:35:27 PM
>>Clinton pardoned Rostenkowski - so that's a joke. In other words, Holder already knew the score - and was told to do it because the pardon was doable.>>
Rostenskowski had already been convicted and served his complete 18 month sentence in federal prison when he was pardoned by Clinton. He had been out of prison for nearly two years by the time his pardon came.
Posted by: Carolinagirl | Jan 7, 2009 4:59:41 PM
Silicondoc is correct, of course, still ... it'd be nice to have an AG who DIDN'T play bagman between Chiquita and right-wing paramilitary people ON the US "terrorist" list.
Lemme guess: Holder's "black", kind of cute-looking, and utterly unprincipled -- Obama with a mustache, and actual legal experience.
Or is thr Chiquita connection just a way to ease into that banana-republic thing?
Posted by: Belle Starr | Jan 7, 2009 3:07:19 PM
Well, it is Specter's job and his duty, as the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, to raise questions like these. We want a Senate who will question the appointments and plans of the president - the alternative is a senate who blindly goes along with everything the president suggests - what a nightmare that would be!
Posted by: Reminder | Jan 7, 2009 2:30:20 PM
Clinton pardoned Rostenkowski - so that's a joke. In other words, Holder already knew the score - and was told to do it because the pardon was doable.
Same thing on the "Lewinsky Investigation", now a national joke about sex - while the real crimes were left to languish unprosecuted.
See that's exactly what they do - trump up a big fat nothing while the massive criminal conduct goes untouched. On rare occassions apparently the establishment has to roust somebody for reasons never made clear to the public, and then some gigantic massively illegal master crimional scheme that has been chugging along for a decade or more in absolute silence and hiding blasts out into the open on the public radar...and the horror of it is so immense, and then comes the very, very fine line drawn, whereby it's not even certain that a successful prosecution is possible, and it becomes vaguely apparent that they all are doing the exact same thing, in a dozen other equivalent ways each - and the few fall guys are tossed over the side or under the bus, and they all go back to pretending everything is hunky dorie clean as a whistle - as the never ending crime spree continues - with the get away with it rules they put in place over the years.
See Abramoff or the Checking overdraw scandal or the corporate trip chit sheet scandal - or any scandal that arises.
They all do it, 100% of time, and on rare occassions one of them gets so totally outrageous and blatant noone can cover it up for them anymore... and they let the rupture burst and eveyone scrambles for cover, rewriting and resubmitting all their lies and felonies under the "holiday" offered to all of them not under the immedaite gun of the law.
Then we hear about it all, all the "ethical lapses" where the "paperwork" was corrected under the ollie ollie oxen free "stay out of jail" card they give themselves.
Posted by: Silicondoc | Jan 7, 2009 2:17:39 PM
Bush and the Republican Party have driven America off a cliff. Spector helped them do it. He sat on his butt and let Fredo destroy the Department of Justice. He's got a lot of nerve questioning anyone's fitness.
Posted by: thebob.bob | Jan 7, 2009 2:00:29 PM
"Well 'unfit' and unable to take office are two different things. Fitness is decided by the millions of people who voted for the guy and that is how we decide elections."
It was a foregone conclusion that the "Democratic" candidate would be elected -- and that was DOUBLE-fixed by the Republicans' not running a real candidate (and at THAT, "Obama" spent a billion dollars, and polled 52% in a not-great turnout -- and less than half of the eligible are even REGISTERED to vote).
That most of the mass media CAMPAIGNed for the "Obama" organization, and passed over the organization's race-baiting of the other candidates, and soft-pedalled Obama's hoodlum history, did much to "elect" Obama.
Getting rid of Obama NOW will be better than having the government fall later, no?
Whether that born-in-Kenya business is the magic bullet, I don't know ... but it's difficult to believe Rahm Emanuel went to Kenya for the sunsets, just when "his" team is supposedly taking over the White House.
Posted by: Belle Starr | Jan 7, 2009 12:29:31 PM
all of you people who are on here running down obama before jan. 20.
should be ashamed of yourselves.
frontline showed us last night just what the bush adm. has done.
you need to see it for your selves.
the bush gov. allowed people to be tortured. which mean anyone you know in the us military, the chances for them to be tortured went way up.
no room to talk about obama who is not president.
when we still bear the stain george w bush has created for the usa.
Posted by: oh my lord | Jan 7, 2009 12:18:04 PM
"Who needs it? If Richardson wasn't fit for Commerce, mob-friendly figurehead Obama isn't fit for the presidency."
Well 'unfit' and unable to take office are two different things. Fitness is decided by the millions of people who voted for the guy and that is how we decide elections.
Presumably (but not definitely given this lot) they knew he had spent most of his life on a vacation island and only have been to the Continental US in 1980. And that he never had a real job. The voters decided to over look those things.
Even if the guy wasnt technically eligible because of date and location of his birth I am skeptical if that is really a salient objection. Would something really be different about him given the exact location of his birth?
Posted by: BertieW | Jan 7, 2009 12:10:38 PM
At least you are up to 'if' Belle ;-)
IF we go with the banana-republic option the "Obama" organization represents, the Congress descends into fisticuffs and worse, followed by civil unrest and domestic repression, etc.
Who needs it? If Richardson wasn't fit for Commerce, mob-friendly figurehead Obama isn't fit for the presidency.
Posted by: Belle Starr | Jan 7, 2009 11:38:00 AM
"One of [Holder's] arguments in defense of Chiquita's criminal acts was that the company was being strong-armed by thugs in Colombia, and that it either had to make the payments, or close up shop in the country, which would have resulted in the loss of tens of millions of dollars in profits."
Paramilitary racketeering in Colombia, paramilitary racketeering in the AG's office?
Who NEEDS it? Yeah, yeah: Holder's "black", sort of. So was Idi Amin.
Posted by: Belle Starr | Jan 7, 2009 11:17:31 AM
"IF Obama takes office...."
At least you are up to 'if' Belle ;-)
Posted by: BertieW | Jan 7, 2009 11:15:15 AM
Looks like Reid and Durbin are about to eat their "Burris" words on teevee, and The CHANGEling Obama, looking sick, now opines that "it's a Senate matter".
On to the "Obama" resignation!
The country really IS in too bad shape to turn over the Congress and White House to ANOTHER crowd of racketeers, just because the neo-cons, with collusion from the Democratic "leadership", established total surveillance, "terrorism", etc.
Posted by: Belle Starr | Jan 7, 2009 11:11:50 AM
"PEBO is sinking, and he isn't even in the Oval Office!"
It's surprising Spector doesn't even mention Holder's right-wing paramilitary dance for Chiquita Banana in Colombia.
IF Obama takes office, it will be a disaster for the idea that elections mean ANYthing in the US, other than who has the most $: a re-run of the worst of the Clinton administration, supposedly overseen by Obama and His bait-and-switch crew of Chicago hoodlums, is by NO means "change you can believe in".
Posted by: Belle Starr | Jan 7, 2009 10:46:13 AM
Reading the drivel that is posted here is a clear indication of why Obama has been elected,..
Bush and the Republicans have destroyed America, and you people don't even know it yet..
Posted by: US of A | Jan 7, 2009 9:10:07 AM
Character issue is important.
Posted by: NC voter | Jan 7, 2009 5:31:42 AM
Holder is the wrong choice for AG. Just about all Obama's appointee Cabinet members are corrupt so as Obama. And the Democrats everywhere beside Chicago are corrupt. Just like another Clinton Admin.
It is not Bush's fault.
Posted by: NC voter | Jan 7, 2009 5:28:12 AM
Post a comment

