The Report on the Clinton Pardons That Called Eric Holder's Conduct "Unconscionable":
In its NRO editorial on Eric Holder, the NRO editors pointed out the congressional report that had described his conduct in the Marc Rich pardon as "unconscionable." I haven't seen the report linked to online, but you can find the report here: Justice Undone: Clememcy Decisions in the Clinton White House (2002), by the House Committee on Government Reform chaired by Dan Burton. (Search for "unconscionable" to get to the key section.)
The report offers a combination of factual reporting and speculation, and it contends that Holder's action in the Marc Rich pardon was "unconscionable" mostly because it bypassed the career attorneys who clearly opposed the pardon:
The report offers a combination of factual reporting and speculation, and it contends that Holder's action in the Marc Rich pardon was "unconscionable" mostly because it bypassed the career attorneys who clearly opposed the pardon:
One of Holder's primary duties in the pardon process was to make sure that the views of the Justice Department were adequately represented in the pardon process. In addition, as a Justice Department employee, he was bound by federal regulations that required the Justice Department to review pardon petitions before they were presented to the White House. Finally, as a simple matter of prudence, Holder should have ensured that he knew something about the pardon before he took action that substantially assisted the chances that the pardon would be issued. By helping Quinn circumvent the Justice Department, Holder ensured that his own prosecutors would not be able to express their opinion about the Rich case. In so doing, Holder disserved his own Department, as well as the statutes he was sworn to uphold.I'm not sure what the statutes were that were allegedly violated (I haven't read the full report yet), but I did want to just flag the report for readers who are interested in following the Holder nomination.
If this is the best opponents of Holder's nomination can point to, he will sail through whistling a happy tune.
You should have linked to the Jenny McCarthy report on Holder, Orin. It would have more photos than the Burton report, it would be sexy, and odds are good that Amanda Peet would issue an even sexier rebuttal.
I skimmed the report, and the gist of the allegations seems to be that he bypassed some of the career DOJ bureaucracy. Calling such bureaucratic maneuvering "unconscionable" is wild hyperbole. I mean, what word do you use for a murderer if not allowing some GS-12 to comment on a pardon is "unconscionable?"
where was dan burton when bush was bypassing career beurocrats in favor of his politics? (e.g. DOJ civil rights division or plan B or at the EPA) for that matter, where was A.S.?
in less than an hour your prediction came true:)
Brian K,
when you criticize someone and then do the same thing with a "but they did the same too" argument, that is not really the "change we can believe in".
btw, I don't have a problem with Holder's appt - Obama won the presidency, so he should get his cabinet (unless there are serious issues with the appointments, and I don't think that is the situation with Holder)
At some point Obama may well nominate someone who has enough negatives that it's worth fighting tooth and nail to prevent him frmo taking office. From what I can see Holder is not that guy, even if he wouldn't be my choice for AG.
That's not to say that Republicans shouldn't bring up and air any negatives they think Holder has. That's the job of the opposition party. This won't cause the defeat of a reasonable nominee - and shouldn't because elections have consequences. But if done sanely it will tend to limit the likelihood of "unreasonable" nominees.
please point out where i stated that i voted for obama for this reason.
great job mistating my argument though. what makes you think i think what holder did was right, besides your own hackery, of course? as your and A.S.'s post show, it apparently is ok for republicans to ignore career employees but not ok for democrats...excellent double standard you got there.
Here's what the report says:
Michael Kelly did:
--Michael Kelly, "Common Clinton Knowledge," March 27, 2002.
Marc Rich was a tax fugitive who renounced his American Citizenship and traded with Iran and Libya. Helping him escape justice is certainly unconscionable.
At least the other people who helped Rich get his pardon got paid, including the Clintons. Though corrupt, at least those motives are understandable. But, of all the people on the planet who did not receive money from Marc or Denise Rich, Eric Holder did more to help secure the pardon anyone.
1) A paper "sort of proper procedure" record
2) A phony legitimate governmental reason record (being asked to do so by Israel - March Rich developed some relationships in Israel and then his lawyers exploited them)
3) A red herring which would connect the wrong dots so that an investigation would lead nowhere (Denise Rich and the Clinton library - Denise Rich actually had to be strongly urged by March Rich's lawyers to sign on - on the grounds that she was the mother of his children (and the clemency effort would look bad and could be destroyed if she wasn't part of it)
Eric Holder's "recommendation" was another red herring. It was just a threadbare Clinton alibi. The only question would be did Holder intentionally create an alibi or not?
Most likely Eric Holder said it would not be proper for him to say something but it looked like maybe his lawyer friend had made a good case. This was apparently played as some kind of Justice Department OK. As Eric Holder said on his Congressional testimony before the Senate I think, it was quite accurate to say they "ran it" by him.
Yeah, that was a short-lived episode of hope from the GOP House that came to sorely disappoint me.
At any rate, this is all absurd. Clinton could pardon Rich at any time, for any reason, with or without anyone at DOJ knowing anything about it. Anything else that happened is window dressing, or worse.
A previous commentor was correct in wondering what the Minority had to say in the Burton report. The Minority report is
here . It does talk about Holder. Its most potent objection to the Majority report is this:
"Michael Kelly"
The most grievous casualty of the Iraq War.
I don't care why you voted for Obama, in fact I don't care whether you voted for him or not. That was not the point. Obama ran on "change we can believe in" and I merely pointed out how this is not change.
As to your point about what republicans can do vs what democrats can do, where did you get the idea that i have double standards? did i oppose Holder's nomination?
nice touch framing the issue as "ignoring career employees" - that is not all Holder did. read up about the Rich pardon and what reputation it got Clinton even among his supporters (I am one of those, fyi)
1. It is all Bush's fault.
2. If a Republican did or does anything, it is or was evil and immoral even if it wasn't illegal, which is probably was.
3. If Obama wants it, it is OK.
4. Anything any Democrat ever did, if Obama wants him in his administration, is OK. There must be something someone in the Bush administration did that was the same or worse. Bad behavior is always justified by others bad behavior even if it is a real stretch and is not exactly change but is the same old same old.
5. When all else fails, remember #1.
and just what is the definition of change that you are using? several people above have already stated several reasons why this is a change from the bush years.
nice touch framing the issue as "ignoring career employees"
if you don't like it, then why are defending A.S. he's the one that originally framed it that way. did you even bother reading what he wrote before attacking me?
I think with the Texas redistricting, it wasn't just that someone decided "to bypass career lawyers." It was that "Justice Staff Saw Texas Districting As Illegal." So the reason "to bypass career lawyers" was, apparently, to get away with doing something illegal. On the other hand, I don't see anyone claiming that Clinton pardoning Rich was illegal.
With regard to the "Georgia Voter ID plan," career employees were overruled when they criticized the plan. But they were right: a judge later ruled that the plan was unconstitutional. So the reason "to bypass career lawyers" was, apparently, to get away with doing something unconstitutional. On the other hand, I don't see anyone claiming that Clinton pardoning Rich was unconstitutional.
So I think there are problems with your comparisons.
I did think it was quite funny. I just didn't speak up.
It's pretty ironic to hear you say that, since we've spent the last 8 years hearing people like you defend Bush with various forms of the following statement: 'but Clinton also did it.'
Missed again.
The references to the Clinton misdeeds were not a matter of defending Bush misdeeds, but of pointing out that, when Clinton did it, liberals didn't mind. Now they do. Therefore, they are hypocrites.
Not, as I say, defending Bush so much as pointing out what could charitably be considered holes in the libs' faux outrage.
The problem I have with a happy-talk confirmation progress, without at least slapping someone around with tough questions before confirming, is that the Democrats have not seen it that way. Objections to Ashcroft as AG, or to Olson as SG, were pure politics. But they did it.
The big problem, as I see it, is not the desire to play tit-for-tat payback, but that the general public sometimes gets eactly the wrong message from the asymmetry. Rather than see the GOP as more deferential and polite, and the Democrats as the partisan hacks they are, the public sometimes takes away that "gee, Bush appointed all those controversial fellows like Ashcroft, and Obama appointed those guys like Holder whom even Republicans agreed were strong professional picks," etc.
I cannot see any nonpartisan, nonideological argument for saying it was reasonable for Democrats to oppose Ashcroft but not for Republicans to oppose Holder. Yet how do decent Republicans get across the right message and not get sucked into being suckers for the other message?
Possible future references to Bush misdeeds are not a matter of defending potential alleged Obama misdeeds, but of pointing out that, when Bush did it, Bushists didn't mind. Now they do. Therefore, they are hypocrites.
Not, as I say, defending Obama so much as pointing out what could charitably be considered holes in the Bushists' faux outrage.
See how this works? It doesn't occur to you to realize that the door you're hiding behind swings both ways.
I presented such an argument here.
It does occur to me. Problem is, you first have to demonstrate Bush misdeeds. Deep breathing and hand-waving don't substitute for finding a law broken.
Where would anyone get the wacky idea that Bush ever committed any "misdeeds?" Better to adopt the perspective famously expressed as follows: