In announcing his national security team on Monday, Barack Obama included his Attorney General pick Eric Holder. This is not altogether unusual. After all, counterterrorism and intelligence matters are central responsibilities of the AG. But the politics was also obvious–put Holder in a pack of nominees who are getting praise from far-flung quarters, make the day about “the big personalities” and the rapprochement with Hillary Clinton rather than about Holder. Holder’s statement was one of the briefest and most innocuous–intentionally so, I suspect. And in January the Obama team will certainly push for a hasty confirmation and loudly complain that any extended hearings would “impair national security.”
The Republicans shouldn’t fall for this routine. As I and others have discussed at length, there are multiple, serious issues requiring clear answers from Holder. It does not help matters that he and his supporters are still not coming clean on the extent of Holder’s misbehavior. Despite his subsequent Congressional testimony following the Rich pardon and his boosters’ present evasion, even the New York Times concedes the scope of Holder’s involvement in the matter:
Mr. Holder’s supporters portray him as having been a relatively uninvolved bystander caught in a Clinton-era controversy, the remarkable granting of a last-minute pardon by President Bill Clinton to a fugitive from justice. But interviews and an examination of Congressional records show that Mr. Holder, who at the time of the pardon was the deputy attorney general, was more deeply involved in the Rich pardon than his supporters acknowledge.
Mr. Holder had more than a half-dozen contacts with Mr. Rich’s lawyers over 15 months, including phone calls, e-mail and memorandums that helped keep alive Mr. Rich’s prospects for a legal resolution to his case. And Mr. Holder’s final opinion on the matter — a recommendation to the White House on the eve of the pardon that he was “neutral, leaning toward” favorable — helped ensure that Mr. Clinton signed the pardon despite objections from other senior staff members, participants said.
The latest critic to weigh in against Holder is Richard Cohen–no right winger–who explains that the Rich pardon alone should be a disqualifier:
Holder was not just an integral part of the pardon process, he provided the White House with cover by offering his go-ahead recommendation. No alarm seemed to sound for him. Not only had strings been pulled but it was rare to pardon a fugitive — someone who avoided possible conviction by avoiding the inconvenience of a trial. The U.S. attorney’s office in New York — which, Holder had told the White House, would oppose any pardon — was kept ignorant of what was going on. Afterward, it was furious.
But what about the “one mistake” rule? Cohen nails the response:
But the pardon cannot be excepted. It suggests that Holder, whatever his other qualifications, could not say no to power. The Rich pardon request had power written all over it — the patronage of important Democratic fundraisers, for instance.
. . .
As noted, any person is entitled to make a mistake. But no one is entitled to be attorney general. That’s a post that ought to be reserved for a lawyer who appreciates that while he reports to the president, he serves the people.
And Cohen reminds his friends on the Left that it was just this sort of “Yes sir, yes sir” routine that they despised when it came from Alberto Gonzales. He concludes:
Holder was involved, passively or not, in just the sort of inside-the-Beltway influence peddling that Barack Obama was elected to end. He is not one of Obama’s loathed lobbyists, he was merely their instrument — a good man, certainly, who just as certainly did a bad thing. Maybe he deserves an administration job, just not the one he’s getting.
To be blunt, there are compelling reasons for Senators from both sides of the aisle to oppose his nomination. (Rep. Lamar Smith agrees, but he doesn’t get a vote on this one.) And at that hearing, Hillary Clinton won’t be around to distract and mesmerize the media.
