Posted on 01/13/2009 1:04:46 AM PST by Cindy
Despite a huge Democratic Senate majority, Eric Holder’s confirmation hearings are going to be difficult. He has a long record to defend. Whether it is his involvement and inconsistent statements about Bill Clinton’s pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich’s or his pushing Clinton’s clemency of the FALN terrorists or his failure to disclose his work for troubled Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich after Blagojevich's legal problems surfaced, he faces tough questions.
But Holder’s nomination raises other questions about what President-elect Barack Obama claimed he believed during the campaign. Numerous times he promised that he supported an individual’s right to own guns and that he wouldn’t do anything to take away people’s guns.
Just last year in a brief to the Supreme Court, Holder argued that “the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms,” that it only protected government militias’ rights to guns. He claimed that the Second Amendment posed no obstacle to implementing gun bans.
I can’t find even one gun control law that Holder has opposed. On every gun control regulation he has discussed, he has been supportive, including: bans, raising the age that someone can possess a gun, registration and licensing, one-gun-a-month limit on purchases, and mandatory waiting periods.
Even more troubling, while Holder served in the Clinton Justice Department, he oversaw the background check system, but he has never been asked to explain why the system broke down so consistently while he ran it.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
With the run on guns, let us see what happens. Will the R’s cut bait and run away or will the Sara Palin factor be a force. This is what scares me the most. Cities with gun bans have the most gun crimes. We see it as a no brainer, but Obama has lied about everything. At least we have Hillary and Kerry as avid hunters.
Yep.
So, which Senator does the NRA have to ask Holder about all this during the approval hearings? Which Senator does the NRA have who will table this nomination like the Dems have done with so many of Bush’s nominations?
“Will the R’s cut bait and run away “
Yes.
There is a bill to resurrect the assault rifle ban now in the house sponsored by Republicans, including one Congressman Ferguson (R) from New Jersey.
Chiquita was facing the prospect of federal charges for paying protection money to Colombian terrorists to safeguard its banana crops, and the company needed help. It turned to Eric H. Holder Jr., an elite Washington lawyer well versed in the ways of the Justice Department.
When the National Football League was facing a legal and public-relations disaster in 2007 over a dogfighting scandal involving the Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, it turned to Mr. Holder to help navigate the maelstrom and represent the league.
The pharmaceutical giant Merck tapped him as its lawyer in a Medicaid overbilling case that ended in a $671 million civil settlement.
Mr. Holder’s brief association with Mr. Blagojevich has drawn scrutiny ... Blagojevich, the now-impeached governor of Illinois, picked Holder, albeit briefly, to investigate for the state a controversy over a casino development and its possible ties to organized crime.
Holder has entered a group of A-list lawyers in the capital who reportedly earn $800 to $1,000 an hour. Last spring, when Mr. Holder was traveling extensively to campaign for Mr. Obama, he joked to The American Lawyer magazine, “I hope the management committee is going to be real understanding when they see my billable hours this year.” (Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
=============================================
There is a huge question as to whether Holder can administer US justice independent of a president.
How Obama's would-be attorney general, Eric Holder, won the release of 16 FALN terrorists as Clinton's Deputy AG
Let's not forget the raison d'etre for the pardoning of 16 Puerto Rican FALN terrorists: Hillary was then-running for office in NY and she needed the votes of hyphenates to win. She and Bill apparently conducted surveillance on the NY electorate and "profiled" the hyphenated groups she needed to win. They then went down the list and got Holder to facilitate pardons to individual connected with hyphenated groups to buy their votes.
===============================================
Pardoning Terror--How would-be attorney general Eric Holder won the release of 16 FALN terrorists
By John Perazzo, FrontPageMagazine.com
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=3BDF4733-1689-4B8A-B263-B119AD5407D9 ^ | John Perazzo
In 1997, Holder became President Clinton’s Deputy Attorney General in the Justice Department headed by Janet Reno. In this role, Holder was responsible for overseeing clemency investigations and determining which of those requests were ultimately worthy of President Clinton’s attention. As evidenced by a September 1997 memorandum from the Pardon Attorney, the Justice Department was, at this point, receiving numerous inquiries about the FALN and Macheteros—from the White House and from supporters of the prisoners. The aforementioned House Committee on Government Reform report stated:
“Throughout the closing months of 1997 it appears that Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder was active in the issue. The privilege log reflects at least two notes regarding his questions on the clemency or his thoughts on the matter.” On November 5, 1997, Holder met with Representatives Gutierrez, Serrano, and Velazquez to discuss the clemency issue. He advised the legislators that they might greatly increase the likelihood of a presidential pardon if they could convince the prisoners to write letters testifying as to the personal remorse they felt for their past actions. But no such letters would be produced for five months, during which time the clemency issue remained on hold.
Meanwhile, in a January 6, 1998 letter, a senior Justice Department official expressly referred to the FALN members as “terrorists.” Then on April 8, 1998, Holder again met with FALN supporters. This time, they finally delivered statements from the prisoners as Holder had advised in November. Once again, however, there was a problem: all their statements were identical, indicating that not one of the prisoners had made the effort to craft his own personal expression of repentance. Undeterred, Holder asked whether the prisoners might at least agree to renounce future violence in exchange for clemency.
One of the prisoners’ backers, Reverend Paul Sherry, made it clear that they surely “would not change their beliefs”—presumably about the issue of Puerto Rican independence—but was vague as to whether they would eschew violence altogether.
Over the next few weeks, Holder and the Justice Department continued to meet with clemency advocates. Holder was the point man for these negotiations. As Brian Blomquist wrote in the New York Post, “A list of FALN documents withheld from Congress shows that many memos on the FALN clemency decision went directly to Holder, while Reno’s role was minimal.” Similarly, New York Daily News reporter Edward Lewine wrote that Holder was “the Justice Department official most involved with this issue.”
It should be noted that throughout the clemency review process, neither Holder nor anyone else in the Justice Department contacted the FALN’s victims or their families. As a result, most were never aware that clemency for the terrorists was even being contemplated. Those few who were aware of the possibility were rebuffed in their efforts to participate in the review process.
On May 19, 1998, DOJ’s pardon attorney sent Eric Holder a 48-page draft memorandum “concerning clemency for Puerto Rican Nationalist prisoners.” Seven weeks later, on July 8, Holder sent President Clinton a “memorandum regarding clemency matter.” Behind the scenes, indeed, the Deputy Attorney General was methodically spearheading the march toward clemency—despite the fact that the sentencing judges, the U.S. Attorneys, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the FBI were unanimous in their opposition to pardoning the FALN.
In late July 1999 an attorney from Holder’s office spoke to White House Counsel Charles Ruff regarding the clemency. On August 9, 1999, Holder’s office and OPA held one final meeting to hammer out the details, and two days later the President made his announcement: clemency had been granted to the 16 terrorists, most of whom had served only a fraction of their prison terms. Of the sixteen, twelve accepted the offer and were freed; two refused it; and two others, already out of prison, never responded.
Clinton, who previously had complied with just 3 of 3,229 requests for clemency, justified his decision by explaining that the prisoners already had served sufficient prison time for their crimes. He further cited executive privilege for his refusal to give Congress a number of documents related to his verdict. Congress, for its part, was not pleased—condemning the clemencies by votes of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House.
In the aftermath of August 11, 1999, a report by the very same Justice Department that employed Eric Holder stated that the FALN posed an “ongoing threat” to national security. And in late October 1999 the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report from Attorney General Janet Reno stating that the FALN members’ “impending release from prison” would “increase the present threat” of terrorism. Dangerous terrorists had been set free, and Eric Holder had made it happen.
Holder’s response to the threat reports was unconvincing at best. In an October 20 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, and again with reporters the following day, Eric Holder denied that Reno was referring to the same FALN terrorists whose pardons he had worked so long and hard to secure. Yet, when Holder was asked to identify whom Reno was in fact talking about, his response amounted to little more than a pathetic stammer:
I don’t know, no, I don’t know that. We might be able to get you some more information on that, but, I mean, you know, there were certain people who are due to be released, or who were at least eligible for parole, had a release date in the next, as I said, three, four years. I don’t know exactly who they were. Maybe—we might be able to get you that information.
They never did. Neither Holder nor the Justice Department ever provided the names of any of these mystery men.
In the final analysis, Eric Holder was the individual most central to the Clinton White House’s dogged quest to pardon the FALN terrorists. His efforts toward that end can more accurately be characterized as partisan advocacy than as dispassionate dispensation of justice. As the December 1999 House Committee on Government Reform report put it:
The 16 terrorists appear to be most unlikely candidates. They did not personally request clemency. They did not admit to wrongdoing and they had not renounced violence before such a renunciation had been made a quid pro quo for their release. They expressed no contrition for their crimes, and were at times openly belligerent about their actions.
Notwithstanding the fact that the 16 did not express enough personal interest in the clemency process to file their own applications, the White House appeared eager to assist throughout the process. Meetings were held with supporters, and some senior staff [i.e., Holder] even suggested ways to improve the likelihood of the President granting the clemency. Overall, the White House appears to have exercised more initiative than the terrorists themselves.
Nearly ten years after the FALN pardons, Holder is once again set to enter the Attorney General’s office – this time as its head. But before assuming that important post, he owes the American people – and the victims of FALN terror – the explanation he failed to provide when the terrorists were set free.
http://www.cov.com/news/detail.aspx?news=1381
“WASHINGTON, DC, December 3, 2008 — President-elect Barack Obama announced on December 1 that he has nominated Eric H. Holder, Jr. to serve as Attorney General. Mr. Holder has been a partner with Covington & Burling since 2001.”
Check out how much money Covington & Burling gave 0bama, another pay to player:
Thank you appleseed.
That is interesting.
An honest reporter or journalist (I know, that’s an oxymoron) should pose the following question to Odumbo:
“Will you name to the federal bench justices who support a woman’s right to choose?” His answer, of course, will be a resounding “yes!”
Then ask him this:
“If you will name a justice who supports a woman’s right to choose, will you also appoint justices who support the Second Amendment and an individual’s right to keep and bear arms?” Let’s see how he answers that. He either has to say Yes or No, in which case he will have a lot of explaining to do to someone. If he hedges and hums and haws, he will be seen as an equivocator and untrustworthy (which I think describes him perfectly).
Put him on the spot! Make him declare!
“There is a bill to resurrect the assault rifle ban now in the house sponsored by Republicans, including one Congressman Ferguson (R) from New Jersey.”
There is a Republican in New Jersey? Who knew? But, given the bill this idiot is sponsoring I think his Republican credentials are suspect.
Anyone who possibly thought that Obama wasn’t a dyed in the wool gun-banner given his voting record and past statements, was delusional.
Anyone who says different is either lying or is an idiot. Or is a lying idiot.
Mark
North-eastern “republicans” are notorious liberals.
Look at Lincoln Chaffee. Or his late daddy, for that matter. One of the most notorious gun-grabbers ever in the senate. Him, along with Dennis Deconcini and Red Howie Metzenbaum had nothing but disdain for gun owners, and hated the second amendment.
Mark
My dead cold fingers.
And the point is coming soon with more and more regulations that we will just all be criminals regardless of intent or motives. Atlas shrugs indeed.
It makes me pause to go get my CCW. I have enough paperwork to buy a gun, but not sure I want the increased scrutiny.
a weapon bought “sub rosa” is just as effective as a registered one and much easier to retain.
barbra ann
LLS
I have my VA CCW and a FL out of state CCW. I also have a high government security clearance for the past 26 years. My file a 6’ feet thick. They can read all day about me.
“Will the R’s cut bait and run away or will the Sara Palin factor be a force...”
You can forget about the “R’s.” They will run away from a baby that threatened them with a crying spell. It’s over for the “R’s” in my opinion since they have insured the fact that our democracy and capitalist way of life is over. Them, and them alone!
Sara Palin, well, that’s something we can hope for.
“But, given the bill this idiot is sponsoring I think his Republican credentials are suspect.”
Unfortunately the case with most New Jersey Republicans.
There a few conservative pro-gun New Jersey Republicans such as - State Senator Cardinale, Assemblyman Richard Merkt, Assemblyman Michael Carroll, State Senator Pennachio.
Unfortunately most of them are RINOs big time. Ferguson was anti-gun when he was a State representative. On the Federal level he more dangerous. One of the leading luminaries in New Jersey Republican politics, former governor Tom Kean (his “boy” is now a state Senator with eye on hgiher office) is a rabid anti-gun liberal.
Its pathetic how Republicans tend to become just like Dems instead of standing up for Republican values, when Dems increase in numbers in their districts.
I think it’s something in the Jersey water.
Republicans for Holder [Byron York]
I just got off the phone with Joe DiGenova, the former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia who, along with his wife and fellow lawyer Victoria Toensing, signed a letter in support of Eric Holder’s nomination to be attorney general. DiGenova told me he and Toensing were approached by Republican lawyer Mike Madigan about signing the letter, but they were in favor of Holder’s nomination much earlier than that. “Victoria and I signed the letter, but we were supporting him before that,” DiGenova told me. “Our support comes from the fact that we have known Eric for many years, that we respect him as a lawyer, and, more importantly, we are very concerned about the Justice Department. There have been too many AG’s who don’t understand the place. Eric is very qualified to fix it, because it is a mess. It isn’t just the politicization of it, it’s the career people who need supervision…We know Eric personally, and we believe him to be a superbly qualified candidate to fix the place.” DiGenova added that he and Toensing also went to Capitol Hill to speak in support of Holder with Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Pat Leahy (this also happened well before the letter was sent).
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/13/the-nra-throws-in-the-towel-on-holder/
“The NRA throws in the towel on Holder”
(But, Gun Owners of America, will oppose.)
http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2009/01/13/2nd-amendment-views-disqualify-holder/
Posted by Brian Darling (Profile)
Tuesday, January 13th at 12:29PM EST
Below is an interview I conducted exclusively for Red State with John Velleco, Director of Federal Affairs, for Gun Owners of America. Gun Owners of America, a national organization with about 300,000 member, is described by Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) as the “only no comprise gun lobby in Washington.” Gun Owners of America has declared that they will score a vote on the nomination of Eric Holder to be the next Attorney General. Holder will be testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee this Thursday, January 15th at 9:30 am.
Velleco:
The nomination of Eric Holder is a cynical slap in the face to all gun owners. Holder’s active opposition to the right to keep and bear arms disqualifies him from being the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the land.
Brian Darling, Red State: John, thanks for agreeing to be interviewed by Red State about the nomination of Eric Holder to the next Attorney General. It is widely known that Holder signed a brief supporting the District of Columbia handgun ban and argued that the Second Amendment is not an individual right. Do you have any other examples where Eric Holder evidenced his hostility to the Second Amendment?
John Velleco of Gun Owners of America: Yes. President-elect Obama could not have come up with a more divisive anti-Second Amendment nominee. Eric Holder supports a 3-day waiting period for handgun purchases, one-gun-a-month purchase limits, licensing and registration of all gun owners, and more restrictions on law abiding citizens.
Holder was Janet Reno’s go-to guy on gun control issues. In 1999, Holder supported sweeping new gun control laws, urging Congress not to cave in to “the special interest that value the cold hard steel of guns more than the lives of children, neighbors and police officers.”
In 2000, Holder was instrumental in the Clinton Administration’s effort to strong-arm firearms manufacturers into voluntarily accepting regulations that were stalled in Congress. In a legislation-by-extortion scheme, the federal government filed suit against gun makers but offered to drop the suit if the companies would accept the demands of the administration. Thankfully, the program died when Clinton left office.
After he returned to private practice, Holder continued to advocate for more anti-gun laws. After 9/11, Holder argued in a Washington Post op-ed that Congress should close the misnamed gun show “loophole,” even though the terrorists were armed with box cutters that could be purchased at any hardware store.
Darling, RS: Holder has an impressive resume — former Deputy Attorney General under President Bill Clinton, Acting Attorney General for a short period for President Bush, U.S. Attorney and a federal judge. He is clearly qualified by virtue of his experience. How would you explain to Senators why Holder’s position on the Second Amendment disqualifies him from being Attorney General?
Velleco, GOA: Obviously, Holder has an impressive and extensive resume. But he apparently disagrees with the incoming President and the Supreme Court on a core constitutionally protected liberty. Namely, Holder believes that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right to keep and bear arms. Holder’s active opposition to the right to keep and bear arms disqualifies Holder from being the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the land.
Darling, RS: What will GOA do to oppose the confirmation of Eric Holder?
Velleco, GOA: We have asked our members to contact their own Senators, urging them to vote “No” on Holder. In addition, we will score any vote on Holder for our 2010 Senate rating.
Darling, RS: President-elect Barack Obama stated on the campaign trail that “there is an individual right to bear arms, but it’s subject to commonsense regulation.” Is the Holder nomination consistent with this promise by Obama when he was on the campaign trail?
Velleco, GOA: No, Barack Obama seems to have abandoned any pretense that he will “govern from the middle,” particularly concerning gun rights. Obama’s nomination of Holder shows that Obama may not support the Second Amendment as an individual right and calls into question statements he made on the campaign trail. The nomination of Eric Holder is a cynical slap in the face to all gun owners, and will be viewed as such by the pro-gun community.
Darling, RS: Thanks John.
This surprises me. Guess they get added to my s$$t list which is getting pretty darn long.
Disgusting
From the WP:
Michael J. Madigan, a Republican lawyer who has served in several high-profile positions on Capitol Hill but who supported Obama’s bid for the presidency, said that “the whole Marc Rich thing is a bad rap and it won’t go anywhere” if GOP senators press it at confirmation hearings.
Thank you. I am speechless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.