Corruptocrat Eric Holder's National Security Cover-Up

Townhall.com ^ | february 24, 2010 | Michelle Malkin

[Kaslin]

The White House wants to play Transparency Olympics with the Tea Party movement. President Obama's Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin dared Tea Party activists and conservatives last week to "push the administration to make its policies more open" and make it a "political competition … to see who can be more radical in their openness," The Hill reported. So, let's start by knocking down Attorney General Eric Holder's national security stonewall at the Department of Justice, shall we? Let the sun shine in.

For more than a year, I've been writing about the looming national security and conflict-of-interest problems posed by Holder's status as a former partner at the prestigious law firm Covington and Burling. The company currently represents or has provided pro bono representation and sob-story media-relations campaigns in the past to more than a dozen Gitmo detainees from Yemen who are seeking civilian trials on American soil.

The firm wasn't just a bit player. It led the charge, contributing more than 3,000 hours to Gitmo litigation in 2007, according to The American Lawyer. At least one known Covington big shot and fellow former Clintonite, Lanny Breuer, now works for Holder as head of the DOJ's criminal division. Though he himself did not participate in the detainee cases, Holder's celebrity undoubtedly boosted company-wide prestige.

How many of Holder's former colleagues and associates are now on the DOJ payroll? How many like them, who worked at other law firms or for left-wing lobbying groups, now inhabit DOJ offices? How many of them have been allowed to work on government terrorism cases related to their past crusades for al-Qaida-tied clients? How many have had to recuse themselves -- and have those recusals been full and forthcoming? How can the public judge whether these lawyers are representing America's best interests -- or those of the jihadis?

GOP Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa has been trying to get answers. DOJ information suppressors have snubbed him repeatedly. As the Washington Examiner's Byron York reported on Friday, Holder has now acknowledged that "at least" nine Obama appointees in the Justice Department "have represented or advocated for terrorist detainees before joining the Justice Department." But the tight-lipped, taxpayer-funded litigators at the agency won't name names or cough up any relevant details.

Grassley asked for "the names of political appointees in the Department who represented detainees (or) worked for organizations advocating on behalf of detainees … the cases or projects that these appointees worked on with respect to detainees prior to joining the Justice Department … and the cases or projects relating to detainees that they have worked on since joining the Justice Department. …" Beyond two DOJ appointees whose work for jihadi defendants had already been made public, Holder gave up nothing. Zip. Zilch.

It's not even clear that the Gitmo Nine are the end of the line. The list is not a comprehensive tally of DOJ appointees, Holder told Grassley and other GOP senators who pressed for public disclosure. Why not? What are they trying to hide? Who are they trying to spare?

Americans have a right to know whether they are subsidizing jihadi sympathizers, and whether their Justice Department is now a sanctuary for human rights transnationalists and little terrorists' helpers in the mold of Lynne Stewart, who was convicted of abetting Muslim terrorist mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and spreading messages inciting violence on his behalf while representing him.

Americans have a right to know whether Holder -- who put political interests ahead of security interests at the Clinton Justice Department in both the Marc Rich pardon scandal and the Puerto Rican FALN terrorist debacle -- has made hiring decisions that provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.

Tellingly, Holder has treated the GOP's national security concerns dismissively. He's hoping his nonresponsive blow-off of Grassley's request will die on the vine. And just as he used his past lapses in judgment during the Clinton era to argue that they made him more qualified for the job he holds now, Holder argues that the phantom jihadi lawyers on the DOJ payroll are a good thing for the country, so we should just shut up:

"A prosecutor of white-collar fraud cases may have previously represented defendants in such cases. This familiarity with and experience in the relevant area of law redounds to the government's benefit."

As usual, Holder puts ordinary civilian crimes on the same footing as terrorism plots and acts of war against our country. But why not let the people decide for themselves whether his staff decisions redound to their benefit? "The American people have the right to information about their government's activities," Holder himself said in a press release trumpeting new freedom of information rules last year. Put up or shut up, Mr. Attorney General.

[savedbygrace]

I’m calling him Stonewall Holder.

[Ann Archy]

I call him a traitorous a**hole.

[BIOCHEMKY]

Michelle Malkin, “You go girl!”

I can’t stand how Attorney Gen. Holder is condescendingly holding back BASIC information like who is even employed in the Justice Department(!), let alone ALL of the Assistant Attornies General who have represented terrorist defendants in the past. This knowledge IS absolutely germaine to the issue of our national security, period.

I’m with Michelle, “Put up or shut up, Mr. Attorney General!”

[Diogenesis]

The Al-Qaeda Bar (Big Law Firms Line Up to Represent Terrorists)
”Some of the nation’s wealthiest and most powerful law firms have donated hundreds of
millions of dollars in free legal services to terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay prison.
Their work, bolstered by left-wing activists groups, has helped to free, or force the
transfer, of hundreds of al Qaeda suspects to third countries. Some have gone back to
terrorism and the job of trying to kill Americans.

The work of big American law firms on behalf of al Qaeda is drawing new attention since
Attorney General Eric Holder decided this month that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who
orchestrated the murder of over 3,000 9-11, is coming to New York City for trial. Holder
was a partner at Covington & Burling, which in 2005 gave one its attorneys an award for
aiding 17 Yemeni suspects at Guantanamo.”

A list of 10 of the largest American legal firms representing Guantanamo terror detainees:
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw
Blank Rome
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips
Shearman & Sterling
Allen & Overy
Convington & Burling
Dorsey & Whitney
Holland & Hart
Hunton & Williams
Paul, Weiss”

---

EDITORIAL EXCLUSIVE: On terrorists, Justice recused“

---

AG Eric Holder's clients (the REAL reason for the transfer – to free them):

• Saad Al Qahtani
• Mohammed Zahrani
• Achraf Salim ("Sultan") Abdessalam
• Abdul Rahman Abdul Abu Ghityh Sulayman
• Musaab Omar Al Madhwani
• Jawad Jabbar Sadkhan (Al Sahlani)
• Majid Khan

---

“The New Media Journal | Attorney General Holder's Advisers Have Conflicts on Detainee Cases“

---

“Eric Holder’s Law Firm Has a history of representing Terrorists”

---

“Corruptocrat AG Eric Holder’s conflicted DOJ“

---

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream.
It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same,
or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children
and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
President Ronald Reagan

[Kaslin]

President Reagan said it all

[bmwcyle]

America elected the enemy.

[Diogenesis]

The traitors in the MSM lied to America
for the coup d’etat by the undocumented Kenyan
and the Marxist, lying, document-altering, Democrats.

[savedbygrace]

Good one.

[Inwoodian]

Wasn’t Holder in charge of Pardons at the shameful end of the Clinton Presidency? Hello, Marc Rich’s flunky.

[bmwcyle]

Yes, Eric was leading the criminal pardon machine.

[ODDITHER]

I have a question.

The Attorney General is appointed at the pleasure of the President to “give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments. He can be impeached by Congress for High crimes and misdemeanors.

If the Attorney General works for the President he doesn’t work for the people or the Congress. If fact if he fails to ensure that the President or any person under the President is violating the law we must file a lawsuit against him.

How can any person who serves at the leisure of the President protect the public from actions by the President? If Congress ignores blatant illegal actions by the President or Attorney General then we must force the courts to rule on those actions.