MSNBC and Newsweek are reporting that Eric Holder will be our next Attorney General.
I approve that message.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
40 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Apparently he represented Chiquita when they were raping and pillaging some South American country. Or something according to the DKos discussion.
So compared to the rest of Obama’s performance since the election? A pretty good choice!
this has been a problem for a long time.
What has been a problem for a long time? Chiquita? Holder? Obama?
chiquita but i am looking into holder’s involvement as their defender.
yep, he’s got a lot more “issues” than the marc rich pardon. his role in defending, and negotiating a sweet settlement for chiquita is not a positive, imo.
according to his wiki page:
l am not impressed.
Eric Holder is the most qualified Democrat in the country. He was actually interim Attorney General until Ashcroft was confirmed. He’s an outstanding pick.
You know, lawyers represent people and corporations WHEN THEY FUCK UP. That’s what they do. And really good lawyers represent really fucked up people and corporations.
It’s not a crime to be a high-priced lawyer.
Non-lawyers tend to hate lawyers who represent clients they despise. To think that good lawyers only represent the most morally upright individuals and corporations would mean a system of justice even more messed up than it is now. I don’t know this guy, but I know lawyers, and not every lawyer who represents a bad guy is a bad guy.
I’ll go with Holder. Good intelligence….a nice choice even if it’s a Clinton re-thread and maybe my roots are showing. His parents are immigrants.
For those upthread, who are on the Chiquita issue. That’s what all smart lawyers do. Settle, when the opportunity presents or get the best outcome for the cards your client holds. In court, there’s never a sure case.
He represented them, he didn’t recommend the crimes he defended in court.
I’m going to be an attorney very soon so I completely agree with this. After all, comparatively speaking it’s a good pick compared to his other choices so far.
Outside of the Rich fiasco, he’s smart, thoughtful–a damned good pick.
I know folks are upset today, but no pick will be absolutely perfect. To me, there’s a big difference between one who worked for the Clinton Administration and a mere Clintonista. There are folks who did good work despite the circumstances, or at least tried to do so. The orders for triangulation and such came from the top.
Who would folks rather have seen named? I’m curious.
When I was a shop steward I represented thieves. Part of the job.
Of course, I don’t like people stealing and I didn’t make any extra money doing that job. Just made sure there was due process and that all rights were accorded, and if I could I’d win the case.
Yup, a steward or a lawyer represents the client… and tries to keep emotional and non-judgmental distance.
Everybody is guaranteed due process under the Law, or what is the Law for? This country is one of the few where a person or corporation is presumed innocent until proven guilty and is entitled to the same quality of representation. Admittedly, that is an ideal. Some people figure that a person is guilty as soon as they are arrested (the cops would never make a mistake) or have the punishment in mind before the culprit is even apprehended (a lynching crowd).
In the real world, we require lawyers to present evidence and testimony befitting their case. Guilt and punishment or reparations are determined by others. Even famous lawyers such as F. Lee Bailey didn’t choose their clients based upon innocence!
If Holder is proven to be a rational competent manager of a case and does his job well, we can expect him to treat the US and the Constitution with the same respect and care that he’d take for any client.
So, the transparency that change.gov was going to provide into the transition has now become inoperative.
And it is back to the same old, same old government by leaks.
Or are the candidates (Hillary and Holder) trying to railroad Obama.
Hillary’s case: You denied me the presidency; you denied me the vice presidency; my supporters will be royally pissed off if you deny me the Secretary of State appointment.
Holder’s case: Don’t walk away from appointing the first African-American to Attorney General.
Will Obama capitulate to this sort of politics by media or will he be let his supporters know through change.gov first?
Holder’s case: Don’t walk away from appointing the first African-American to Attorney General.
What makes you say that Obama chose Holder because he’s black? Holder was Deputy Attorney General under Clinton. Personally, I think that an Attorney General should have some experience in the Justice Department (something which could not be said for JFK’s pick, for example).
Just because with each passing week, Obama is getting to look more and more like Clinton 3.0, I don’t think we should develop a reflex response of instantly jumping to the conclusion that every decision Obama makes must be bad.
I agree with your comment and getting experienced Ds to clean up Justice is probably a wise move. My main beef with the Clinton hires for top jobs is that what type of people do you think they are going to full their staffs up with? Obama people or recycled DLC and Clintonistas?
I am not looking just for fresh blood at the top but opportunities for the low to mid level staffers.
Maybe it’s because I’m not a lawyer and don’t know much about these things, but I don’t care much if Justice is stuffed with Clintonistas. When it comes to low level staffers anyway, I would imagine that they would have to go for flesh blood, simply to avoid hiring people with too much experience.
Again, maybe I’m naive about this, but I think the main thing about working in Justice is that you have to follow the law. And that makes pretty much any Democrat satisfactory, while a Republican should be viewed as unqualified unless the contrary can be proven, given that contemporary Republicans reject the idea that the law is above politics.
What to do about our economy and our empire is more critical, and there the possible kinds of approaches are much wider, so what particular individuals one selects for top jobs is much more critical. And there, Obama gives me little reason for hope. Clinton 3, indeed.
I didn’t say Obama appointed anybody. What I said is that if Holder is trying to railroad Obama, that would be the implicit argument Holder is making. Not that there aren’t other African-Americans as qualified or more qualified for Attorney General than Holder.
If this is more than just the media’s idle speculation, if Holder is jockeying for the job, that is Holder’s implicit threat if say Janet Napolitano gets the offer.
Clinton 3.0 continues, this out of date Abe Lincoln crapola rages on by approving Corporate villagers, Loserman somehow stays in power and Obama aides say they will not prosecute Bush officials that broke laws by torturing.
When does the Obama base get a bone for working their A$$ off to beat the Clinton machine and the GOP slime express or does that even matter anymore?
Amen. If Clinton is in the cabinet, I want my time, energy and dollars returned.
We’ve been had. “Change you can believe in” will prove to be as big a joke as “compassionate conservative”. So far, EVERY high level appointment is a Clintonista or a Bush holdover (Gates & Paulson & Bernanke). Obama took our votes, our work, and our donations and is laughing all the way to the bank.
Financial Times, UK/US Edition reporting:
(Reg.req.)
that latter, “get things done and competence” should rule out HRC.
the racist world of Hill and Bill.
Or are they not racists anymore? What do you call them?
Ex racists?
Recovering racists?
Or were those attacks during the primaries just politics as usual?
Change.
the Clintons pick..if true is going to run into trouble in the confirmation process…more baggage than all that found at the Heathrow and O’Hare airports – questions left unanswered all those conflicts of interest leftovers that presented a problem for the VP slot. and
Picture this article excerpt below
just more of this Obama will not need: Bill’s 500K speech under fire in the Middle East,
ya think..the selling of office continues…?
I don’t think that Hillary Clinton will have trouble being confirmed. The Senate is pretty clubby, and they’re the ones doing the confirming.
you’re overlooking the other side of the isle…it’s not all love.
and for me, it’s not just the baggage — it’s the character.
Marty Peretz reflects my thoughts..on the Clintons;
Those promoting and praising her likely SoS pick want the Obama presidency to fail.
Persona non-grata.
Their primary campaign argument essentially boiled down to this: “He’s a nigger, I’m not – vote for me.” Fuck them and anything that they may have done prior to that.
Hard-working Americans, white Americans indeed…
in the Obama White House.
Pretty interesting in light of the fact that he did not object even once, that I’m aware of, to the many characterizations of the Clintons during the primaries which were very similar to yours.
I find this hard to distinguish from hypocrisy.
He’s a politician, I’m not. He needs allies, I call things as I see them. I can afford to say, “Fuck them.” Him, not so much. I trust his judgment and give him the benefit of the doubt in who he chooses to be in his administration, and if he chooses Clinton for his cabinet then so be it. But as far as I’m concerned the Clintons can go straight to hell and stay there.
Folks called the Clintons racists all through the campaign in terms even more explicit than yours.
Obama did not make move one to stop or discourage them.
Now he has apparently offered the position of Secretary of State to a person who is, by your lights, a throwback to Jim Crow.
He was not billed as this kind of politician.
The advertisement said “change”.
I’m not sure what kind of politician that would make him in your eyes, but it appears to me that he is reaching out to his enemies, just like he said he would. It appears to me that he is meeting with those who mean him harm without precondition, just like he said he would. It appears to me that he is setting up an administration that reaches across every divide – even some divides that I’d prefer him not to span – just like he said he would. This is precisely how he was billed during the campaign, and while I’m not exactly enthralled by some of the details, to paraphrase Denny Green, he is who we thought he was.
And the Clintons can still go to hell as far as I’m concerned.
Your telling me there is not one State Attorney General who is a “Law & Order” type of prosecutor that doesn’t work for shameless corporations. Who has Eric Holder ever prosecuted?
No, the media is telling you that Holder is campaigning for the position.
I’m far less worried about Eric Holder and Chiquita than I am his views on the Constitution, torture, executive power and the “plenary executive”, the legality and scope of how much power the Warren Terrah grants President Obama, enforcement of civil rights and voting laws, and the politicization of the Justice Department.
Even more than SecState, Obama’s appointment to AG is the most important appointment he can make after the “above the law” presidency of Bush, Ashcroft, Gonzo, John Yoo, and Mike Mukasey.
Unless Eric Holder is dead set on completely cleaning out the Aegean Stables by redirecting a few rivers through the Justice Department, anything else is pointless long-term.
A promising sign is that he served as a trial attorney in the DoJ’s Public Integrity section for 12 years.
Twelve Years? Then either Bush I appointed him or Bush II kept him on. Either way, I figure him for a black Mukassey.
Glenn Greenwald has a positive take on Holder.
He’s very, very good on the key issues. Or at least on those that are my key issues. Torture, death penalty, etc. Key player in the American Constitution Society — the liberal answer to the Federalist Society — as well, if I’m not mistaken. Good, good, good.
Those are the things I care about, so I’m cool with Holder.
The Marc Rich thing is stupid. Who cares? It’s old and irrelevant, and it’ll drive Limbaugh and Hannity nuts. The ZOMGTEHCLINTONISTA! thing is stupid. A lot of our experienced people are Clintonistas, mainly because most of the ones from past Democratic administrations are generally either retired or dead. Again, who cares?
And the Chiquita thing is stupid. Good lawyers represent bad clients all the time. As was pointed out above, if good lawyers only represented good clients, the system would be even less just than it already is.
If good lawyers didn’t represent bad clients all the time, then we couldn’t have public defenders.
The ZOMGTEHCLINTONISTA! thing is stupid.
Well, maybe not stupid, but baffling. Holder was an early Obama supporter. As was Greg Craig. And Susan Rice. And other folks who worked in the Clinton Admin who backed Obama first. So I don’t understand the reaction.
His position on all the things you listed is why I’m excited about the prospect of him being AG.