BlogWonks

Like myself,  Jen Rubin at Commentary, and Jim Geraghty at NRO, don’t believe that Eric Holder’s nomination to head the Department of Justice should be a done deal.  Rubin asks some excellent questions about Holder’s involvement in the Marc Rich pardon that she rightly believes need to be answered during Holder’s confirmation hearings.

The questions are numerous. Here are just a few:

Why did Holder, while working for the government, help direct Rich to his attorney Jack Quinn?

What discussions did Holder have with Quinn about a future job?

Why does Holder believe his conduct did not violate conflict of interest rules (which prohibit, among other things, conduct which would give the appearance of a conflict)?

Why did Holder steer Quinn around the Justice Department? (And wasn’t this a conflict of interest –providing tactical advice to a petitioner for a pardon from the administration Holder was working for?)

Why did Holder give the opinion “neutral, leaning favorable” to a pardon request (from a fugitive) which clearly fell outside DOJ guidelines?

Given his help in steering Rich’s attorney around the DOJ, was Holder’s subsequent testimony to Congress in 2000 accurate that he hadn’t focused on the matter in the waning days of the Clinton administration? Did he attempt to conceal from Congress the full extent of his involvement with Rich’s attorney?

If an attorney under his supervision at DOJ behaved as Holder did in 2000 would Holder discipline or fire him?

Before Senators decide that there’s no reason to block Holder’s nomination, a full hearing and some direct answers to hard questions are in order. After all, if the Democrats are so concerned about “restoring the reputation” of the Justice Department to its pre-Bush days they should be concerned about the conduct and ethical standards of the man to be charged with that restoration. And as for Republicans, this is precisely their job as the loyal opposition: to challenge, investigate and hold the majority’s decisions up for inspection. (In the old days the media would do that.)

If after getting answers from Holder and from percipient witnesses at DOJ (and elsewhere), Senators are convinced that Holder acted ethically and that his testimony in 2000 and in 2009 was honest and complete, they should not hesitate to confirm him (at least on this basis). And if not, then they should not only hesitate but actively work to block his confirmation. But above all, get the facts first.

Yes, quite. Jim Geraghty has some good questions of his own as well.

1. After a 1998 hearing on federal hate crimes statutes, you filed a written response to questions to Sen. Arlen Specter asking whether you had encountered any cases in which state authorities had, for inappropriate reasons, decide not to pursue the prosecution of a hate crime. You listed three cases where state authorities failed to bring charges. However, under all three federal prosecutions, the defendants were acquitted. Now, ten years later, do you have any specific instances where the states have failed to prosecute hate crimes? If there are no examples, does this not call into question the need for federal legislation?

2. When Ken Starr went to you asking for FBI assistance to conduct an internal probe of alleged leaks of grand jury testimony, you talked him out of it, and gave Starr the impression that you did not think much of the accusation. Much later he learned that despite what you said to him, you called the presiding judge in the case and offered the Justice Department’s help in looking into the charges against Starr. Why did you lie to Ken Starr? In light of situations like this, why should anyone trust you?

3. On June 29, 1998, you met with representatives of several Arab-American groups including the Arab American Institute, telling them that of 24 pending secret evidence trials — where an individual was accused of plotting terrorism or supporting terrorism, in circumstances where much of the evidence gathered to indict and convict the person is classified — all but one or two were against Arabs or Muslims. Do you think this representation constituted racial profiling? You have accused law enforcement agencies of racial profiling in the past, but if, as in the case of Arab and Muslims in secret evidence trials, one ethnic or religious group may be overrepresented in the perpetrators of one type of crime, why isn’t it possible that another ethnic or religious group may be overrepresented in the perpetrators of another type of crime?

4. You wrote after September 11 an op-ed in the Washington Post, decrying the threat of “firearms purchased in this country falls into the hands of a terrorist.” How many members of al-Qaeda have purchased a firearm in the United States? How many individuals have been convicted of supplying arms to terrorists through purchases at gun shows? Does it trouble you that of the two examples you cited in that op-ed, one was acquitted of charges of charges of attempting to supply arms to terrorists? Do you feel any regret that in the aftermath of two terrifying terror attacks — one involving boxcutters and hijacked planes, the other involving anthrax — your first instinct was to make it harder for Americans to purchase a gun?

5. President Clinton convened a White House meeting in 1999 to, in the words of one participant “to prepare an all-out offensive on guns in the coming year”? Did you feel that “an all-out offensive on guns” is an appropriate act for a President? Is that “all out offensive” consistent with the Second Amendment? Will you pursue “an all-out offensive on guns” if you are confirmed as Attorney General?

6. Why did you claim, the morning after the raid on the family of Elian Gonzalez, that the child “was not taken at gunpoint”? Were you uninformed of the image we all remember, and commenting on matters you did not have knowledge of, or were you aware of it and hoping to persuade the public not to believe their lying eyes?

As I’ve said before, if these issues cannot be put to rest to a high degree of satisfaction, then I believe a full court press is warranted to block the confirmation of Eric Holder.