On one hand, at least the New York Times does say that there’s far more to the story about Eric Holder’s involvement in the pardon of noted fugitive Marc Rich than many are reporting.
In the much praised career of Eric H. Holder Jr., President-elect Barack Obama’s choice to be attorney general, there is one notable blemish: Mr. Holder’s complicated role in the 2001 pardon of Marc Rich, a billionaire financier who had fled the country rather than face federal tax evasion charges.
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.
On the other hand, the Times gets a huge part of the real story completely wrong. So wrong in fact that one wonders if they are intentionally whitewashing the story so as to benefit the incoming Obama administration. I mean, either that, or the New York Times is grossly incompetent.
At the same time, Mr. Holder was not the sinister deal maker that his critics made him out to be. He let himself be drawn into the case by politically influential advocates, the review of the case shows, bypassing the usual Justice Department channels for reviewing pardon applications and infuriating prosecutors in New York who had brought the initial charges against Mr. Rich and his business partner.
No, Holder was not “drawn into the case”. Holder himself lobbied Bill Clinton to consider the Rich pardon bypassing the usual Department of Justice channels. In doing so, Eric Holder helped a felon and fugitive to escape justice in the United States. And, as if that wasn’t bad enough, Eric Holder did all of this to gain favor with Jack Quinn in the hope that Holder would be appointed Attorney General by an incoming Gore administration. If all of that doesn’t constitute being a “sinister deal maker” to the New York Times, then I have no idea what would. Because, I’m sure most normal people would find all of this pretty damn repulsive. As I’ve said, I think this whole Rich pardon scandal is a deal breaker, and hopefully the senate Republicans will feel the same way. An unethical sleaze like Holder does not belong running the Department of Justice.
Update:
Hmmm, Richard Cohen over at the WaPo is pretty ticked off about Eric Holder’s nomination as well, and agrees with me that Holder should not be the Attorney General.
When I tell people that I am bothered by the choice of Holder for attorney general, they invariably say that everyone is entitled to a mistake. Yes, indeed. And I add for them that in almost every other way, Holder is a dream nominee. He has been U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, a judge and a well-regarded lawyer in private practice. Moreover, to my personal knowledge, he is charming and well liked by his subordinates. A better attorney general nominee you’re not likely to find . . . the pardon excepted.
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. Holder also said he was “really struck” by the backing of Rich by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the possibility of “foreign policy benefits that would be reaped by granting the pardon.” This is an odd standard for American justice, but more than that, what was Holder thinking? That U.S.-Israeli relations would suffer? Holder does not sound naive. He sounds disingenuous.
Holder sounded just as disingenuous when he told a House committee that he did not “reflexively oppose” the pardon of a fugitive because “I had previously supported a successful pardon request for a fugitive, Preston King.” King, a black civil rights activist, chose to be tried for draft evasion in 1961 rather than submit to what he considered racist treatment. After his conviction, he fled to Europe. The two cases are not in the least similar.
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. This dual obligation was beyond the ken of George W. Bush’s attorney general once removed, Alberto Gonzales, whose idea of telling truth to power came down to saying “Yes, sir. Yes, sir.” On Guantanamo, domestic spying and Bush’s “l’État c’est moi” view of the presidency, Gonzales was a cipher, and the damage of his tenure still needs to be repaired.
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.
I wholeheartedly agree. Well, at least one major newspaper understands what’s going on, even if the New York Times does not.