Leahy Won't Give In To GOP On Holder, Blames Rove

The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee signaled on Friday that he will not acquiesce to GOP complaints and would stick to his original timeline for considering the nomination of Eric Holder as Attorney General.

In a lengthy statement from his office, Sen. Patrick Leahy offered no indication that he would move hearings on the Holder appointment from their scheduled date of January 8th. Moreover, he called GOP complaints that the nomination was being too quickly considered a fabricated and hypocritical critique driven by former Bush operative Karl Rove.

"In my statement to the Senate on November 20, I commended Senators Hatch, Sessions, Coburn, and Grassley for their nonpartisanship when they praised his selection. Senator Hatch spoke of his support for Mr. Holder, his experience and reputation. Senator Sessions, a former prosecutor, U.S. Attorney, and State Attorney General who is well aware of the problems at the Justice Department, said he was disposed to support him. Senator Coburn called it 'a good choice.' In addition, Senator Grassley has acknowledged Mr. Holder's impeccable credentials while reserving judgment. But of course since then, Karl Rove has appeared on the Today Show and signaled that Republicans ought to go after Mr. Holder. Right-wing talk radio took up the drum beat."

Leahy's statement comes the day after the GOP Senators he mentioned above took to the Senate floor to raise concerns about the Holder nomination. Their complaints focused primarily on Holder's involvement in the pardon of Marc Rich and other controversial actions taken by the Clinton Justice Department. Several suggested that if they weren't granted more time to consider the appointment, they would do everything in their power to hold up the nomination.

Leahy, who will have the greatest say in how Holder's nomination progresses, scoffed at the GOP's newfound desire for judicial prudence and political patience. Noting that there has been, on average, 29 days between the "announcement of an Attorney General designation and the start of hearings, and 37 days on average from the announcement of the nominee to the Committee vote," the Vermont Democrat wondered why, with Holder, Senate Republicans felt 39 days to consider the nomination and 50 days before the Judiciary Committee votes was too little time.

"When President Bush nominated Michael Mukasey last year," he said, "Senator Kyl said: 'Since the Carter administration, Attorney General nominees have been confirmed, on average, in approximately three weeks, with some being confirmed even more quickly. The Senate should immediately move to consider Judge Mukasey's nomination and ensure he is confirmed before Congress recesses for Columbus Day.' I held that hearing within 30 days. We should not change the standards now that a Democrat is making the selection."

Comments

[IsidoroRDL]

As to the confirmation hearing on Eric Holder is Michael Isikoff's cover story in Newsweek, "The Fed Who Blew the Whistle," and the general issue of pardons, amnesties and similar measures for violation of Congressional mandates. The evidence confirms that Eric Holder’s past policies were the base on which former White House Counsel, and then Attorney General Gonzales used to direct DOJ, i.e. the pardon of Marc Rich and other actions to usurp accountability was not an anomaly, but a pattern and practice.

I have experience of litigating against the polices of Eric Holder at DOJ during the ‘90, and later when he was a typical Beltway attorney/lobbyist. Thus I oppose his confirmation, see http://capwiz.com/congressorg/sbx/f/?aid=12313551&r=1.

In summary, the Senate cannot confirm him because evidence confirm that as a Beltway attorney/lobbyist he has been the linchpin in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct the rights of a father and retaliate against an attorney for litigating to enforce federal statutory rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1202, and 1513.

Thus, as a US. citizen and Nam Vet who took the oath 44 years ago to defend and protect the Constitution from, "all enemies, foreign and domestic," irrespective of being a Republican, Democrat, or Independent each Senator must act now to restore the Rule of Law and assure compliance by DOJ with the mandate of separation of power and checks and balances. Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., isidoror@e­arthlink.n­er

[research]

From Prison???

[naschkatze]

Think Progress says that Karl Rove will lead the attack on Eric Holder. Gee, I wonder why. It's all the more reason we must make sure Holder is the one.

[rollingdivision]

"We had assumed Specter's request was the traditional ploy to draw things out so opponents would have more time to find dirt on the nominee. " Leahy But if there's no dirt to find what's the big deal with a 2 week delay? What are the hiding? Why are they against transparency? What don't they want the public to find out?

[Loki11467]

Let us see here. These GOP thugs who gave us Gonzalez are piping up about Holder? They supported the worst AG ever in history. A guy who had zero qualifications aside from being a Bush-Cheney lap dog and they have issues with Holder? I guess to be Senator you don't have to be smart.

[pupbayer]

1. Obviously, you don't have to be smart to be a senator. Have you not been paying attention?

2. It amuses me that so many on here always use the excuse that "they did it" or "they did worse" to justify Obama and his camp doing whatever they may do. Either many are very young or very out of touch or both.

[AgathaX]

There are no excuses here. Merely a contrast between the lack of opposition to an incompetent with opposition to one eminently qualified. The Republican noise, however, is as meaningless as it is unsurprising. The Republican party can do nothing unless it speaks with one voice. Which it cannot do. Holder will be easily confirmed.

[ggmome]

Of Course Rove does not want a 'competent' AG in DOJ, because that is where he did his thing, and an AG who knows the DOJ, can and will expose his modes operandi.

[StillAmused]

There's an on-off switch on the wall at RNC headquarters. It turns on handwringing, overwrought concern for ethical details when that's convenient, but it's duct-taped in the 'off' position the rest of the time. In fact, the tape was so dried in place from not being touched for eight years, they had to chisel it off the wall.

Karl Rove loaned them his own chisel.

[Ron1951]

And has Mukasey done an acceptable job as AG? NO.

[harriscrl3]

Rethugs continue to Object to Holder that means I really really want him. Too bad their tantrums will not work. Now the AP is reporting that there will be conflict of interest with the Chicago Blagojevich and Rezco case and he will have ot remove himself from that because of conflict of interest. Says who? Its such a joke to see these folks concern about ethics and legality after the Bush administration Justice department.

I WANT HOLDER!!! I wasnt that invested in him but NOW I AM!!!

HE is the RIGHT GUY for the job

Carol

[naschkatze]

I say there would be conflict of interest if Mr. Fitzgerald is allowed to stay in Chicago and prosecute Blagoyevich. His inflammatory characterization of the governor, who has not even been indicted, was excessive and poses a threat to due process. Those were the kinds of remarks which a prosecutor makes before the jury before they go off into seclusion. I am also suspicious of the relationship he has fostered with The Chicago Tribune. And BTW, Senator Leahy, I think Rove is behind him too.

[ohyes]

Bushies and GOP are very affright of the Hammer of Justice,
and they will squeal like the pigs that they are.

[Georgia1992]

Deliverance.

[Madampotential]

Hmmm .. What could Rove be so afraid of? Wat will Holder find ou about Rove's involvement in the conviction of the Alabama governor>? What was Rove's part in the US attorney scandal?? I have seen Rove all over FOX going after Holder. Holder must be one tough S*B for ROve to already be running scared. HA!!!!

[hpjake]

Realistically, what can a rational person expect from a nominee who enters the process LYING?

Will he then STOP lying, because he is the A.G.?

Holder is on very recent record saying that he "regrets" NOT paying closer attention to the Rich pardon.

In fact, the record shows, through meetings and correspondence, that Holder was used as a resource for the Marc Rich "pardon team" of Clinton connections, for many, many months prior to the pardon. He adviseded and consented the pardon team.

For Mr. Holder now to profess the matter fell through the cracks is a blatant lie.

The Republican will have the facts on their side, will show him to be a liar, and Obama sticking to him will tarnish the Change We Can Believe In right from the very start.

Let Holder defend Illinois Governor Rod at trail. That's where Mr. Holder will have the most ex[erience - making rationalizations for a "mis-understood, unfairly accused" power person.

[johnnynyc]

Yeah, he "regrets", we all regret some things.

That's not a crime.

There is no one in the world of politics that's as pure as the Republicans seem to think they need to be in order to uphold some new kind of mythical standard of ethics.

They had their chance at upholding ethical standards for 8 years and failed abysmally.

The least they and the press can do now is stop inventing controversies and let us get on with the 21st century.

[RussellH]

Who really cares about the Mark Rich pardon? Anti-Clintonites, mostly! After Scooter Libby's "commutation," who cares what Republicans say about Holder. If Leahy needs to make it a fight, he will do so! Indeed, Rove is rightfully frightened of what may happen to him after Jan 20th as well he should be. For Fox and other righties to give him a platform shows how corrupt they all are! Oh, I forgot, he is Black!

[edwarvir]

Holder is our next AG get use to it .

[partyofone]

No one is asking the Sentate to give into the GOP in vetting Eric Holder. It is essential to Constitutional government that the AG operate with a degree of independence from the White House. We saw how badly abused the Justice Department became in the Bush years. When Holder rubber stamped Bill Clinton's sleazy pardon of Mark Rich in exchange for major donations to his Library and Hillary's Senate campaign, he played politics and abdicated his oath to uphold justice. Is Obama looking for an AG who will do his bidding the way Holder did for Clinton?

Senators of both parties would be right to scrutinize, and confirm or reject the nomination based on its merits, not party loyalties. Is Leahey saying Holder should be confirmed simply because he is a Demcrat? Obama promised CHANGE in the way Washington operates. His nomin

[hardybear]

In my opinion, partyofone, If you are truly concerned with change, it might behoove
you to cease living in the past. If virtually every one of your arguments wends
it's way inevitably back to the Clinton administration, it leaves little room for any
fresh perspective.

I'm sorry, but It's tremendously tiresome.

Are there not enough new battles to join? Maybe with the sitting administration? You
know, the ones we have Genuine issues with for having driven us into this Texas-sized
ditch of war(s) and economic collapse?

[billthinx]

OK, partyofone, you laid it out fine for civics_101. who would disagree with you? but there is also politics_101 going on here and the Repubs are clearly looking for any tiny crack in the mirror to exploit. Your logic is not what is really driving the "attention" to Holder... the drive is to damage Obama any way possible. Look how they are so quickly using Blagojevich to try to "taint" Obama! Of course AG's should be independent, but they are also appointed to reflect the values and direction espoused by the appointing president. Repub senators still haven't swallowed their overwhelming rejection by the voters, so according to politics_101 those Repubs will have to be beaten back down (finessed) for awhile until they finally get humble and drop the Rove/Cheney mentality. I do hope that Holder turns out to be more Obama than Blagojevich, but unfortunately posturing for the Senate Repubs and the nightly newsytainment shows won't bring up anything but smears.

[LiberalBuzz]

What is amazing to me is this constant WITHOUT proof that Clinton pardoned Rich for money when NO proof of any such thing ever happened.

So why do people keep lying about that?

The pardon did Rich no good as he is still wanted on other charges and has never set foot back in the U.S.

So show us this so called "sleazy" pardon and proof of such. Clinton was president and allowed to pardon ANY ONE HE DAM NED PLEASES. Just like Bush.

Got a problem with it.

TUFF

By the way how come no outrage over the very obvious sidestepping of justice when Bush Sr did the Christmas eve pardons thus stopping a serious criminal investigation.
.

[hpjake]

You apparently don't read The Nation magazine.

They detail a labyrinth of quid-pro-quo in the Hillary maze of personnel.

[Horus45]

Holder was NOT Clinton's AG!
He did what his BOSS AG Janet Reno told him to do.
Let's see how long you last in a job if you don't do what your boss tells you to do!

[johnnynyc]

If Holder committed a crime he should be prosecuted for it just like everyone else.

If not, let's move on.

[ByersL]

Thank you Patrick Leahy, maybe we could get you as Senate leader, Harry is just too weak.