Okay since the mods want this in a seperate topic, I'm going to point out that Eric Holder has no business being the Attorney General.
A forthcoming Congressional report on the last-minute pardons by President Bill Clinton says Deputy Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was a ''willing participant in the plan to keep the Justice Department from knowing about and opposing'' a pardon for Marc Rich, the financier. --New York Times (
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D06E3DB1239F930A25750C0A9649C8B) 63&scp=2&sq=eric+holder+marc+rich+pardon&st=nyt)
Clinton may have been signing the pardons but based on the 2002 Article, Eric Holder was a co-conspirator and bears responsibility for this as well.
Technically, this should be a part of the debate about Obama's cabinet appointees since we're talking about the potential head of the Department of Justice.
And unless you find something about a scandal involving one of Bush's appointees prior to them being appointed, don't post it because it isn't relevant.
Wanna know something funny?
But the report, by the House Government Reform Committee -- whose chairman is Dan Burton, the Indiana Republican who was a persistent critic of Mr. Clinton
And this:
The report says Mr. Holder became involved through a chance encounter with Gershon Kekst, a prominent public relations strategist who has advised Mr. Rich since 1997. The two men were seated together at a DaimlerChrysler dinner in November 1998, and Mr. Kekst asked what advice Mr. Holder had for someone who had been ''improperly indicted by an overzealous prosecutor.'' Mr. Holder recommended hiring ''a lawyer who knows the process, he comes to me, and we work it out.'' The report acknowledges that Mr. Holder did not realize he was speaking to someone in the Rich camp.
Thus, we can conclude:
1. Since this report was a person who was an outspoken critic of Clinton, it might have a great amount of bias attached to it.
2. Holder did not know that he was talking to an associate of Rich, therefore, he did not know that he was giving advice to an accused criminal.
3. I fail to see what this has to do with Holder becoming Obama's Attorney General. Since Clinton himself ordered Rich's pardon, Holder was simply following orders.
Wanna know something funny?
But the report, by the House Government Reform Committee -- whose chairman is Dan Burton, the Indiana Republican who was a persistent critic of Mr. Clinton
This is the New York Times that is reporting this, because the New York Times isn't rambling about the charges being an outrage, etc. You know darn well that the charges are probably true. Particularly when it comes to Democrats because the NY Times likes to bury negative stories about Democrats.
And this:
The report says Mr. Holder became involved through a chance encounter with Gershon Kekst, a prominent public relations strategist who has advised Mr. Rich since 1997. The two men were seated together at a DaimlerChrysler dinner in November 1998, and Mr. Kekst asked what advice Mr. Holder had for someone who had been ''improperly indicted by an overzealous prosecutor.'' Mr. Holder recommended hiring ''a lawyer who knows the process, he comes to me, and we work it out.'' The report acknowledges that Mr. Holder did not realize he was speaking to someone in the Rich camp.
Again you've shot yourself in the foot, because the report points out that he didn't go through the proper procedure. If he took this guy at his word without doing some cross checking then he's an incompetitent idiot. Which while it doesn't make him look bad from a criminal standpoint we don't need a Attorney General that can't realize that criminals will actually lie to try to paint law enforcement as the bad guy.
1. Since this report was a person who was an outspoken critic of Clinton, it might have a great amount of bias attached to it.
Technically, this could absolve Clinton of some of the blame, since Clinton could claim that Holder told him that the Justice Department cleared the man to be pardoned (in other words saying Holder lied to him). Since you're saying the man that is leading the investigation is biased against Clinton, he'd therefore under your argument try to throw as much blame on Clinton as possible following your reasoning.
2. Holder did not know that he was talking to an associate of Rich, therefore, he did not know that he was giving advice to an accused criminal.
And you mean to tell me that he took everything this man said at face value? What is this guy an incompetitent idiot? Seriously the man is supposed to be a Lawyer (whom is a Prosecutor I might add), he is supposed to look at the facts not just take what someone says at face value over dinner.
3. I fail to see what this has to do with Holder becoming Obama's Attorney General. Since Clinton himself ordered Rich's pardon, Holder was simply following orders.
No, he apparently withheld information from the Justice Department so they didn't know about this guy being up for a pardon in violation of procedures. Clinton could actually effectively argue that he thought it had been cleared even claim that Holder assured him it had been cleared. Not that I'd believe Clinton to tell me the time of day, but seriously Holder is partially responsible for the pardon.
Finally unlike the smearing of Governor Palin, this really didn't affect Democrats at all, 2002 wasn't a Presidential Election year and the story was in March, so you can't even argue that this was released to try to smear Democrats in an election. Heck Senator Clinton couldn't be effected either because she wouldn't have been up for re-election till 2006.
This is the New York Times that is reporting this, because the New York Times isn't rambling about the charges being an outrage, etc. You know darn well that the charges are probably true. Particularly when it comes to Democrats because the NY Times likes to bury negative stories about Democrats.
The New York Times also had a guy who made up news.
Again you've shot yourself in the foot, because the report points out that he didn't go through the proper procedure. If he took this guy at his word without doing some cross checking then he's an incompetitent idiot.
I'd like to see you do a background check on the guy you're talking to over a dinner table.
The New York Times also had a guy who made up news.
Yes, but they tend to have two different standards when reporting on something, last I checked Clinton wasn't a Republican.
I'd like to see you do a background check on the guy you're talking to over a dinner table.
Uh, when I have a guy trying get me to help someone get pardoned (assuming I'd be a prosecutor, governor, etc.), believe me I'd do so some research.
Yes, but they tend to have two different standards when reporting on something, last I checked Clinton wasn't a Republican.
My point is that there are reasons not to trust the NYT besides their bias.
Uh, when I have a guy trying get me to help someone get pardoned (assuming I'd be a prosecutor, governor, etc.), believe me I'd do so some research.
The guy wasn't asking for help pardoning a guy. Not to mention you can't do research in the middle of dinner. He just said "I know this guy who's in XXXXX trouble, how can I help him."
He could have been talking about his cousin who just got busted for meth.
My point is that there are reasons not to trust the NYT besides their bias.
And I generally don't trust the New York Times when they report anything negative about a Republican. The fact is they have a much higher standard when they report something negative about a Democrat.
The guy wasn't asking for help pardoning a guy. Not to mention you can't do research in the middle of dinner. He just said "I know this guy who's in XXXXX trouble, how can I help him."
Okay, so he deliberately didn't follow proper procedure when it came to handling the reviews for the pardons... That's not really a good explanation.
He could have been talking about his cousin who just got busted for meth.
Uh, that's what the review is for, which he concealed the fact that Marc Rich was even being considered for a pardon from the Justice Department.
And I generally don't trust the New York Times when they report anything negative about a Republican. The fact is they have a much higher standard when they report something negative about a Democrat.
So you'll only believe them when they report something bad about a democrat?
Double standards, much?
So you'll only believe them when they report something bad about a democrat?
Double standards, much?
Actually, it isn't a double standard, because the NY Times makes it a point to try to cover up stories on Democrats that happen to be negative and/or tries to paint the Democrat in the best light possible.
Bill Clinton is a Democrat
New York Times tries to cover up negative stories concerning Democrats
So if the New York Times is admitting it, I'm going to say based on their track record the story is probably true or a lot worse than they are saying it is.