WaPo Editorial: More Advice, Less Consent
The Senate's confirmation hearings get off to a less-than-edifying start.
The Washington Post, Tuesday, January 13, 2009; Page A14
THE SENATE confirmation process is often viewed in terms of gladiatorial combat: Is the nomination "in trouble"? Will the nominee be roughed up? Will the opposing party get a scalp? A rousing confirmation battle can be fun to watch -- as, no doubt, some found the proceedings in the Colosseum -- but that really shouldn't be the point. Confirmation hearings offer an opportunity for nominees to lay out, to the extent possible, their views about the policy and managerial challenges they will confront, and for lawmakers to lay down markers on issues that matter to them. This is true even -- maybe even especially -- when the Senate is controlled by the same party as the White House. After all, the Constitution contemplates the advice of the Senate as well as its consent.
The process did not start well last week. The hearing on former senator Thomas A. Daschle's nomination as secretary of health and human services was more lovefest than serious discussion of complex policy issues. Nonetheless, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), the committee's ranking Republican, secured Mr. Daschle's pledge to try to use the regular legislative process to accomplish health-care reform rather than short-circuiting normal Senate rules by folding the measure into what's known as "reconciliation." The hearings for the nominee for labor secretary, Rep. Hilda L. Solis (D-Calif.), were even more disappointing. On numerous issues -- so-called "card check" legislation for union organizing, a Bush-era regulation on overtime pay, an executive order allowing nonunionized companies to obtain federal contracts, state right-to-work laws -- Ms. Solis offered variations on: "That's something that I think I'm not prepared to give you a complete answer on at this time."
This week's confirmation calendar is crowded with a dozen hearings, including for Secretary of State-designate Hillary Rodham Clinton, Attorney General-designate Eric H. Holder Jr. and Education Secretary-designate Arne Duncan. There will be understandable limits to what Ms. Clinton can say, for example, about the situation in Gaza. But it would be helpful for the committee to probe, among other areas, how Ms. Clinton plans to navigate any conflicts between her role as secretary of state and her husband's global foundation; in particular, the committee should study whether the promised disclosure and review of Mr. Clinton's activities could be strengthened.
Mr. Duncan has been hailed as a consensus candidate because his selection pleased people who hold starkly different ideas about how to improve schools. So what does he intend for the landmark No Child Left Behind law? Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has raised legitimate, significant questions about Mr. Holder's nomination: Does his role in the pardon of financier Marc Rich or other matters give cause for concern about his ability to "maintain his independence from the president," as Mr. Specter put it. Likewise, the concerns expressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) about CIA Director-designate Leon Panetta's lack of experience in the intelligence field are eminently reasonable. Mr. Panetta is a knowledgeable and skilled public servant, but it is fair to ask how he proposes to compensate for the fact that this is not his area of expertise.
Except in extraordinary cases, a president is entitled to the Cabinet secretaries of his choice. But the Senate is entitled -- in fact, it is obligated -- to ask probing questions, and to expect, to the maximum possible extent, answers that go beyond, "I'll get back to you on that."
Monday, January 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The Clinton Business
ReplyDeleteWSJ Editorial, Jan 13, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123180707523975597.html
Bill out-negotiated Barack on financial disclosure.
These columns have long believed that a President deserves the cabinet members he wants, barring some major dereliction. So if Barack Obama wants to make Hillary and Bill Clinton part of his governing team, that's his business. We can only hope he understands the Clinton family business he's taking on.
Take Mr. Clinton's post-Presidential fund-raising, the scope of which he finally disclosed in late December after years of refusing and under pressure from the Obama transition. Amid the holidays and economic news, this window on the Clinton political method has received less attention than it deserves. Here is the spectacle of a former President circling the globe to raise at least $492 million over 10 years for his foundation -- much of it from assorted rogues, dictators and favor-seekers. We are supposed to believe that none of this -- and none of his future fund-raising -- will have any influence on Mrs. Clinton's conduct as Secretary of State.
The silence over this is itself remarkable. When Henry Kissinger was invited merely to co-chair the 9/11 Commission, the political left went bonkers about his foreign clients. In this case we have a Secretary of State nominee whose husband may have raised more than $60 million from various Middle East grandees, and Washington reacts with a yawn. Maybe someone will even ask about it at her nomination hearing today.
A Senator should ask, because this has the potential to complicate life for the new President. All the more so because under terms of his agreement with Mr. Obama, Mr. Clinton will be able to keep raising foreign cash as long as the donors send the checks to a Clinton entity other than the "Clinton Global Initiative." Instead of being immediately disclosed, future donations will only be made public once a year and the exact amounts and dates of previous donations will never be made public.
While Mr. Clinton will submit some donations from foreign governments to Administration scrutiny, he need only do so if the donations are new or are of a significantly larger magnitude from a previous donation. In other words, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Sultanate of Oman can keep giving millions without U.S. government review even while Mrs. Clinton is America's chief diplomat. These disclosure limitations suggest that the Clintons seriously out-negotiated Team Obama. We hope the President-elect does better with Iran.
As for potential embarrassment, consider the "up to $5 million" in donations to the Clinton foundation from Gilbert Chagoury, known for his ties to Nigeria's former military dictator, General Sani Abacha. The Journal's John Emshwiller recently noted that unfortunately for Mr. Chagoury, after Abacha died in 1998, "Swiss and other European authorities froze a number of bank accounts, including some related to Mr. Chagoury, as part of an investigation by the Nigerian government and others about whether billions of dollars had been improperly taken out of the country during the Abacha regime, according to news reports and a 2001 British court decision in Abacha-related litigation. Mr. Chagoury later agreed to return funds, estimated to be as much as $300 million, to the Nigerian government in exchange for indemnity from possible charges and to unfreeze his accounts, according to the British court decision."
Another notable donor -- also up to $5 million -- is Viktor Pinchuk, son-in-law of former Ukraine president Leonid Kuchma. Mr. Pinchuk was mentioned in a 2005 Journal story headlined, "Haunted By Suspect Deals Of Old Regime." Suspect indeed. The "privatization" of the country's largest steel plant in a sale to a group including Mr. Pinchuk was later overturned after the country held a democratic election.
And only this month, the New York Times reported that New York developer Robert Congel gave $100,000 to the Clinton foundation in November, 2004, one month after the enactment of a law that gave Mr. Congel access to tax-exempt "green bonds" to build a shopping mall in Syracuse. Mrs. Clinton had supported the law, and within a year of the donation she secured $5 million in taxpayer funds for the complex.
It'd be nice to think Mr. Clinton would forswear this money-hustle while his wife is Secretary of State, but that self-sacrifice would belie his entire career. As for Mrs. Clinton, note the scrutiny that Eric Holder, Mr. Obama's Attorney General nominee, is coming under for his role in aiding pardons for 16 unrepentant Puerto Rican terrorists in 1999. But keep in mind the timing of those pardons was intended to help Mrs. Clinton win Puerto Rican support in her 2000 Senate campaign. Someone should ask her at today's hearing about the role she played in that pardon.
In signing up the Clintons -- always two for the price of one -- Mr. Obama is no doubt hoping to unite his party and mute Democratic criticism when mistakes happen. He is also hiring someone whose prominence and allies make her impossible to fire, even as she and her husband have a history of cutting ethical corners. Good luck.
Even Businessmen Deserve a Lawyer. By Arlen Specter and Edwin Meese III
ReplyDeleteHow Eric Holder enabled federal prosecutors to bully defendants.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123197816826483663.html
The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Eric Holder's nomination for attorney general has failed to focus on the threat to constitutional rights posed by what is known as the "Holder Memorandum." Near the end of the Clinton administration, this memo changed Justice Department policy regarding the formerly unquestioned right to counsel and to confidential communication with one's counsel.
The Holder memo allowed federal prosecutors to demand waiver of these rights in exchange for characterizing a corporation as "cooperating in an investigation" so that it would not be charged with a crime itself. It thus handed prosecutors a powerful weapon in white-collar criminal investigations.
But the result has been a "culture of waiver" in which employees often must choose between their jobs or going to prison, and employers are increasingly reluctant to conduct internal investigations or seek candid legal advice from counsel, lest they be forced to turn over to the government a road map for prosecuting the company.
Much of the 1999 Holder Memorandum is an unobjectionable discussion of factors federal prosecutors should consider in making decisions whether to bring criminal charges. But several of the listed factors struck at the heart of the right to counsel and the attorney-client relationship, as well as the presumption of innocence.
The attorney-client privilege has been protected for centuries by courts and attorneys. Most corporate bylaws and state courts protect an employee's access to adequate legal defense counsel when a criminal investigation relates to some action an individual took in his capacity as employee. But beginning with the Holder memo -- and continuing in two subsequent memos issued in the next administration -- employees not yet convicted (or even charged) were caught between prosecutors who used them as bargaining chips and the companies who employed them but wanted to be deemed "cooperative."
It is our hope that in his confirmation hearings, Mr. Holder will provide assurances that he will review and reverse the effects of his 1999 memorandum.
As is clear from what happened to international accounting firm Arthur Andersen and its 28,000 employees, for many companies federal indictment is instant death. Appellate review comes too late. Because Andersen ceased to operate long before what was left of the firm went on trial, the U.S. Supreme Court's reversal of its tenuous conviction was a Pyrrhic victory incapable of bringing the firm back to life or restoring its employees' careers.
The Holder Memorandum policies forced companies under federal investigation to provide the government as much incriminating evidence about their employees as possible. Employers would pressure employees, on threat of termination, to give statements that compromised their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The choices were draconian, regardless of how loyal and well-meaning the employer and employee might be.
Since the Justice Department is the primary federal law-enforcement organization, its policies and practices set the tone for other federal agencies. Similar policies were adopted by the Internal Revenue Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and others.
The same day in 2008 that the Justice Department issued new, greatly improved -- but regrettably still inadequate -- guidance, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York affirmed an important decision by District Judge Lewis Kaplan in a tax-fraud prosecution of former employees of accounting firm KPMG. Judge Kaplan had held that federal prosecutors, following Justice Department policies, forced the employer to cut off payment of legal fees and otherwise prejudice its employees' rights, thereby violating 13 individuals' Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The appeals court affirmed Judge Kaplan's findings in all respects.
Legislation may be the only way to ensure that these unconstitutional practices are ended. No one questions that we must prosecute white-collar crime vigorously, especially in light of the financial debacles of the past two years. And, like many other questionable tactics, forcing privilege waivers does make the prosecutor's job easier. But the legitimate goals of law enforcement that Mr. Holder had in mind when he issued the Holder Memorandum do not justify chilling the exercise of legal and constitutional rights of employees to seek advice of counsel, and, if they choose, to mount a legal defense. There are reports that some of the far-reaching consequences of the Holder Memorandum were unforeseen by its author. If so, the most straightforward path to rectifying what has gone wrong would be for Mr. Holder to declare in his confirmation hearings that he supports legislation like the Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act and will work with Congress to enact it.
Mr. Specter is a Republican senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. Meese, former attorney general of the United States (1985-1988), is chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
The moment of truth about Eric Holder's moment of truth, by Paul Johnson
ReplyDeletePowerLine Blog, January 15, 2009 at 10:07 PM
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022563.php
The Senate Judiciary held a hearing today to consider the nomination of Eric Holder for Attorney General. It seems clear that Holder will be confirmed. Senator Hatch signaled his intention to vote for confirmation and that Republican vote alone would be enough. It won't be the only one either.
The Washington Republican establishment is mostly behind Holder. Most members of that establishment feel more comfortable with their fellow Washington insider than they do with taking their chances on an Obama nominee to be named later. Some Republican lawyers might also see Holder's confirmation as inevitable and want to make sure they are on his good side.
Whether Holder should be confirmed is a very different matter. In his opening remarks, Holder stated that law enforcement must be untainted by politics. He also insisted that the Department of Justice represents the people, not the president.
But when Holder faced his moment of truth in the waning days of the Clinton presidency, he failed to live up to these principles. Holder put President Clinton's interest in pardoning a fugitive criminal ahead of the people's interest in bringing that criminal to justice.
Holder conceded that this was a major mistake. The specific mistake, he says, was not learning the facts surrounding Rich's circumstances. Note that by characterizing his error this way, he is able to deny knowing the things that made the pardon such an abomination. Thus, he denied knowing that Rich had assisted our enemies, including Iran. And he denied knowing about the large sums of money Rich's wife had donated to Democratic and Clinton interests.
Assuming that Holder didn't find any of these things out, the question becomes why. In the portions of the hearing I heard, and in the reports I've seen, he never provided an explanation. For example, he simply ducked Senator Specter's question about why he didn't ask one of the DOJ attorneys who warned him against the Rich pardon what the problem was. The best Holder could do was to note that this particular attorney was not the pardon attorney.
In the absence of an explanation, the conclusion seems inescapable that, if Holder really was as ignorant as he claims to have been, it was because he didn't want to know. President Clinton wanted the pardon and Holder wanted to get it accomplished. Holder, in short, put the president's interest first, and a reprehensible criminal bought his pardon.
Holder's failure to adhere to his own first principles during his moment of truth would permit, though standing alone probably not compel, a vote against his confirmation.
All of this assumes that Holder is telling the truth. But it may be that Holder knew more than what he acknowledges. It may also be that, as a House report found, Holder steered Rich's representatives to Jack Quinn and then assisted Quinn in cutting the Justice Department out of the loop. Holder disputes these findings.
The Republican members of the Judiciary Committee are commendably reluctant to conclude that Holder is not telling the truth. However, the conduct of the Democratic members, and of Holder himself, should give them pause.
As to the Democrats, they have refused to give the Republicans the time they need to review the documentary record that has been produced; refused to allow them to present more than a handful of witnesses; refused to sign a letter that would have expedited the release of key documents from the Clinton library; and refused to subpoena key witnesses, including the pardon attorney at the time of Rich pardon, Roger Adams. Among the documents that the Dems have obstructed the Republicans from obtaining is the Justice Department memo concerning another extremely controversial pardon Holder was involved with -- the pardon of the FALN terrorists. Holder may have nothing to hide, but the Dems aren't behaving that way.
As to Holder, he seems to have been less than candid in discussing his relationship with Governor Blagojevich. For example, as I noted on Monday, Holder's claim that he performed no substantive legal work for Blagojevich is not accurate. In fact, Holder issued a request for production of documents in April 2004 in furtherance of an investigation he was performing on the governor's behalf. And Holder's highly dubious denial of performing substantive work followed his initial failure to disclose the press conference at which Blago announced that Holder would be handling the investigation. Holder may have nothing to hide, but he's not acting that way.
In short, I see two defensible approaches to the Holder nomination: (1) vote against confirmation on the grounds that Holder's own admissions regarding the Rich pardon show him to be unsuitable for the nation's chief law enforcement officer job and (2) refuse to vote for confirmation until Holder and the Senate Dems are more forthcoming.
Unfortunately, we are heading for (3) confirm the insider.
Holder's disgrace, by Scott Johnson
ReplyDeletehttp://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022574.php
PowerLine Blog, January 17, 2009 at 7:50 AM
Eric Holder illustrates the dangers of ambition married to weak character. His subservience to the interests of Bill Clinton in approving the corrupt pardon of Marc Rich and the indefensible pardons of the FALN terrorists was a disgrace. His role in these pardons should disqualify him for higher office.
Holder himself does not defend his role in the Rich pardon. He concedes it was a mistake. He claims somewhat paradoxically that he learned so much from his mistake that he will be a better Attorney General. Holder makes no such concession or claim in the case of the FALN terrorists. Joseph Connor is the son of one of their victims. He testified against Holder in the confirmation hearing yesterday. In "Terrorists killed my father," Connor writes:
At the time of the [FALN] pardons, Eric H. Holder Jr. was deputy attorney general. In considering his department's recommendation on clemency, he met with supporters of the terrorists but ignored their victims. He pushed staff members to drop their strong opposition to a presidential pardon for the FALN members and alter a report they had prepared for the president recommending against clemency. Today, although two turned down their pardons because they were unwilling to renounce violence, many of the convicted FALN members walk free. And a man who was instrumental in their release may become the highest law enforcer in the land.
Holder said at his confirmation hearing Thursday that he thought Clinton's decision to pardon the FALN members was "reasonable." But they were bad people. During their Chicago trial, some of them threatened the life of Judge Thomas McMillen, who was hearing the case. Carmen Valentin, one of those later pardoned by Clinton, told the judge, "You are lucky that we cannot take you right now," and she told other officers of the court, "You will be walking with canes and wheelchairs. ... Revolutionary justice can be fierce." She also declared war against the United States. Dylcia Pagan, another recipient of Clinton's gift, warned the courtroom: "All of you, I would advise you to watch your backs." McMillen was convinced the defendants would continue being terrorists as long as they lived. "If there was a death penalty," he said at their sentencing, "I'd impose the penalty on you without hesitation."
---
In its editorial today supporting the confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General, the Washginton Post adopts Holder's defense of the FALN pardons:
Mr. Holder defended his support for Mr. Clinton's commutation of the sentences of 16 members of a Puerto Rican terrorist group based on the facts that none of the 16 had been convicted of murder and that most had served almost 20 years in prison. There is still much to dislike in the commutations themselves. But no new evidence emerged to challenge Mr. Holder's assertion that the recommendation was based on his best judgment.
This defense of the FALN terrorists lacks a certain logic. Whether or not the FALN terrorists were convicted of murder, they wantonly perpetrated it. Does Holder dispute that? Morevoer, if the recommendation was based on Holder's best judgment, Holder shouldn't be a partner at a prominent Washington law firm, let alone the Attorney General of the United States
Reasonable in what sense? By Paul Mirengoff
ReplyDeletePowerline, Jan 17, 2009
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022581.php
Eric Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the pardons of 16 members of the Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN, which he helped push through the Justice Department, were "reasonable." Certainly, the pardons were reasonable from the Clintons' point of view -- she was looking for support for her Senate bid from Hispanic groups. And they were reasonable from Holder's point of view -- he wanted to assist the then-first family of the Democratic party.
But were the pardons reasonable from the point of view of justice?
In an earlier post, Scott, quoting extensively from Joseph Connor, son of a victim of FALN terrorism, shows that the pardons were manifestly unjust. But Holder's defense of the pardons is revealing enough to warrant further comment.
Holder noted that none of the 16 FALN members had been convicted of murder and that most had served almost 20 years in prison. But there is no shortage of long-term prisoners who have not been convicted murder. Among members of this class, why is it reasonable to bestow pardons on anti-American terrorists? And how can it be reasonable to give them to individuals so unrepentant that two of them refused to accept their pardon? As Mr. Connor put it, pardoning these terrorists was "a disrespectful affront to all Americans, particularly to those of us who have come face to face with their violence."
For his part,Holder declined to "come face to face" with the victims of the FALN's terrorism. He met with supporters of the terrorists but ignored their victims. He then pushed DOJ attorneys to drop their strong opposition to the pardons and alter a report they had prepared for the president recommending against clemency.
This approach to decision-making -- heavy-handedness coupled with unwillingness to listen, in the service of a pre-determined objective -- is the antithesis of the kind president-elect Obama is known for. It is sad to think that Republican Senators for whom we have always had great respect are intent on supporting Holder under these circumstances.
Holder has admitted that his role in the Marc Rich pardon was a "mistake," but claims that he learned from that mistake and will be a better Attorney General as a result. Yet Holder has not learned enough to recognize that the FALN pardons represent essentially the same "mistake." In both cases, pardons were bestowed on enemies of the United States or their abettors, over the objections of those at the Department of Justice charged with examining the cases objectively, in order to promote the interests of the presidential family. Holder's failure to grasp (or more likely his unwillingness to acknowledge) this common thread should weigh heavily against his confirmation for Attorney General of the United States.
Politicizing Justice. By Andrew C. McCarthy
ReplyDeleteHow would Holder fare under the Democrats’ Gonzales standards?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTc5ZWE2ZWIzMWZiM2NiZTc2NzNkM2E4MjY2ODkxNDQ=
'How can we trust your leadership when . . . you just constantly change the story, seemingly to fit your needs to wiggle out of being caught, frankly, telling mistruths?”
Remember Sen. Chuck Schumer’s skewering of Alberto Gonzales? Watching the bobs, weaves, and outright denials of attorney-general nominee Eric Holder as he struggles to explain his inexplicable conduct in the Marc Rich pardon scandal, one can’t help but remember. It seems like it was about five minutes ago that Senate Democrats were posing as the last line of defense between a vulnerable public and that greatest of all threats: a “politicized” Justice Department led by an attorney general who wouldn’t level with Everyman’s tribune, the Judiciary Committee.
Schumer was fit to be tied—or at least pretended to be. He wasn’t so much questioning as scolding Gonzales. The Scorseses at the New York Times and NBC News had cried “Action!” and the Left’s divas, who’ve made the Judiciary Committee their center stage for 20 years of Borkings, snapped into carefully choreographed outrage.
We’d already heard the warm-up act from non-Judiciary Democrats like Sen. Mark Pryor, who’d pronounced months earlier: “When an attorney general lies to a United States senator, I think it is time for that attorney general to go.” But it was July 2007 when the real stars of the melodrama took the stage: “The attorney general is meant to be the chief law-enforcement officer of the land,” Schumer declaimed. “He must be a person of truth and candor and integrity.”
A tremulous Dianne Feinstein soon arrived, framing Gonzales’s tragic flaw—his alleged inability to relate facts to the committee—in myth and metaphor. It was, the senator said, “almost as if the walls were actually crumbling on this huge department.” Not to be outdone, the maestro himself, Patrick Leahy, brooded over the “discrepancy here in sworn testimony.” To the delight of peanut-gallery partisans, the chairman declared that Gonzales must “be fair to the truth.” Finally, enter the chorus: Feinstein and Schumer’s joining Sheldon Whitehouse and Russ Feingold to demand that the Justice Department appoint an independent counsel to probe Gonzales’s alleged mendacity. “It has become apparent that the attorney general has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements,” they wrote. For Feingold, this was the same old song he’d been singing for two years.
So where are they now, these selfless defenders of truth, Main Justice, and the American Way? They’re tripping over themselves to line up behind Holder, the truth-challenged nominee who helped preside over a hopelessly politicized Justice Department.
With Holder as the pliant deputy attorney general willing to grease the boss’s skids, President Clinton sought to improve the Democrats’ electoral position in New York by doling out pardons to members of FALN, the Puerto Rican terrorist group. Then, transparently in exchange for political contributions, he pardoned Marc Rich, at the time one of the FBI’s ten most wanted fugitives. This was Clinton's final presidential act. It shocked the country—so much so that millions in public funds were expended on congressional and criminal investigations.
The stench of the Rich pardon clings to Holder, who made it happen. It was undeniable that he had abused his office: A House committee report found that his “actions were unconscionable.” The only real question was whether he had been corrupt or merely out of his depth: whether his running interference against his own Justice Department for the fugitive’s benefit was, as the report put it, “the result of incompetence or a deliberate decision to assist Jack Quinn”—Rich’s lawyer and an influential Democrat Holder was hoping would help him become attorney general in a Gore administration.
Luckily for Holder, the investigation didn’t draw a final conclusion. And there it should have been left. Either conclusion illustrates Holder’s unfitness to be given the public trust again—especially given Schumer & Co.’s paeans to “truth and candor and integrity.” Yet here we are. So once again we must wrestle with why Holder went to such lengths for Rich.
HOLDER’S HISTORY WITH RICH
What was most repulsive was Rich’s record: massive tax evasion, fraud, racketeering, and, worst of all, funding America’s enemies—particularly Khomeini’s Iran when it was holding Americans hostage in the late 1970s. Rich’s record was the yardstick of corruption—it said that, for all the Clinton administration’s “rule of law” malarkey, what matter most are money and political connections.
For precisely that reason, Holder has always tried to stay as far away from Rich’s record as possible. His only defense—and it has never been much of one—is that he did not know much about Rich and didn’t educate himself by getting input from the prosecutors responsible for the case. When pressed by the Judiciary Committee in 2001, Holder not only denied having even a vague awareness of the notorious Rich when Quinn first approached him in 1999 for help, but went so far as to claim that “Mr. Rich’s name was unfamiliar to me” at that time.
He averred in the same testimony that, when he later got involved in the pardon discussions, he “gained only a passing familiarity with the underlying facts of the Rich case.”
Now flash forward eight years to Holder’s confirmation hearing two weeks ago. Arlen Specter, the Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, recounted Rich’s catalogue of crimes, including the “atrocious record that Rich had in dealing with Khomeini and the Iranians.” He then put it to Holder straight up:
:
Specter: Were you aware of this kind of a record this man had?
Holder: No I was not. And that was one of the mistakes that I made. I did not really acquaint myself with his record. I knew that the matter involved—it was a tax-fraud case; it was a substantial tax-fraud case. I knew that he was a fugitive. I did not know a lot of the underlying facts that you have described.
After the hearing, senators were permitted to follow up with questions to which the nominee would respond in writing. Specter’s questions went back immediately to the issue of Holder’s knowledge. Here’s question-and-answer 1b:
Specter: Did you receive information about the facts of the Rich case from anyone other than Mr. Rich’s attorney, Jack Quinn?
Holder: No.
Very simply, this is not true. In 1995, when Holder was the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, he had his office sue one of Rich’s companies for concealing its ties to the fugitive in order to obtain lucrative government contracts. Holder’s civil complaint and his comments to the press demonstrate that he was familiar with Rich’s name, and a good deal more, by 1999.
The complaint recounted in detail Rich’s fugitivity, his history of obstructing justice, and the false statements his company made to induce the government to expend $45 million for its coinage metal. In a highly unusual move—one that would be difficult for any former U.S. attorney to forget, since the government does not generally negotiate with the nation’s most wanted fugitives—Holder’s office accepted an affidavit from Rich during settlement negotiations.
As reported by the Wall Street Journal on April 13, 1995, Holder eventually announced to the public that his office was accepting a payment of $1.2 million to dismiss the case, and that this agreement ended his office’s investigation into Rich’s company. The Journal story records Holder’s prosecutors explaining that “Mr. Rich was suspended from doing business with the U.S. government in 1984 after he fled to Switzerland to avoid charges of trading with the enemy and income-tax evasion.”
In other words, Holder knew plenty about Rich when he was approached by Quinn in 1999. Obviously, he helped Jack Quinn help Marc Rich because he calculated that it would be good for his career, not because a negligent inattention to detail left him uninformed about the magnitude of what he was doing.
Judiciary Committee Democrats used to tell us that when new facts had an attorney general telling a new story, that was change you couldn’t believe in. In fact, they argued, it was disqualifying—Justice is just too important, and those trusted to enforce our laws must must exemplify probity. But that was then—when “politicized” meant “Republican.”
— Andrew C. McCarthy is author of Willful Blindness: Memoir of the Jihad.