May 29, 2013
"5 things about the controversy surrounding AG Eric Holder"The title of this post is the headline of this new CNN article which does a nice job talking through the array of issues now swirling around the US Attorney General. Especially in the wake of this recent post (and some comments it engendered), these closing sentiments from the piece struck me as blog-worthy:
5. What happens now?
There will be more congressional hearings and investigations, more political rancor and the possibility of some fallout if further disclosures reveal Holder knowingly misled Congress or inappropriately concealed information.
His defiance in the face of the House contempt citation indicates Holder won't voluntarily step down unless pressured to do so by Obama, who has steadfastly maintained confidence in him.
The question will be whether Holder becomes a liability for the president.
If the multiple controversies (IRS targeting, Benghazi, reporters phone records) continue to dominate the political discussion, Obama could decide a drastic gesture is needed to try to move past a climate of crises. However, nothing at this point suggests that is imminent or under consideration.
Recent related post:
May 29, 2013 at 04:07 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "5 things about the controversy surrounding AG Eric Holder":
// Asked if Obama still had full confidence in the attorney general, Carney replied: "He absolutely does, yes."
"..And I see no conflict between what the Attorney General said and the published reports. //
// On Tuesday, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said Holder "was forthright and did not mislead the committee" on May 15. //
We have learned not to expect the truth from AG Holder, but daren't we hope for a speck from someone in the Obama Administration or his party? Anyone?
Posted by: Adamakis | May 29, 2013 10:46:45 PM
All second terms are like this. Remember Reagan's. They should be an amendment allowing only one four year term.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 29, 2013 11:31:42 PM
Actually, the terms should be for 8 to 12 years each because politicians and the media thrive on controversy and that most often depends on the presumption of guilt.
This constant trolling explains the low popularity ratings of pols and the media. Controversy by definition eschews the momentum and so unravels an election. Longer terms would force more cooperation.
Posted by: george | May 29, 2013 11:59:49 PM
Then the first (and only) term would be like our current second term. At least right now we have one election cycle where the politician dare not do anything extremely dumb. Do you really want to do away with that?
Posted by: Soronel Haetir | May 30, 2013 4:32:39 AM
-- NY Times, AP Won't Attend Unusual Meeting with Holder --
Gerson gives an adequate, partial detailing of Holder's 2009-present highlights,
deeming him more incompetent than partisan.
From Marc Rich to James Rosen, he's certainly been a 'company man'; loyal if not legal,
liberal though illicit, tolerant but (one) race-obsessed.
"Attorney General Eric Holder approved a search warrant targeting Fox News' James Rosen
for the crime of journalism with malice aforethought.
Then the Justice Department shopped around for a judge who would keep the surveillance
of professional and private emails secret.
Then the department fought the public disclosure of the warrant since it wanted the
flexibility to continue the investigation "for many years.""
Posted by: Adamakis | May 30, 2013 11:45:57 AM
Holder may go down as one of the most loyal and effective sin eaters in the history of government.
Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | May 31, 2013 9:13:36 AM
So, all you libs out there--what does it say about the patriot we have in the WH that (a) Eric "Marc Rich" Holder was appointed and (b) why he's still there.
I don't even want to think about the outrage in lib circles if Ashcroft or, in DailyKos parlance, if Abu Gonzales, pulled a stunt like judge-shopping to get a warrant on some reporter's email.
The bottom line, and I think we all know this, is that liberalism generally in America is not principled. It's about the team, not about right and wrong.
The silence is deafening.
Posted by: federalist | Jun 1, 2013 4:06:23 PM
LOL good one fed!
I'm not a lib i don't think anyway. but i'll take a shot at your question
psych with delusions of god hood! oh wait that would be Allah hood!
total useless waste of air?
am i close?
Posted by: rodsmith | Jun 1, 2013 11:22:57 PM
"The bottom line, and I think we all know this, is that liberalism generally in America is not principled. It's about the team, not about right and wrong."
Classic example of projection, federalist.
Conservatives -- with their Frank Luntz-contrived buzz phrases and goose-stepping talking-point ochestration by the RNC -- are the unprincipled team-players. Also the unrivaled masters of the dark arts of demagoguery.
You guys only care about overreaching, power-abusing AGs who were appointed by Democrats.
Posted by: JohnK | Jun 2, 2013 3:21:50 PM
Then here's an easy one for you Johnk:
-- Which conservative AG exceeded or even approached the "overreaching, power-abusing" misbehaviour of Holder?
Posted by: Adamakis | Jun 2, 2013 9:19:41 PM