Last week our current (and, it seems, history-deficient) US Attorney General said the following:
“…the last five years have been defined by significant strides and lasting reforms, even in the face, even in the face, of unprecedented, unwarranted ugly and divisive adversity. And if you don’t believe that, you look at the way — forget about me, forget about me — you look at the way the Attorney General of the United States was treated yesterday by a House Committee. It had nothing to do with me, forget about that.
What Attorney General has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?…”
Hey, there: Mr. Holder? Eric? Do you by any chance recall a man by the name of Alberto Gonzales? He was, by sheer coincidence, ALSO the Attorney General of the United States and he seems to have run into a dash of “adversity” during his time as AG, too:
(via the New York Times) – “…IF Alberto Gonzales will not resign, Congress should impeach him…”
And you know what, Eric? Your own Democrat Party used the dreaded “i” word, as well:
(via ABC News) – “…Days before Congress is set to adjourn for its August recess, a group of Democrats on Capitol Hill is seeking an impeachment resolution against embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales…”
The “Impeach Gonzales” movement was a common cry among your fellow travelers, too, including Slate, Think Progress, Democrats.com, the Huffington Post (more than once), and the Seattle Times, among a multitude of others.
Gee, Eric, does repeatedly calling for the Attorney General’s Impeachment count as “adversity”? Because I think it kinda does.
Obviously, if Mr. Holder is gonna be intellectually honest here, he can’t have it both ways. If the calls for Gonzales’ impeachment were justified then, any “adversity” Holder’s experiencing now is incalculably MORE justified.
- Holder’s lying about his involvement with Fast and Furious,
- plus his refusal to pursue the 2008 Philadelphia Voter Intimidation case,
- and the DOJ’s “reinterpretation” of bankruptcy law to flat out steal money from Chrysler’s bondholders during that company’s 2009 bailout,
- and his part in the AP Phone records/emails scandal (despite his testimony to the contrary, Holder personally approved the search warrant for James Rosen),
- and his jaw-dropping attempt to give five of the 9/11 co-conspirators a civilian trial in New York,
- and Holder’s DOJ leveling a $100 million fine against Ally Bank for “racist” lending practices without even a shred of evidence,
- and his department’s lawsuits against various state’s Voter ID legislation,
- and his encouragement to state Attorneys General that THEY shouldn’t enforce laws they disagree with,
- and …
…but do I really need to go on?
If memory serves, I first became aware of his existence well before his current tenure as AG, back around the time of the Mark Rich pardon. My current problems with him could most accurately be traced back to that specific event.
I’m hardly alone on this one. The Mark Rich pardon actually predicted Holder’s reprehensible and thoroughly lawless behavior while in office, as articulated by none other than the Washington Post at the time of Eric’s initial nomination:
“…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…”
And keep in mind, that very same article was highly critical of AG Alberto Gonzales, as well. But no, Republicans/Conservatives must just have it in for Holder, and this has supposedly never happened before.
Okay. Sure. Whatever.
Please, Eric, if you have so much as the tiniest smidgen of decency: Resign. Step down. Just Go Away. If nothing else about your time in the public eye, I could at least respect that.