The AG is the only Cabinet official who--as a practical matter--cannot be fired when the President most needs to fire him. No rational (i.e., self-regarding) President would ever want an AG that he would need to fire. Bill Clinton violated this rule, and reaped the consequences. Barack Obama has learned.

No, it ain't right. But it is. From Obama's perspective, Holder's behavior in l'affaire Rich is a feature, not a bug.

Is it not a double standard to oppose Holder for not being able to stand up to power yet give the "power"-in the form of Hillary Clinton- itself a free pass on the issue?

Hillary's main claim to experience is afterall her proximty to the decision making in Bill's administration.

But...but Scooter Libby said prosecutors of billionaire financier Marc Rich "misconstrued the facts and the law" when they went after Rich on tax evasion charges, and said Rich "had not violated the tax laws."

And if you can't believe Scooter, who can you believe? ;-)

Scooter is exactly why the Republicans will find it difficult to make any hay with this.Well, that and all the pardons Shrub will be issuing on his way out the door.

And this recurrent fantasy that the AG can somehow be independent of the President is just that, fantasy. Never has been, never will be. The Cossacks work for the Czar. We did not have an Alberto Gonzalez problem, we had a GEORGE W. BUSH problem. If a President has no respect for the law, the AG ain't gonna stop him no matter who it is.

i cannot for the life of me understand why the pardon of mark rich is supposed to be the ultimate in unsavory politics and anyone who touched it must be a shill.

maybe someone can explain that without relying upon mind reading or an assumption that it was somehow a fabulous benefit for the united states for rich to remain a fugitive.

it wasn't the greatest moment in presidential pardons ever, but politics ain't beanbag and the notion that this is some mark against holder, proving (as a "feature" and not a "bug") that he is nothing but a milksop rather lacks, you know, evidence.

I'm not saying that it should necessarily prevent you from writing something you feel strongly about, but this is the sort of thing that gets you quoted approvingly in Karl Rove & Co. direct mail pieces:

"The Obama camp weighed these qualms and dismissed them. Which suggests that Holder's tendency to be a company man was not considered a negative. I'm not one who thinks the attorney general should be some sort of lone renegade within the administration, but he should feel empowered to aggressively push back against abuses of presidential power. Holder's history offers little evidence of that sort of temperament."

As it happens, Holder has been a rather vocal opponent of abuses of presidential power (admittedly from outside the walls of the government). Here's a video of his speech on the rule of law to the American Constitution Society: http://www.acslaw.org/node/6720.

howard: It's because most elite "liberals" or "progressives" who wind up in the media are in fact losers who have no idea what to do when the party they support is actually in power.

Obama doesn't have that problem. He is going to exercise power. Unfortunately, while the Bush-Cheney had conservatives in the media who respected their ability to get things done for their side (at least until they turned on them for political expediency this year), Obama's going to have to deal with people who read Richard Cohen (author of "Obama's Farrakhan Test" and other similar concern troll columns) and take it all on face value rather than, you know, read the facts on what was a Republican-led witchhunt into the Clinton administration.

i think this was an unfortunate appointment.
this is a position that should go to someone who is as closely as possible, above reproach, in an imperfect world.
this particular appointment should not have been used for political favor or friendship....it represents much more than that, even symbolically, to a country that needs to see honor restored at the highest levels.
you can slice and dice the truth any way you wish....you can put gravy and perfume on it...but you still cant make the truth different than it is.
i felt the same way yesterday, when barack obama brushed off the conflicts and accusations between him and hillary clinton as campaign stagecraft and rhetoric...and chuckled that the press was just having fun with exploitation of that.
the question was not a joke, and should have been treated seriously.
her vote on iraq and for the kyl lieberman amendment, exaggerations of the experiences in bosnia mattered to many who made personal choices during the campaign about integrity and judgement.
perhaps the diva~like, clinton starpower will dazzle the egos of world leaders...perhaps in dealing with the rich, arrogant and powerful, bedazzlement matters most, just like bloomberg's box at the ballgame....perhaps hillary clinton and her consort would be like sending celine dion to jerusalem....everyone is so blinded by the light of a bright and legendary star.

it is not a good thing to cast a blind eye on past actions in moving into the present.
on the other hand, i am so happy to see susan rice utilized by the administration.
i have heard the argument that only seasoned, professionals could be invited back to the inner circle because their experience was needed.
i dont think that is entirely true.
but in the overview, there has already been much change....and the olive branches that obama has extended will go far in supporting the massive agenda that needs to be undertaken.
i believe that obama has been and will be brilliantly masterful and is going to advance powerful changes in a broken and imperfect world... even if i queston some of those people around him, i think he is striving for unity as the key to being swiftly effective.......so i am rejoicing and waiting like the rest of the world for inauguration day.
the obama presidency is going to be ushering in a new age for us.
recognizing that time is of the essene, obama is ready to do the work.
and so are we.

If the standard is that your nominee can never make a mistake, we will not have many people in the Cabinet. I don't understand the need to rush to judgement on Holder. How about we wait for his confirmation hearing, let someone ask him about the Rich Pardon, and see what he says. People can learn from mistakes, it is the one's that refuse (i.e. Bush) that are the problem.

Richard Cohen's column, along with this post, provide compelling support for the saying that "a little information is a dangerous thing."

Cohen's column, and by extension this post, along with much of the mainstream coverage, takes as its starting point the "facts" as outlined in the House Government Oversight Committee's report on the pardon, taking those "facts" at face-value, unexamined. That is, taking a report written by hyperpartisan whack-job Rep. Dan Burton (i.e., the man who shot a watermelon in his back yard to demonstrate how Vince Foster was assassinated) without questioning them. That is, taking a partisan hit-job meant to harm a honorable Democrat at face value, unquestioned, and relying on that hit-job to pronounce him unsuited to serve in a Democratic administration.

There may well have been something questionable about the Rich pardon, but whatever it was, it didn't happen at Main Justice. The pardon was handled in the White House counsel's office, not DOJ. The White House was well aware that the New York prosecutors opposed the pardon. They nevertheless decided to exercise the pardon power, whether for foreign relations reasons, because of an appeal by the prime minister of Israel, or unseemly donations from Rich's ex-wife. That is the president's prerogative under the constitution. There are no limits on the pardon power. The president does not need approval from DOJ or anywhere else. Everyone in DC knows, or should know, that Holder's incidental comment regarding how to weigh the support of the prime minister of a staunch ally played no role in the final decision-making, and was simply seized on after the fact by a White House trying to justify its unseemly mess. Holder was a post-hoc fall guy. The notion that Holder's decades of service to this country should be overlooked and he should be forever smeared because, post hoc, a 45 second phone call was seized on as a rationalization is small-minded and ignores the entire context.

It would be different if Rich went through the normal DOJ pardon process with Holder, supervising that process as DAG, and that process reached the conclusion and recommendation that he be issued a pardon based on all the facts. In that case, it would be a legitimate subject of cricitism, at least on substantive grounds. But as it is, DOJ, including Holder, was out of the loop and had little information on the pardon request. No one at DOJ knew about the donations. There was no DOJ process developing the facts (nor is one required by the Constitution). All they knew was that Rich was a fugitive who was procescuted on a theory subject to debate, and who had strong support from the leader of a staunch ally. It is not DOJ's role to weigh the foreign policy benefits of the pardon. The objections of the prosecutors to pardoning a fugitive were well-known. Beyond that, it was the president's prerogative.

In the future, I'd recommend against taking at face value facts derived from the Majority Reports of Republican Committees in the House where there was a partisan axe to grind, and concern trolls like Cohen who are prone to repeat them.

Yeah, it would have been nice if the Assistant AG had been smarter about this one, not to mention if Clinton had. That said, I'd rather see a more-rational tax regime and funding for and commitment to enforcement, plus another Rich pardon, than see more tax giveaways to Paris Hilton, the Walton heirs and the Koch brothers.

On Holder, I worry, but not because of Rich. I worry because there is a huge mess to clean up at Justice. Is Holder the right person to do that? Yes, the cossacks work for the czar, but the idea was that the new administration was hiring a better class of cossack.

Here I don't know, because it isn't my field and all anyone wants to talk about is the Rich pardon.

Kudos for your honesty in raising legitimate questions about this nominee. Not just the Rich pardon, either. He was deeply involved in the pardon of the FALN terrorists. It is dishonest to characterize this behavior as "making a mistake." He was doing unethical favors for his boss Bill Clinton. The motive in both pardons was the personal gain of the Clintons. The FALN pardon was seen as an important element in securing the New York Puerto Rican vote for Hillary. The Rich pardon was a bribe, pure and simple. Cash was paid on the barrelhead for that one, to Clinton (via staggering contributions to his "library fund" and money paid to buy furnishings for the Clintons' new home in New York.

I'm mostly with Bobby, above.

I don't think the country would benefit from a totally independent AG because ultimately the AG needs the firm support of the President, and those two things are contradictory in practice.

In Holder's case, the judgement on the pudding has to be in the eating over a several year time frame. Does he act quickly and firmly to restore the integrity of the DoJ? I am ready to believe that he might.

The Marc Rick thing was at best a glancing touch at Holder's record.

I second Bobby's comment that Burton's report was a partisan hit-job. Read the minority report if you want a more (but not purely) objective view of what went on.

As for Rich, I don't think he got much out of the pardon as he is still wanted on state charges, which the president can't pardon people for, and thus he hasn't been able to return to the U.S. (I imagine what he got was a lesser likelihood of extradition).

Having a hard time seeing why the Marc Rich business is a big deal. The pardon seemed unsavory to be sure, but that's sort of the nature of pardons, at least in the vast majority of cases. You're talking about letting criminals off the hook. It never really looks good.

The AG is a very important position. If Obama surveyed his options and came to the conclusion that the country would best be served by appointing Holder, should he really have gone in a different direction just because of Marc Rich? That seems crazy to me, frankly. As an American I want the best person for the job in there. Unless there was some legal wrongdoing on Holder's part, which hasn't been alleged, I don't want the best candidate for the job pushed aside because of a pardon. Important things are at stake here.

And from a pragmatic political perspective, Obama is wise to appoint an AG who will be loyal to him. One of the biggest mistakes of Clinton's presidency--from his perspective, probably the biggest--was Janet Reno. Choosing her in the first place was stupid; keeping her on for his second term was nearly catastrophic. Obama knows better than to repeat this kind of mistake.

Rich's pardon did not go through the normal process at the DOJ, and when the White House counsel called to ask Holder what he thought about the pardon, his response of "neutral, leaning towards favorable" was taken as the final word out of the DOJ (indicating that the DOJ did not have a problem with the pardon). The question is whether Holder realized that the pardon was not going through the normal process, and that his comments in that phone call would be treated as the definitive green light out of DOJ. This article suggests that the answer is "no" on all counts, which means that your concerns about Holder being a company man based on the Rich pardon is overblown (via Hilzoy).

"The Obama camp weighed these qualms and dismissed them. Which suggests that Holder's tendency to be a company man was not considered a negative."

Ezra, when you say someone has a "tendency," that implies a pattern of behavior. You can't demonstrate a pattern with one example.

What Holder's selection "suggests" to me is that Obama's transition team reviewed Holder's entire record and concluded that Holder's handling of the Rich pardon was an isolated mistake. That is because, after watching Obama in action over the past 16 months or so, I've formed a reasonably favorable impression of him--particularly with regards to his ability to get good people to work for him--and am therefore inclined to given him the benefit of the doubt unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

Cohen's bias is different from mine, so he reaches a different conclusion. My problem with Cohen's article is that I can't really tell what that bias is. Does he distrust Obama in particular, or does he distrust politicians generally? Does he distrust Obama in general, or just Obama's appointment process? It's certainly possible that Cohen is right, but I find his article untterly unpersuasive because I can't even figure out in any detail where his reasoning differs from mine.

Also, Cohen's assertion that, "the two cases are not in the least similar" (referring to the Rich and King cases) is false. The cases differ in many ways, but they are similar in the way that Holder said they were: both involved pardoning fugitives from justice.

The aspect of Holder's earlier time at Justice that needs scrutiny is whether he respected the non-political staff and attorneys. That's the most important issue in the wake of the Gonzales era.

But I've got to voice disagreement with the "that's just the way it is" view of political loyalty at DOJ. Presidents are supposed to be confident people. Why wouldn't a confident leader pick an AG from the other party? The last president to do it was John Tyler - and that was a time when the party structure was extremely fluid. It's still a good idea.

"Richard Cohen's column, along with this post, provide compelling support for the saying that "a little information is a dangerous thing.""

Hell, I think that pretty well sums up Cohen's entire career.

Presidents are supposed to be confident people. Why wouldn't a confident leader pick an AG from the other party?

If you could assume their good faith, maybe this would be an option. Obama is not stupid and therefore he would not assume that any Republican would operate in good faith.

Even the most "confident" president would be vulnerable to a baseless Ken Starr-style vendetta.

This is complete nonsense! In the first place, while Rich may well have been guilty of currency and tax violations, a hysterical and insanely ambitious Federal Prosecutor (does the name Rudolph Giuliani ring a bell?) managed to elevate the charges almost to the level of High Treason. This was a gross miscarriage of justice. In the second place, published transcripts of phone calls between President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak make is clear that the big push for the Rich pardon came from the government of Israel. Barak was involved is a tight race with Ariel Sharon, and he hoped that getting Rich pardoned would bring him some political benefit. Since it was feared (accurately) that Sharon's election would doom the Middle-East peace process, there was a strong national interest reason to pardon Rich.

The strange thing is, all these facts have been extensively aired and yet there seems to be almost universal ignorance. There's really no excuse.

How many battles did Holder fight and how many did he not fight? Any pragmatic person knows that not only can you not win them all, but you need to be careful in the battles you pick to fight. (I had to learn this one in Parenting 101.)

This one event taken in isolation, especially in light of Israeli interest, is just not a compelling case against Holder. This seems to be one he picked to not fight. Was he going to win if he objected? I would think not. And what would have been the benefit of him winning, aside from one less crappy Richard Cohen editorial?

The strange thing is, all these facts have been extensively aired and yet there seems to be almost universal ignorance.

What? And Richard Cohen is involved?!?! How could that be?

Even for an op-ed, if not for his own ouevre, Cohen's piece is surprisingly fact-free. The above posts by Bobby and ObWi Reader are dead on. The Clinton White House left Holder holding the bag on this, which is one reason why Holder was an early Obama supporter. But Cohen is more interested in bragging about how he got the ex-President on the phone, and in striking a pose of rectitude.

I basically agree with Richard Cohen

Ezra, if you find yourself typing this, listen to that little voice saying, Danger! Danger, Will Robinson!

OK, we've attracted the Marc Rich fan club here.

1. Fugitives are scum. You heard me. Scum. Martin Luther King went to jail on unjust charges. He didn't try and flee. Fleeing is what gutless people do.

2. There is absolutely no doubt that Rich was guilty of what he was charged with.

3. He only got pardoned because he and his ex-wife had access to the type of connections that the thousands of actually innocent people rotting in our jails do not have.

4. Bill Clinton didn't give a crap about those innocent people, or the tens of thousands he imprisoned on minor drug charges. But he was "moved" by the "injustice" of a rich guy feeling that he needed to stay in Switzerland and live in the lap of luxury because he cheated on his taxes.

Bottom line: the Marc Rich pardon was indefensible, and there is no glory in covering up our side's bad acts for the sake of partisanship.

Fugitives are scum. You heard me. Scum.

Stop being a jackass. You heard me.

I eagerly await the Dilan Esper vs. Robin Hood archery shootout.

Jeebus and Neil:

If you guys think the aptly-named Marc Rich is Robin Hood and the US government is the Sheriff of Nottingham, you guys have bigger problems than I can solve.

Really, is there anything other than blind partisanship and Clinton worship here? If Bush had pardoned Rich under the exact same circumstances, would you all be saying "great pardon!"?

The hot-sale Ugg Boots are coming now.We offer wide range of colors and styles Ugg Boots UK and Ugg Boots Sale for you.Shopping now for your favorite!