TNR BLOGS

January 07, 2009 | 5:47 PM
January 07, 2009 | 5:11 PM
January 07, 2009 | 4:42 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 07, 2009 | 12:40 PM
January 04, 2009 | 8:54 PM
January 01, 2009 | 8:57 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 07, 2009 | 5:09 PM
January 07, 2009 | 3:00 PM
January 07, 2009 | 1:51 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
02.12.2008
Can Holder Speak Truth to Power?

Ezra Klein, building on this Richard Cohen column about Eric Holder's role in the Marc Rich Pardon, says no:

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.

I think these are very legitimate concerns. The one thing I'd say in Holder's defense, though, is that the temperament he displayed during the Clinton administration may well have been in response to the, uh, unique set of circumstances at the Justice Department at the time--which, in Janet Reno, featured an attorney general who basically was a lone renegade within the administration and, in Louis Freeh, an FBI director who seemingly conspired against the administration. In other words, maybe Holder felt the need to be more of a company man than he would have otherwise given Reno and Freeh's chilly relationships with the White Housse. That doesn't necessarily excuse Holder's role in the Rich pardon, but it could explain it. And it could offer some reason for optimism about how he'd serve as AG under Obama.

--Jason Zengerle

Posted: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 10:49 AM with 2 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

sdcrippen said:

And it's been eight years now. We all get better at our work as we go, and Holder has the Rich pardon itself to draw lessons from. Holder 2009 is going to be a lot more valuable to the country than Holder 2000. And consider the difference in presidential temperament! Even when he becomes a lame duck, can you see Barack Obama putting his AG in this kind of a position? It's a different scenario now.

December 2, 2008 11:42 AM

mkayser0 said:

Can someone tell me why we trust the President to select the person who will tell the President and the public whether the President is doing something illegal?

What about a nonpartisan national council of attorneys, insulated from the political appointment process, that chooses an attorney general each term? Or why couldn't the Supreme Court choose the person for the position?

December 2, 2008 12:13 PM