Eric Holder Hearing Open Thread

This should be the only really contentious one. Go to CSPAN3 or the Committee Webcast to see it.

Note, in a bit of timing jujitsu, Biden and Hillary are giving their farewell speeches on the floor of the Senate at 10 and 11, meaning CSPAN2 will be covering those speeches and not this hearing, meaning (in turn) that this hearing won’t be available to most Americans watching on teevee.

Leahy’s opening statement is a bit of a scold directed at Arlen "Scottish Haggis" Specter for his kabuki opposition to Holder.

Ah Jeebus. Specter is bitching about minority rights–complaining that, after having agreed to the schedule he originally agreed to, he then wanted to change the schedule. 

Huh. Did Specter just say that Mary Jo White refused to testify? [I may have gotten that wrong–I’m having technical difficulties with the RealPlayer streams]

John Warner: "bipartisan approach in helping President-elect face the most complicated issues that ever faced a President."

Warner: People in every corner of the country are following this hearing. [Well, they would be if two top incoming officials weren’t giving their swan-song speech on the floor of the Senate and therefore hogging the CSPAN2 time]

Note: there appears to be a RealPlayer difficulty on the feed–if you’re having problems–getting sound but not picture–try CSPAN’s Microsoft feed, which has picture for me.]

Holder’s goals:

Protect American people from terrorism. Use every available tactic, do so within the letter and the spirit of the law. America must remain a beacon to the world. 

Restore credibility of department.  DOJ will serve justice, not fleeting interests of any political party. Filip and Mukasey deserve gratitude of American people for doing much. (?)

Embrace historic role in fighting crime, protecting civil right, protecting environment, ending fraud. [Talks about accountability in finance.]

Leahy starts with waterboarding. "Two most recent nominees to serve as AG hedged on waterboarding. Do you agree with me that waterboarding is illegal?"

Holder: If you look at the history, I agree with you that waterboarding is torture.

Holder: no one above law. President has obligation to faithfully execute laws of US. Obligations from treaties and Constitution. The President acts most forcefully when he acts in manner consistent with Congressional intents and directions. It’s my belief that President does not have power to authorize torture.

Leahy: 2nd Amendment? [Leahy sets up Holder to answer one of the questions GOP will throw at him.]

Holder: My amicus brief was with respect to decisions signed before Heller. 

Holder: I support media shield with caveat that I want to talk to the department and protect leaks on national security. [Which basically protects the DC insider leaks but not the whistleblowers.]

Leahy: Review of all OLC opinions and withdraw those problematic ones?

Holder: I will make that pledge. Important that these OLC opinions truly reflect what the law is, want to ensure that these opinions consistent with these two purposes.

 Leahy: What did you learn from the Marc Rich pardon?

Holder: My conduct in that matter was the place where I made mistakes. I’ve accepted responsibility of making those mistakes. Always said that given opportunity to do differently, would have. Should have made sure that prosecutors were informed. Made assumptions that turned out to be not true. Remains most intense, searing experience as a lawyer. I’ve learned. I think that, as perverse as this may sound, I’ll be a better AG having had this experience. Learned that need to ensure there is full consultation. Have to work to improve pardon process. We have to work on DOJ side to ensure rules followed. It was something that is not typical of the way I’ve conducted myself as a lawyer. Made mistakes, learned from them.

Leahy: And of course pardon made by Clinton, not by you.

Haggis: Pursuing the Rich pardon. Comment that it’s a mistake is one way of approaching it. When you take a look at hard facts, hard to see how you came to conclusion you did, even conceding fact that none of us is perfect. 

[Holder taking notes on Specter’s details here.]

Haggis: Preponderance of evidence suggests Eric Holder was deliberately assisting Mark Quinn to allow him to bypass DOJ.

[Nice use of the third person there, Haggis.]

Holder: I would not take everything as gospel in that House report. I volunteered to appear before that Committee and yet the claim that I recommended Quinn to the WH appeared in the House report. I, as DAG, according to this report, would have said to a perfect stranger, "we’ll work it out." I did not recommend Mr. Quinn. The people who were trying to determine who Rich’s lawyer should be, took a number of months picking a lawyer. 

Haggis: You recommended Quinn at a dinner.

Holder: As best as I can remember, all I explained was how the process worked. 

Haggis: Are you saying that Quinn’s name never came up?

Holder: No, did not. And if you look at the minority part of the report there’s some question whether Keck even said that. 

Haggis: How do you explain this email that Quinn attributed to you saying "go directly to the White House."

Holder: That would have been illogical. Maybe he misinterpreted something I said. I never told him go straight to the White House.

Haggis: Were you aware of atrocious record Rich had?

Holder: No, and that was one of the mistakes I made. I did not know a lot of the underlying issues.

Haggis: When pardon attorney said "don’t do it" was that a reason for you to look into this atrocious record?

Holder: Love wasn’t pardon attorney at the time.

Kohl: You must be grateful to the PEOTUS personally. Your first duty will be to the American people and not the President. One top priority to restore integrity of department. 

Kohl: If you had big Constitutional disagreement with Obama?

Holder: Resign.

Kohl: How will you close Gitmo.

Kohl: The interrogation methods?

Holder: both PEOTUS and I disturbed. Make sure consistent with treaty obligations and be effective. One concern I have is that enhanced interrogations not effective.

Kohl: Basketball, you also a person of considerable skill on basketball. If he invites you to gym, will you defeat him as badly as I can.

Leahy: Well, that was the first time that question has been asked.

Kyl sounds like he’s on board–he’s just asking Holder a series of question to get his support for AZ-related issues on the record.

Kyl: FISA, lone-wolf terrorist. Someone we have no evidence that he’s taking orders. There bc no search of Moussaoui, agents could not link him to AQ. Lone wolf needs to be reauthorized.

Holder: Expect I will. 3 provisions up for reauthorization. Want to talk to people to see if they’ve worked. At least some of those provisions are from Clinton (lone wolf and roving surveillance).

Kyl: other two: PATRIOT’s multi-point authority, and 215 authority. Unlike typical Admin subpoena, requires judicial approval.

Holder: multi-point authority, want to have interaction with people using tool.

Holder: 215 orders. That’s one that has generated more controversy.  Want to know as much as I possibly can. Tools in FISA are important ones. I would expect I would support.

Kyl: Warrantless monitoring of suspected intl communications of terrorists. Do you agree with that principle, do you believe new law is constitutional. 

Holder: Law is constitutional. Regrettable–the program, that I’ve not been read into–is a useful tool. We could have had that tool congressionally sanctioned. Refers to Youngstown. 

Kyl: Operation streamline. That’s been utilized in 2 sectors. 

[5 minute break]

While we’re breaking, I wanted to summarize what Holder said about FISA. He said that he thinks the FISA amendments–as passed–are constitutional. Let’s see whether or not Feingold asks him about minimization and reverse targeting. But he also said that he had not yet been read into "the program," which means he is not saying that THAT program was legal. And he also invoked Youngstown when asked about it, signifying that–at the very least–he thought Bush had violated Congressional law. That probably still means that he would support immunity (which is before Vaughn Walker right now). But we shall see what Whitehouse and Feingold ask him.

Update: Jane transcribed the exchange between Kyl and Holder on FISA:

KYL:  You indicated that comments that you had made in a speech on June 13 2008 were directed to the status of the law pre FISA modifications from the legislative branch.  When Congress later — I believe it was the next month — modified the FISA law there was an explicit type of search that was provided allowing warrantless monitoring of suspected communications of international terrorists predicated on the principle that the 4th amendment gives greater leeway to intelligence investigations of foreign threats.  Do you agree with that general principle, but more importantly in the context of our conversation do you believe the new law is constitutional and if confirmed will you support its enforcement?

HOLDER:  I believe that the law is constitutional.  One of the things that  I think is in some ways regrettable is that the program — that I’ve not been read into and I don’t know all the dimensions of it — but as I understand it that that law, that that program is a very use useful tool, it’s an essential tool in fighting terrorism.  I think that what is unfortunate is that we could have had that tool congressionally sanctioned at a much earlier stage.  I think that as we saw in the Steel seizure concurrence of Justice Jackson, the President has his greatest power when he acts consistent with congressional directives and I think in this instance that is instructive.  Had the administration come to Congress and asked for that enhanced authority many years before I have no doubt that Congress would have granted him that tool.  Having done that though and having had Congress say that this is an appropriate thing to do, I think as I say that it is a very useful tool and one that we will make great use of.

DiFi Up.

DiFi: Brad Schlozman screening people and removing people. Report found that Schloz made false statements.  Have you read this report, and what can you do to follow-up?

Holder: News accounts. Antithetical to anything department stands for.

DiFi: Lying to committee is violation of the law. We can’t do nothing if someone representing gov comes before us and lies.

Holder: Prosecutors have made determination, if I’m fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will review. Don’t know all the facts. I want to know why determination made. 

DiFi: DO you believe military commissions are sufficient?

Holder: I don’t think the ones now in place have all the due process I’d like to see them have. 

DiFi: Field Manual should be basis for interrogation?

Holder: Starting with what we have in Field Manual. I personally think that techniques are consistent with Article 3. Not convinced that if we restrict ourselves we will be less effective. This is something that POETUS is considering now, giving all components an opportunity to express their views–giving Intell oppty to make case.

[Sounds like Holder knows Intell doesn’t agree]

DiFi: CIA interrogation done by contractors. 

Holder: Concern you express legitimate one.

Orrin Hatch: Fourth time you’ve come to Senate for confirmation, so far without negative vote. Some real issues of concern. FISA?

Holder: In rare instances where law is unconstitutional, POTUS in that instance can act contrary. POTUS has his power at its zenith when acts with congressional direction. Exclusivity: the way in which that can occur. Taking Admin to task for not following dictates of FISA. I think had the Admin worked with Congress it could have had no question of legality.

Hatch: FISA reviews decision in Steel case. How to reconcile analysis of TSP with Keith, in re sealed, Wadi al-Hagge case?

Holder: My belief that statute lays out how executive can do that type of surveillance. Sets out very explicitly the means by which this can be done. Incumbent upon exec branch to be mindful of dictates of FISA.

Hatch: As former DAG under Clinton, were you part of decision-making that authorized warrantless search of Ames?

Holder: Don’t know all circumstances in which it occurred. Did not participate in 93. Don’t know if there were exigent circumstances.

Hatch: Is POTUS’ inherent authority, can it be limited under statute? You’re relying on statute, as if it’s binding on Article II. 

Holder: POTUS has powers that cannot be infringed. Congress does not have ability to say you cannot exercise. 

[Hatch trying to corner Holder to say that Bush was legal.]

Hatch: Immunity provisions. According to this act, in order for this to occur, AG must file certification with Court. Do you believe those private partners should be given civil liability protection.

Holder: Contained within statute. Defend statutes unless compelling reason not to. Obama against immunity but voted for the statute. It would seem that unless compelling reasons I don’t think we would reverse course.

Hatch: You’ll honor that certification. 

Holder: we have to look at if there are changed circumstances. 

Hatch: Are you going to prosecute Yoo.

Holder: No one above the law. We will follow the facts and the law. POTUS has said it well, we don’t want to criminalize policy differences that exist. 

Hatch: Would you consider these policy differences?

Holder; I have to become more familiar with what happened. That would better inform any decision I would make in that regard. 

Hatch: Right to bear arms. Your belief that 2nd amendment, collective.

Holder: I will respect the SCOTUS rule.

Hatch: Were they correct?

Holder: there was a good argument to be made. It’s one lawyers can disagree on. 5 justices have agreed on what the 2nd amendment is, so they’re right. 

Feingold: Look forward to many more discussions should you be confirmed. As you know, concerned about wrong-headed legal theories of outgoing Admin to justify exec power. These theories used to justify actions by Exec branch that I believe were in excusable. Clear indication that new admin will make an unmistakable break from the past. You’ve already said that POTUS not above law. What is your view of POTUS authority to authorize violations of the law.

Holder: Not above law. Obligation to execute law. Steel seizure concurrence of Jackson, weakest in category 3, where Congress has indicated something contrary to what president wants to do. Never been President upheld when act in Category 3.

Feingold: Does President have authority to authorize warrantless searches in violation of laws passed by congress.

Holder: You’re in Category 3. Jackson didn’t say President didn’t have ANY authority. Difficult to imagine president acting in appropriate way.

Feingold: You see FISA as under Category 3. 

Holder: Exclusivity statute was pretty clear.

Feingold: Anything that makes you believe President has ability to disregard FISA statute. Congress will consider lege to reauthorize PATRIOT. Last time, Admin used scare tactics to counter legitimate concerns raised by Democrats. Admin refused to find common grounds. 

Feingold: Disagreed with aspects of the amendments. But one I agreed with: IG’s report due to be completed by July. Will you pledge full cooperation of DOJ and make as much public?

Feingold: What will you do to make sure that justice is truly served and will you cooperate with oversight efforts from Congress?

Holder: Damage assessment. How has the institution been harmed. What has been the lasting impact. 

Feingold: What about the documents?

Holder: To extent that there is not a reason why we are withholding, transparency is the best practice. Institutional concerns. 

Sessions wanted to know whether Holder is going to prosecute Yoo. Holder basically said he had to review the case. 

Schumer: now talking about independence. I think that in my entire Senate career my vote against Gonzo may have been the most vindicated. They’re cherry picking. Have you ever been Obama’s personal lawyer? A staffer? Official Counsel? Did you ever dispatch a staffer to a hospital room? Not a close relation to the President? Professional politician? Did you owe any paid job to Barack Obama? When’d you first meet Obama? What did the President first tell you when he asked what kind of AG?

Holder: He said our good relationship would change.  

Schumer: I doubt Bush ever had such a conversation with Alberto Gonzales. I welcome your nomination because Obama will be different kind of president. Your nomination should you be approved will end the rancid politicization at the department. Full return to rule of law. You, unlike some of your predecessors will be chief law enforcement office.  

Schumer: I asked that Schloz be referred to Dannehy. Do you see any problem with making such a referral?

Holder: I have great respect for the lawers in USA DC. THey’re good lawyers there, the fact that they had a chance to fully look at that matter, would be significant for me. On teh other hand, I’m disturbed by what I read about the report.  I woudl like to myself review the determination. 

Schumer: Without disclosing GJ information, could we at least get a report from why refuse to prosecute? Would you at least commit to do that?

Holder: to the extent I can; GJ frequently prevents a prosecutor from sharing. 

Schumer: On Civil Rights Div. Report from IG more like campaign headquarters than hall of justice. Civil rights division, through Democrat and Republican presidents alike. From 20034 to 2006, Schloz hired 60 lawyers on basis of political leanings. I it would be violation if a democrat did the same. Overtly racist statement. Do you expect thorough cleaning up of Civil Rights Div. 

Holder: I expect to spend a lot of my time restoring it.  

image_print
  1. looseheadprop says:

    Why is Louis Freeh sitting next to Holder? I know he is publicly supporting Holder, but actually sitting in the hearing holding his hand??????

    Seems like a gratuitous slap in the face to the Clintons

    • leftdcin72 says:

      Why would Holder associate himself with Louis Freeh? I accepted Holder as a nominee but why is he now associating with Louis Freeh who I thought was generally considered to be grossly incompetent as director of the FBI? Why is the Obama administration going back to any association with Freeh?

    • Palli says:

      Remember this is a benchmark for Freeh…he has an interracial family and is very involved in contemporary civil rights dialogue

      • skdadl says:

        Why would Canada be blocked? This isn’t Jon Stewart. (They won’t let us watch Stewart and Colbert on your sites. We have to go somewhere else.)

        • Petrocelli says:

          I’ll e-mail you a linky to a free software. Download it and click on it while all browsers are closed. It allows you to view any Murkan or Furren site/video.

        • Mauimom says:

          Igloo’s not bad, but we had windchills of -50 yesterday. Forking freezing is what that is.

          I have friends from Fairbanks, where the high-low range was -35 to -45, arriving Saturday. They said they couldn’t wait to get here. I guess I should anticipate they’re staying until May.

      • skdadl says:

        Thanks to all, EW and Petro and siri. I’m still in Firefox but switched to Windows Media at C-SPAN, and that’s ok. Can’t do that from the committee link — that’s never happened to me before.

        Sorry to interrupt Sen Warner that way.

  2. looseheadprop says:

    Warner, “Holder’s career marked by misjudgemetns.

    But he learned from those misjudgemets” uh, what examples can the good senator point to that show that Holder has LEARNED anything from those misjudgemetns.

    Warner “eric holder and I both learned” Warner is REALLY lending his reflected glory to Holder.

    Warner talking about what Warner has learned and attributing it to Holder.

    Talk about a straw man!!!

  3. looseheadprop says:

    Warenr: “eric Holder is a GOOD man, and that says a lot.”

    Subjective much? there Sen Warner? can we talk about the guy’s record, PLEASE?

  4. Mary says:

    OT, but not so much if you look at what he won’t be doing as AG

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01……html?_r=2
    NYT is reporting that the FISC it about to issue an unclassified, redacted opinion ok’ing collusion between Congress and the President to intercept American emails and calls with no warrants.

    A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, is expected to issue a major ruling validating the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a court order, even when Americans’ private communications may be involved

    Thank you, PResident Obama, for your fine leadership on this issue. Remind me why I give a damn about your pics for the Dept of Justice.

  5. skdadl says:

    I’m switching back and forth, wanting to catch Biden’s farewell. Reid made a nice if predictable statement; now McConnell has made some perfunctory remarks about Biden but is back to discussing business. That seems to me a little rude.

    Oh, ok: he’s back to personal fuzzy memories of Biden.

      • skdadl says:

        Comme ci, comme ça. Aren’t senators all proud to see that both the new prezzie and the new VP are from the Senate? *cough* McConnell uses the Foreign Relations connection to toss in a little politics about Gaza and terrorism. (I know: you’re shocked.)

        He was nice enough.

        Aha. Here is Joe the Biden.

  6. Prairie Sunshine says:

    OT: HuffPo’s got the Alaska story up at its website.

    Or maybe it’s not OT. Maybe civil rights, human rights is exactly the issue here. And maybe with someone like the Obama/Holder driving the policies there will be action taken.

    {{{ET and Alaska bloggers}}}

    • WarOnWarOff says:

      Just sent some $’s. Here in Texas we’re just now getting an “Arctic” front, but damn, it’s really nothing in comparison. Where is bloody Sarah Palin?

    • looseheadprop says:

      You have to fight the subliminal prejuduce to conflate him with his doppleganger, Howard Sprague.

  7. pmorlan says:

    They just showed Diane Feinstein…she looks like she’s been up all night or out all night on a bender.

  8. Kassandra says:

    Try Windows media if you’re having trouble with the video. My feed is off, I still listening to his opening statements…….sigh

  9. katymine says:

    WOW…… HOLDER ……. Yes water boarding is torture…… Leahy is hitting with all of our questions……. ya think he has been lurking?

  10. looseheadprop says:

    Eric Holder: “waterboarding is torture”

    He passed that test, at least. I’ll give him that.

    • Petrocelli says:

      SJC Dems have been chomping at the bit for a while, it’s going to be an interesting year in that committee.

  11. siri says:

    Mr. siri was born and raised 3 miles inside the arctic circle in AK and says that temps of -50 are really nothing new.
    He also makes the point that building homes and buildings here to AK standards would greatly reduce heating and cooling bills everywhere in the lower 48.

    • BoxTurtle says:

      Beware! A pretty snake is STILL a snake.

      Boxturtle (Hopes to be proven wrong about Holder in the fullness of time)

  12. pmorlan says:

    Not a wise thing to beat him in basketball? hmmmm. I know it was said jokingly but perhaps the answer gives an indication that having said he would be an “independent” AG his subconscious is saying otherwise.

  13. 4jkb4ia says:

    What is so hopeful about this hearing–and what makes room for Mary’s disappointment–is that this administration does not have to defend any of the things that the last one did. I think we are waiting for Feingold or Whitehouse to ask the prosecution question.

  14. Hugh says:

    Why did Holder not commit to making public OLC opinions?

    And what was up with his statement that he would prohibit abusive interrogation techniques IF they did not produce good intelligence? Is this really his principal criterion for evaluation?

  15. skdadl says:

    *sniffles* Biden’s done. Ok, he’s corny, but he’s intelligently corny, and that’s a gift.

    It was a very long speech, but you expected that. It was notable that he spent much of his time talking about political opponents, the very old very right-wing warhorses, like Stennis and Holms and Thurmond. The story of Stennis’s desk was the part that made me start to sniffle. Great line at the end about that desk’s history with civil rights. And a great close to the speech.

    • Petrocelli says:

      It was quite amazing … esp. about the Desk. Biden is known for many things and speaking from the Heart
      is one of them.

    • emptywheel says:

      Let’s see how he responds to Feingold and Whitehouse.

      He said it was legal, now. But he didn’t say the program was legal without Congressional legislation. In fact he referenced Youngstown, suggesting that BUsh did break the law.

      • 4jkb4ia says:

        FISA Amendments Act being constitutional and privacy issues in the program itself are separate issues. I am troubled that Holder has said that the program can probably be rehabilitated without knowing how broad or deep it is.

        • emptywheel says:

          No. They’re not.

          THere are several constitutional qusetions with the amendments of FISA, IMO.

          1) Can Congress really retroactively give telecoms immunity?
          2) Does FISA require minimization and other protections for domestic communication such that the prohibitions on tapping domestic communication are meaningful and therefore that the act doesn’t violate 4th Amendment?
          3) Are there other problems with FISA–as Mary points out–particularly on the issue of law enforcement and intelligence?

          Number 2 is all about the issues that I expect Feingold to raise–and possible 1, too.

          What Holder has NOT said is that “the program” was legal. He specifically suggested that Bush violated existing Congressional laws. And he also specifically said that he didn’t know what “the program” was.

          Thing is, do we have any way of making sure he really learns what it was? Once he’s read in, does he get to compare notes with Comey?

        • 4jkb4ia says:

          Oh, my. Schlozman is the punching bag for everybody.

          In terms of the core 4th Amendment issue the FISA Amendments Act and “the program” are the same, because the FISA Amendments Act is about “the program”. But “what” is different from “how”, or whether “the program” can be run without targeting American citizens. That gets to the data mining they were using.

        • Petrocelli says:

          I thought Holder would say as much to Hatch but I guess he doesn’t want to be combative since this hearing seems like just a formality.

    • Jane Hamsher says:

      Yeah I take it back:

      KYL: You indicated that comments that you had made in a speech on June 13 2008 were directed to the status of the law pre FISA modifications from the legislative branch. When Congress later — I believe it was the next month — modified the FISA law there was an explicit type of search that was provided allowing warrantless monitoring of suspected communications of international terrorists predicated on the principle that the 4th amendment gives greater leeway to intelligence investigations of foreign threats. Do you agree with that general principle, but more importantly in the context of our conversation do you believe the new law is constitutional and if confirmed will you support its enforcement?

      HOLDER: I believe that the law is constitutional. One of the things that I think is in some ways regrettable is that the program — that I’ve not been read into and I don’t know all the dimensions of it — but as I understand it that that law, that that program is a very use useful tool, it’s an essential tool in fighting terrorism. I think that what is unfortunate is that we could have had that tool congressionally sanctioned at a much earlier stage. I think that as we saw in the Steel seizure concurrence of Justice Jackson, the President has his greatest power when he acts consistent with congressional directives and I think in this instance that is instructive. Had the administration come to Congress and asked for that enhanced authority many years before I have no doubt that Congress would have granted him that tool. Having done that though and having had Congress say that this is an appropriate thing to do, I think as I say that it is a very useful tool and one that we will make great use of.

      Ugh.

  16. Mary says:

    Good for Leahy for asking the right questions. I hope Feingold takes the same paths (the only Dem email I haven’t relegated to spam, Leahy and Feingold)gets a shot. I wish the FISA Appellate court decision was already out for publication well before this hearing. It is what it is.

    Be nice if the Senators on Committee had to go through questioning like this at intervals from public panels about their performance, wouldn’t it?

    The trick to GITMO isn’t whether it is closing or not – it is what you do about the innocent people who were bought and sold and shipped there (or for that matter held at Bagram or Camp Cropper or Abu Ghraib) and subjected to depravity; it is what you do about torture in the process and destructions of evidence and obstructions of justice; it is what you do about a civilian court system that has blessed the,”Padilla Process” of abuse and torture for years serving as a valid precursor to trial; it is what you do about the years now of courts allowing torture evidence into trial proceedings and serving as the basis of warrants.

    Mukasey issued the warrants for Padilla – what now, that it’s known that the FBI agents were using torture as the basis to bootstrap the warrants?

    Nothing. That’s what now.

  17. Mary says:

    He can call it “legal” all he wants, and I’m guessing that he was briefed on the decision that they are getting ready to release earlier – but it’s not.

    It just is not. And some souped up Appellate non-court, acting in a non-advocacy setting and not subject to Sup Ct review doesn’t make it so.

    Congress has specifically revised statutory law to allow the warrantless wiretaps to have criminal investigation as their primary purpose, with any halfassed sidelight of “foreign” element and then said that can be done without criminal probable cause warrants and can be done with respect to Americans in America.

    And then they tossed that crap over to a court of basically no review. And hung out to dry the telecom that did object while they were at it.

    Boofrickinyah that Obama will enter an order closing GITMO. What about the real nuts and bolts?

  18. Diane says:

    Just laughable that Vitter (R-Bordello) was the only dissent. Are the R’s leaving him out to hang alone or would she have only earned his vote if she was holding a whip & diaper?

  19. pmorlan says:

    Holder wants us to come up with new system to deal with detainees. I guess he doesn’t think our courts can handle it. Holder won’t say whether he agrees they should be held accountable with current federal law. Says he wants to leave our options open but that due process will be given. YUCK.

  20. pmorlan says:

    Obama considering if we should use Army field manual across the board for interrogation techniques. Holder said Obama is working on this now and listening to all points of view…I guess we need to speak up loud and clear.

  21. pmorlan says:

    Orin Hatch asking the question about prosecutions.

    If confirmed do you intend to undertake prosecutions?

    Paraphrase –

    No one is above the law we will follow the evidence, the facts, the law and let it take us where it should. We don’t want to criminalize policy differences.

    Do you consider this policy differences? I will have to get more info on it so I’m better informed to make decisions.

    Well, he left himself an opening to prosecute.

  22. Kathryn in MA says:

    Feingold – make sure those involved in wrongdoing won’t have the last laugh.
    Holder – will make an assessment.

    • foothillsmike says:

      I don’t think I have ever seen a more inept confirmation questioning than Jeff Sessions reading Gonzalez his resume.
      119 hrs & 44 min

      • Petrocelli says:

        Cheney made Sessions prepare by standing on the edge of a sword …

        And thanks for the countdown … I expect we’ll see a flurry of pardons in the last 72 hours …

      • Mauimom says:

        See me @ 38. AGAG set the bar so low … the Repugs can’t oppose this guy …

        Oh, I dunno. I anticipate they’ll claim they learned from the Gonzo experience and now want to “get it right.”

        • Petrocelli says:

          LOL … they prolly tried that but from Leahy & Schummy’s tone, the Dems have sewn up this confirmation.

          I will say one thing, we won’t see any more Alvins or Goodlings hired under Holder.

  23. Kathryn in MA says:

    Holder – given no one died and they served their sentences..
    Sessions – was it right?
    Holder – it was legal.

  24. Rayne says:

    Yeah, was just going to post that here in comments.

    When it rains it pours, kiddies. Going to be reading ALL weekend, aren’t we?

  25. Diane says:

    So much looking forward – trusts the attys @ Justice with the decision not to charge Schloz – but OK, he’ll check it out.

  26. Kathryn in MA says:

    Schumer says his no vote on AGAG vindicated. says baddies across the aisle making ludicrous comparisons to Holder, then asks Holder if he has done other things as previous AGs (served as personal lawyer, etc) then asks if he has ever sent anyone to anyone’s bedroom. (laughs from gallery)

  27. DWBartoo says:

    Thank you, Marcy for all that you do.

    You and the ‘Wheelhouse Gang’ are, absolutely, the best.

    (Just a small token of appreciation, hope you don’t mind)