Leading Senate Dems Dismiss Report That Holder Promised No Torture Prosecutions
The Washington Times reported today that Attorney General nominee Eric Holder has privately assured Sen. Kit Bond (MO) and other Republicans that the Obama DoJ will not prosecute intelligence officials who engaged in harsh interrogations.
A Bond aide told the Times that the senator "strongly considered blocking the nomination based on questions arising from some of Mr. Holder's public statements," but that Bond now planned to support the nomination after "having received assurances that [Holder] was not intent on going after intelligence officials who acted in good faith."
The implication of the piece is fairly clear: Holder promised Bond to eschew prosecutions, and Bond promised not to block his nomination. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Judiciary Committee -- which approved Holder today -- strongly denied that such an exchange could have occurred.
"It would be completely wrong if a senator said, 'I'll vote for you if you promise to withhold prosecution of a crime'," Leahy told me. "No senator would make a request like that. It'd be improper."
"Maybe Governor [Rod] Blagojevich [D-IL]" would have sought such an assurance, Leahy quipped. He never specifically referenced Bond, who declined to answer questions about the Times piece while leaving the Senate chamber this afternoon.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a Judiciary panel member and former federal prosecutor, had a similar response when questioned about the likelihood of Holder making the "assurances" that Bond believes were offered.
"It sounds a little improbable ... it's, frankly, improper for members of Congress to demand [a pre-determinative stance on] prosecutions."
Sounds like the Times report should be taken with a full shaker of salt.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
GOP Even Opposes Removal of Used Condoms From National Mall
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=5822
January 28, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why, Elana?
Here's your quote from WaTi (emphasis mine)...
That quote could be literally true. A declaration by Holder that he was not intent on going after anyone is not an assurance that he would not.
Holder may not be intent on going after intelligence officials who acted in good faith, but still be intent on prosecuting all crimes of torture, whomever they may implicate.
January 28, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like your analysis here.
January 28, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
One would have to be committed to thinking through what is actually going on here--political gamesmanship, not real policy decisions-- rather than wanting to print as soon as possible the most titillating version of the latest events. Journalism as ticker tape machine.
January 28, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The R's never had the votes to block Holder and a hold is only temporary. This whole exercise was intended to try to box Holder in to constrain him from prosecuting Bush era crimes. Having failed, Bond is trying to imply Holder said more than he did in a last-ditch effort to stop or limit any prosecutions.
January 28, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama's AG won't go after KNOWN crimes -- what WILL he go after?
I'm sadden by this - Americans will pay for many years for ignoring the rule of law.
January 28, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The media should ask Holder if he promised Bond ANYTHING?
January 28, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Devil's in the details, people. Holder's written response stated that he would not likely go after intelligence officers (i.e., agents) where they acted in good faith reliance on assurances that their actions were legal.
There's a at least a couple holes in that statement: first, it does not preclude prosecuting those who ordered the torture; and second, that the the actions must have been taken based on a good faith reliance on the assurances of others. Which means if they had no such assurances, they can be toasted.
Who knows what he stated "privately" but my guess is that it's as likely a listening comprehension problem on the part of Bond, et.al., as it is an outright fabrication.
January 28, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kit Bond's a crybaby.
And he's dangerously close to obstructing justice. If he continues to intimidate Holder, it will look like he has a perconal stake in it somehow, that he has something to hide and that is why he is so adamant.
Maybe he's protecting his fellow Missourian, Ashcroft.
Surely Ashcroft could clear the whole mess up by identifying who DID support the futile attempt to legitimize torture, and why they had to come to his hospital bed to get him to sign on to it. And Blunt, Ashcroft and Bond are all in redleg cahoots.
Or maybe Bond is one of the creeps who sat in on more than one secret torture promotion meeting.
Whatever his motives, he is beginning to look like a guilty party desperate to remain undiscovered.
January 28, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
...it may also be that Bond's backers, the big-money guys, got pissed at him, and now he's trying to make it look like he would never have voted for Holder if he knew the guy was actually going to do his job.
January 28, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it is Kit Bond's interpretation. Holder stated quite plainly in his confirmation hearings that he would not "go after" anyone, separating policy difference from criminal actions. However, he did say that he would follow evidence where it leads to make that determination.
So the WaTi article quoting Holder saying he is "not intent" on going after anyone is the essentially the same thing he said at confirmation.
I love that Leahy and Whitehouse smacked Bond down. It was almost as if they said, "Tsk tsk Kitty. You know exchanging a vote for an assurance is an ethics violation. I am sure you didn't mean that, and must have interpreted something incorrectly..right?"
Notice Bond's "no comment" now. I love to see em squirm when caught in their BS.
January 28, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink