Author Topic: Politico...Is White House readying bum's rush for Eric Holder? By JOSH GERSTEIN  (Read 880 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 381,863
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's Go Brandon!
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/?ml=bl_jg

Is White House readying bum's rush for Eric Holder?
By JOSH GERSTEIN |
6/2/13 4:00 PM EDT

The New York Times reported in Sunday editions that "some in the West Wing privately tell associates they wish [Attorney General Eric Holder] would step down."

"The White House is apoplectic about [Attorney General Eric Holder] and has been for a long time," one unnamed person quoted in the Times story said.

I smell a bum's rush.

The newspaper attributes the "apoplectic" comment to "a Democratic former government official" who asked not to be named while "talking about friends." The paper also did not say which White House officials, either specifically or by duties or rank, are angry with Holder.

The purported anger of these officials is fueled, the article suggests, by some or all of the recent controversies in which the White House finds itself entangled. However, it's not clear which of them, specifically, are being laid at Holder's feet.

The biggest dust-up surrounding Holder was over Operation Fast and Furious, which led to Holder being held in contempt of Congress last year. However, President Barack Obama personally signed off on the invocation of executive privilege that preceded the contempt vote. Obama could have decided to throw in the towel and defuse the dispute. He didn't. Is that Holder's fault?

In more recent weeks and months, three swirling scandals have enveloped the administration: 1. Benghazi, 2. the IRS targeting of conservative groups, and 3. leak investigations which have used intrusive tactics towards the media.

No. 1, Benghazi, has little to do with Holder. The allegedly inadequate lack of preparation for terrorist attacks on the Libyan diplomatic outpost can't be remotely traced Holder. Nor can the lack of resources to respond once the attack was underway. There have been some complaints about the pace of the FBI's inquiry into the attacks and about the administration's conclusion that it lacked sufficient evidence to prosecute suspects, but the main GOP complaint has been about an alleged cover up of the facts in the weeks just after the attacks. There's been no suggestion that Holder was behind that wordsmithing.

No.2, the IRS matter, had nothing to do with Holder—at least until the story broke publicly and he ordered a criminal investigation. Some have sought a special prosecutor on the IRS issue, but with Obama political adviser David Plouffe rejecting that idea publicly on Sunday, it's hard to see how senior White House officials (especially speaking collectively as the White House) would find fault with Holder for not doing something Obama's closest aides are publicly opposing.

Which leaves No. 3, the leak investigations. Two such cases have drawn criticism in recent weeks: the scooping up of Associated Press phone records in an attempt to track down a leak about a Yemen-based CIA counterterrorism operation and the search warrant application for emails belonging to Fox's James Rosen in connection with an investigation of a leak of intelligence reports about North Korean nuclear test plans.

The Times's source seems particularly exercised by the A.P. case, pointing to it as an example of how Holder doesn't manage well or foresee problems. "How hard would it be to anticipate that The A.P. would be unhappy?...And then they haven’t defended their position," the unnamed ex-official told the newspaper.

The Times's story fails to mention that Holder recused himself from the A.P.-related investigation because he knew some details about the Yemen operation and was interviewed by FBI investigators at the very outset of the probe. This makes the source's irritation harder to fathom. Is the problem that Holder failed to adequately inform himself about and/or dictate investigative tactics in a case he recused himself from? Or that he failed to be proactive enough in explaining tactics he may or may not actually endorse in an investigation about which he still doesn't know the details?

If the A.P. case doesn't justify the White House's purported apoplexy towards Holder, that seems to leave just the Fox-Rosen-North Korea case. In that instance, the Justice Department submitted an affidavit calling Rosen a "co-conspirator" with "potential criminal liability" for leaks that allegedly originated with State Department contractor Stephen Kim. The affidavit was hamhanded in several respects, including by suggesting that Rosen's flattery of Kim amounted to evidence of a criminal conspiracy.

But it seems a bit much to suggest that Holder's job be on the line because of that affidavit, which aides say he approved as part of an effort to meet a legal standard needed to get a search warrant.

If top White House officials are outraged at Holder, there are other explanations of course. Perhaps they want to make him a fall guy for Benghazi or the IRS matter, one of which the White House was deeply involved in and the other of which it had a heads up on that was kept from Obama.

Senior White House officials, especially those with national security duties, could be upset with the Justice Department's anti-leak drive for another reason: they have the potential to hit very close to home. A number of White House officials have already had to shell out for private attorneys and sit through extended interviews by the FBI. (Former Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, who was recently confirmed as CIA director, acknowledged he retained a lawyer in connection with the Yemen leak probe. Brennan said his lawyer was informed Brennan was just considered a witness in the matter.)

There are plenty of other reasons one could legitimately be upset with how Holder's carried out his job. The Justice Department hasn't prosecuted any major players in the 2008 financial meltdown, for example. And Holder recently had to backpedal after suggesting that some banks were too big to be prosecuted. But the Times says the White House sees DOJ's record on that issue as a feather in Holder's cap.

To be sure, the department's vigor in prosecuting people for alleged leaks has been alarming to many whistleblower and transparency advocates for a long time. But it's hard to see how White House officials could be legitimately upset about that when Obama has been on an anti-leak crusade since his first year in office.

I suspect Holder will decide later this year that it's time for him to move on, in part because his poisonous relationship with Congressional Republicans makes it impossible for him to advance some of his biggest priorities. But it seems to me that if—if the White House wants Holder out, it's likely to cover its political rear and maybe even the personal rears of some of the West Wing officials who are reportedly so steamed at the attorney general.
Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,021
  • Gender: Female
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Getting rid of Holder takes the heat off of Obama. 
Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!