Eric Holder has been sworn in as the nation's attorney general, the first African-American to fill the job.
Vice President Joe Biden administered the oath to President Barack Obama's pick to lead the Justice Department.
Biden said the department, under Holder, would return to a past standard of "no politics, no ideology. Only a clear assessment of facts and law."
Hundreds of department employees packed the hallways and stairways to welcome Holder. To loud cheers and applause, he pledged to remake the department by "taking it back to what it once was and always has to be."
Holder was confirmed Monday evening by a 75-21 Senate vote, with all the opposition coming from Republicans.
Holder takes over a department wracked by Bush administration scandals over politically motivated hirings and firings.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Eric Holder has won confirmation as the first African-American attorney general, but he'll have little time to consider his role in history as he decides which Bush administration counterterrorism policies to reverse.
Holder was confirmed 75-21 Monday, with all the opposition coming from Republicans. He will be sworn in Tuesday by Vice President Joe Biden.
For starters, the new attorney general will learn the secrets of the Office of Legal Counsel, whose lawyers justified the use of controversial interrogation tactics and even declined to provide Bush administration documents to internal Justice Department investigators.
Holder will inherit a Justice Department wracked by Bush administration scandals over politically inspired hirings and firings. He has pledged to restore its reputation.
Holder also will play a major role in the future of terrorism detainees.
President Barack Obama, in a major policy shift, signed an executive order to close the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within a year. He also created a special task force to review detainee policy; Holder and Defense Secretary Robert Gates will serve as co-chairs.
That panel will look at options for apprehension, detention, trial, transfer or release of detainees and report to the president within 180 days.
Holder promised senators he would review why career prosecutors in Washington decided not to prosecute the former head of the department's Civil Rights Division. An inspector general's report last month found that Bradley Schlozman, the former head of the division, misled lawmakers about whether he politicized hiring decisions.
Another key question facing Holder is whether to reverse former President George W. Bush's order that three of his former top aides — Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten — should not testify before Congress about firings of U.S. attorneys. Rove and Miers were former aides when Bush gave his order.
If Obama reverses Bush's policy, it would create a new legal issue: whether a former president's order against testifying would still be valid.
The Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program is certain to come under Holder's scrutiny.
After a lengthy and heated debate that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks, Congress last year eased the rules under which the government could wiretap American phone and computer lines to listen for terrorists and spies.
Holder promised one senator that he would re-examine a ruling by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey that immigrants facing deportation do not have a right to government-provided lawyers. Holder said he understands the desire to expedite immigration court proceedings, but added that the Constitution also requires that proceedings be fair.
There also could be changes in conducting warrantless surveillance.
Holder's chief supporter, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the confirmation was a fulfillment of Martin Luther King's dream that everyone would be judged by the content of their character.
"Come on the right side of history," said Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Showing posts with label Attorney General. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Attorney General. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Obama's Attorney General: Eric Holder
It is being reported that President-elect Obama has decided to tap Eric Holder as his attorney general, putting the veteran Washington lawyer in place to become the first African-American to head the Justice Department, according to two legal sources close to the presidential transition.
Holder served as deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration, and will still have to go through a formal “vetting” by the Obama transition team before the selection is final and is publicly announced. But it is being reported that Obama has offered Holder the job and he accepted.
The announcement is not likely to come until after Obama announces his choices to lead the Treasury and State departments.
Eric Holder has been on Obama’s “short list” for attorney general from the outset. A partner at the D.C. law firm of Covington & Burling, Holder served as co-chief (along with Caroline Kennedy) of Obama’s vice-presidential selection process. He also actively campaigned for Obama throughout the year and grew personally close to the president-elect. Holder has not returned a call seeking comment; a spokeswoman for the Obama transition team told Newsweek in an e-mail early Tuesday afternoon that no decision has been made.
The sources said the Obama transition team is still debating over who should serve under Holder in the key post of deputy attorney general. One top candidate, favored by Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and other former Clinton White House officials, is Elena Kagan, dean of the Harvard Law School and a former lawyer in the White House counsel’s office under Clinton. Another top candidate, favored by other Obama advisors, is David Ogden, a former chief of staff to Attorney General Janet Reno, who is currently heading Obama’s Justice Department transition team. Kagan brings legal policy credentials; Ogden has more experience in the Justice Department trenches.
The only hesitancy about Holder’s selection was that he himself had reservations about going through a confirmation process that was likely to revive questions about his role in signing off on the controversial pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich. Although there is no evidence that Holder actively pushed the pardon, he was criticized for not raising with the White House the strong objections that some Justice Department lawyers and federal prosecutors in New York had to pardoning somebody who had fled the country. But after reviewing the evidence in the case, and checking with staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Obama aides and Holder both decided the issue was highly unlikely to prove an obstacle to his confirmation, one of the sources said--especially given the Democrats’ more sizable post-election majority in the Senate.
Holder is a New York City native who graduated from Columbia University and Columbia Law School. Holder also spent years as a federal prosecutor—a job in which he earned a reputation as tough and aggressive foe of public corruption. After serving in the public integrity section of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and later a District of Columbia Superior Court judge, Holder was named by President Clinton as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. He became deputy attorney general in 1997 under Janet Reno and was viewed as a centrist on most law enforcement issues, though he has sharply criticized the secrecy and the expansive views of executive power advanced by the Bush Justice Department.
Holder served as deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration, and will still have to go through a formal “vetting” by the Obama transition team before the selection is final and is publicly announced. But it is being reported that Obama has offered Holder the job and he accepted.
The announcement is not likely to come until after Obama announces his choices to lead the Treasury and State departments.
Eric Holder has been on Obama’s “short list” for attorney general from the outset. A partner at the D.C. law firm of Covington & Burling, Holder served as co-chief (along with Caroline Kennedy) of Obama’s vice-presidential selection process. He also actively campaigned for Obama throughout the year and grew personally close to the president-elect. Holder has not returned a call seeking comment; a spokeswoman for the Obama transition team told Newsweek in an e-mail early Tuesday afternoon that no decision has been made.
The sources said the Obama transition team is still debating over who should serve under Holder in the key post of deputy attorney general. One top candidate, favored by Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and other former Clinton White House officials, is Elena Kagan, dean of the Harvard Law School and a former lawyer in the White House counsel’s office under Clinton. Another top candidate, favored by other Obama advisors, is David Ogden, a former chief of staff to Attorney General Janet Reno, who is currently heading Obama’s Justice Department transition team. Kagan brings legal policy credentials; Ogden has more experience in the Justice Department trenches.
The only hesitancy about Holder’s selection was that he himself had reservations about going through a confirmation process that was likely to revive questions about his role in signing off on the controversial pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich. Although there is no evidence that Holder actively pushed the pardon, he was criticized for not raising with the White House the strong objections that some Justice Department lawyers and federal prosecutors in New York had to pardoning somebody who had fled the country. But after reviewing the evidence in the case, and checking with staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Obama aides and Holder both decided the issue was highly unlikely to prove an obstacle to his confirmation, one of the sources said--especially given the Democrats’ more sizable post-election majority in the Senate.
Holder is a New York City native who graduated from Columbia University and Columbia Law School. Holder also spent years as a federal prosecutor—a job in which he earned a reputation as tough and aggressive foe of public corruption. After serving in the public integrity section of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and later a District of Columbia Superior Court judge, Holder was named by President Clinton as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. He became deputy attorney general in 1997 under Janet Reno and was viewed as a centrist on most law enforcement issues, though he has sharply criticized the secrecy and the expansive views of executive power advanced by the Bush Justice Department.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
No-Confidence Vote Monday, Needs to be just the beginning
On Monday the Senate will vote on a "no-confidence" resolution against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for lying about ... well, everything.
Of couse I want all Senators to vote "yes" but that's not nearly enough for the man who authorized illegal wiretapping of thousands maybe millions? of U.S. citizens. It is not enought for a man who has argued for illegal torture of anyone Emperor Bush deems an "enemy combatant." Nor is it enough for a many who has supported the suborning of our democracy.
For those and other reasons, tell your Senators and Representatives to Impeach Alberto Gonzales:http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/94?ad=d1
You know that the White House will be fighting this resolution. Just today Tony Snow came onto the Sunday morning talk shows to reiterate President Bush's support for the ineffectual and beleagured Attorney General. This was part of the White House campaign on Sunday to downplay and dismiss Senate plans to hold a no-confidence vote on the Attorney General. Snow said the outcome will not undermine President Bush's resolve to keep Alberto Gonzales at the Justice Department.
On Monday, the Senate is planning to debate a one-sentence measure that declares Gonzales "no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and of the American people." If it passes it will be a historic event. No Attorney General has ever had a vote of no-confidence against them. Many pundits will probably down play it, and Bush is sure to ignore it, but it will be one more step towards Gonzales's impeachment. Something I do think will happen.
Last month's dramatic testimony by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey has prompted renewed attention and focus on the administration's warrantless domestic spying efforts.
Describing the shocking lengths that the White House went to in order to gain legal sanction for its surveillance program, Comey revealed that President Bush called then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's wife to seek permission for former chief of staff Andrew Card and then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales to visit a debilitated and hospitalized Ashcroft at his bedside.
The White House orchestrated the hospital visit in March 2004, one day after a meeting between Vice President Dick Cheney and Comey in which Justice Department officials announced their staunch opposition to certifying the program. Cheney tried to skirt Comey's authority by seeking Ashcroft's approval, but Ashcroft demurred as well. The White House then reauthorized the spying program "without a signature from the Department of Justice attesting as to its legality," prompting at least eight top Justice officials to threaten their resignation. Bush finally backed down, altering the program in order to get the Justice Department's sign-off. The saga over the White House's trevails to get legal approval underscores the serious questions that surround the program -- questions that remain largely unresolved to this day.ALBERTO
Alberto Gonzales has been caught lying too often to be allowed to remaind in office.
Testifying before Congress in January 2006, Gonzales claimed, "There has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed." In light of Comey's dramatic retelling of a showdown that almost led to a mass resignation at the Justice Department in 2004, Gonzales's claim appears extremely difficult to square with the facts. Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Peter Swire explained that there are two possibilities that stem from the differing accounts. Either Comey and Gonzales were referring to the same program, in which case Gonzales lied under oath about the legal disagreements that surrounded the spying program, or Comey's objections applied to a different domestic wiretapping program, suggesting that the administration's spying efforts are broader than the public has been made aware. Gonzales appeared to resolve this dilemma, stating this week that he and Comey were referring to the same program. "Comey's testimony related to a highly classified program which the president confirmed to the American people sometime ago," he said. If Gonzales is now telling the truth, that can only mean he failed to tell the truth in 2006.
In order to better understand the legal nature of the administration's warrantless spying program, Jameel Jaffer, a national security analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union, urged Congress yesterday to subpoena documents relating to the program, including court orders and opinions by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Members of a House Judiciary subcommittee yesterday threatened to issue such subpoenas after Steven Bradbury, a principal deputy assistant attorney general and head of the Justice Department's office of legal counsel, told the panel that the department would not turn over the documents because of their confidential nature. The New York Times writes that the confrontation over the documents "could set the stage for a constitutional showdown over the separation of powers." With respect to the separation of powers issue, Bradbury famously remarked in July 2006 during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that "the president is always right." Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) refused to back down over the committee's request for documents. "This committee created the FISA statute and the FISA court, yet the President believes we are not entitled to know what he or the court are doing." Nadler continued, "Many have begun to conclude that the shroud of secrecy thrown over these activities has less to do with protecting us from terrorism and more to do with protecting the Administration from having its lawbreaking exposed."
Citing a policy announced by Bush in Jan. 2007, Bradbury said yesterday that the warrantless wiretapping program hasn't been reauthorized for "several months," and "any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the program is now subject to the approval" of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. But Bradbury's comments contradict Bush's explanation of his own policy. In January, Bush said, "Nothing has changed in the program except the court has said we've analyzed it and it's a legitimate way to protect the country." While details of the administration's actions remain "sketchy," Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said earlier this year, "[The administration’s action] is not acceptable to me…simply because I can't trust what they say." Indeed, Bush has lost the public's trust. Prior to the revelation of the NSA spying program, Bush had assured the public in 2004 that "a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed." Bruce Fein, a legal veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, said that the administration's shroud of secrecy suggests they have more to hide. "Delphic remarks by the attorney general and other Bush Administration officials indicate that other foreign intelligence spying programs are ongoing and generally unknown by either the Congress or the American people," Fein said.
It is time for Gonzales to be gone.
Of couse I want all Senators to vote "yes" but that's not nearly enough for the man who authorized illegal wiretapping of thousands maybe millions? of U.S. citizens. It is not enought for a man who has argued for illegal torture of anyone Emperor Bush deems an "enemy combatant." Nor is it enough for a many who has supported the suborning of our democracy.
For those and other reasons, tell your Senators and Representatives to Impeach Alberto Gonzales:http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/94?ad=d1
You know that the White House will be fighting this resolution. Just today Tony Snow came onto the Sunday morning talk shows to reiterate President Bush's support for the ineffectual and beleagured Attorney General. This was part of the White House campaign on Sunday to downplay and dismiss Senate plans to hold a no-confidence vote on the Attorney General. Snow said the outcome will not undermine President Bush's resolve to keep Alberto Gonzales at the Justice Department.
On Monday, the Senate is planning to debate a one-sentence measure that declares Gonzales "no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and of the American people." If it passes it will be a historic event. No Attorney General has ever had a vote of no-confidence against them. Many pundits will probably down play it, and Bush is sure to ignore it, but it will be one more step towards Gonzales's impeachment. Something I do think will happen.
Last month's dramatic testimony by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey has prompted renewed attention and focus on the administration's warrantless domestic spying efforts.
Describing the shocking lengths that the White House went to in order to gain legal sanction for its surveillance program, Comey revealed that President Bush called then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's wife to seek permission for former chief of staff Andrew Card and then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales to visit a debilitated and hospitalized Ashcroft at his bedside.
The White House orchestrated the hospital visit in March 2004, one day after a meeting between Vice President Dick Cheney and Comey in which Justice Department officials announced their staunch opposition to certifying the program. Cheney tried to skirt Comey's authority by seeking Ashcroft's approval, but Ashcroft demurred as well. The White House then reauthorized the spying program "without a signature from the Department of Justice attesting as to its legality," prompting at least eight top Justice officials to threaten their resignation. Bush finally backed down, altering the program in order to get the Justice Department's sign-off. The saga over the White House's trevails to get legal approval underscores the serious questions that surround the program -- questions that remain largely unresolved to this day.ALBERTO
Alberto Gonzales has been caught lying too often to be allowed to remaind in office.
Testifying before Congress in January 2006, Gonzales claimed, "There has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed." In light of Comey's dramatic retelling of a showdown that almost led to a mass resignation at the Justice Department in 2004, Gonzales's claim appears extremely difficult to square with the facts. Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Peter Swire explained that there are two possibilities that stem from the differing accounts. Either Comey and Gonzales were referring to the same program, in which case Gonzales lied under oath about the legal disagreements that surrounded the spying program, or Comey's objections applied to a different domestic wiretapping program, suggesting that the administration's spying efforts are broader than the public has been made aware. Gonzales appeared to resolve this dilemma, stating this week that he and Comey were referring to the same program. "Comey's testimony related to a highly classified program which the president confirmed to the American people sometime ago," he said. If Gonzales is now telling the truth, that can only mean he failed to tell the truth in 2006.
In order to better understand the legal nature of the administration's warrantless spying program, Jameel Jaffer, a national security analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union, urged Congress yesterday to subpoena documents relating to the program, including court orders and opinions by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Members of a House Judiciary subcommittee yesterday threatened to issue such subpoenas after Steven Bradbury, a principal deputy assistant attorney general and head of the Justice Department's office of legal counsel, told the panel that the department would not turn over the documents because of their confidential nature. The New York Times writes that the confrontation over the documents "could set the stage for a constitutional showdown over the separation of powers." With respect to the separation of powers issue, Bradbury famously remarked in July 2006 during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that "the president is always right." Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) refused to back down over the committee's request for documents. "This committee created the FISA statute and the FISA court, yet the President believes we are not entitled to know what he or the court are doing." Nadler continued, "Many have begun to conclude that the shroud of secrecy thrown over these activities has less to do with protecting us from terrorism and more to do with protecting the Administration from having its lawbreaking exposed."
Citing a policy announced by Bush in Jan. 2007, Bradbury said yesterday that the warrantless wiretapping program hasn't been reauthorized for "several months," and "any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the program is now subject to the approval" of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. But Bradbury's comments contradict Bush's explanation of his own policy. In January, Bush said, "Nothing has changed in the program except the court has said we've analyzed it and it's a legitimate way to protect the country." While details of the administration's actions remain "sketchy," Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said earlier this year, "[The administration’s action] is not acceptable to me…simply because I can't trust what they say." Indeed, Bush has lost the public's trust. Prior to the revelation of the NSA spying program, Bush had assured the public in 2004 that "a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed." Bruce Fein, a legal veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, said that the administration's shroud of secrecy suggests they have more to hide. "Delphic remarks by the attorney general and other Bush Administration officials indicate that other foreign intelligence spying programs are ongoing and generally unknown by either the Congress or the American people," Fein said.
It is time for Gonzales to be gone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
